Policy changes required a joint plan for young
offenders. In addition, the regional director had
to approve the plan prior to the court
application for transfer. This eliminated
last-minute transfer decisions such as occurred
in the Perrault case. It also removed the final
decision from individuals who had direct
responsibility for the young offender.
Presumably, there would be more objectivity to
the process.

Youth alternatives to custody

In the early 1990s, additional funds were
allocated to the Branch to develop alternatives
to custody programs. Dedicated funds were
also received to develop alternatives to custody
for aboriginal young offenders.

Regional contract co-ordinators were hired in
1992 to assess and develop alternatives to
custody and supervision resources. In addition,
efforts were made to co-ordinate and evaluate
youth programs (residential and non-residential)
to reduce admissions to custody.

Alternatives to custody included:

» Programs jointly funded with the Ministry of
Social Services (e.g. Prince George and
Terrace);

» Residential facility for native youth*? in the
Fraser Valley;

» Community supervision of youth sex
offenders in the Vancouver Region; and a

» Youth attendance program for sex offenders
operated by the John Howard Society in
co-operation with Social Services, Education
and Health.

The ombudsman’s report (1994) recommended
that the Branch develop government operated
open custody programs in local communities to
serve as an intermediary resource between
residential attendance programs and secure
custody. Closer to home, open custody
options—such as community residential centres
and group homes—were generally not available
to youth. Although many youths required more
control than contracted attendance programs,
they did not need the restriction of being held
in a secure or remotely located custody facility.

At the time of the report, there were three
isolated forest/wilderness camps—Lakeview,
Centre Creek and High Valley—as well as two
residential centres and one group home in
Burnaby. Development of this intermediary
resource was viewed as consistent with the
Young Offenders Act,’° which promoted the
principle of minimal interference with freedom.

Residential attendance programs were
considered a suitable alternative to developing
other open custody options. Youth participated
in residential attendance programs by court
otder while on probation. Application of
residency requirements were generally handled
by probation officers who had authority in the
probation order to instruct the youth to reside
where directed.

39 This folowed from a consultative process involving the Ministry of Attorney General and aboriginal
communities and organizations to create program options suitable to First Nations people. It was considered
particularly important to develop suitable options that would assist with post-release placement. Many aboriginal
youth were serving lengthier sentences in custody. There was also a disproportionate increase in aboriginal
offenders in custody following introduction of the YOA in 1984.

40 Section 3(f), Young Offenders Act.

The Era of Risk Management (1990-1997)

207