JUSTICE INSTITUTE
OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA

FIVE YEAR PLAN
(PRELIMINARY REPORT)

THIS IS A WORKING DOCUMENT DESI~NED
TO REVIEW THE HISTORICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INSTITUTE AS A PRELUDE
TO A FIVE YEAR PLAN. THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED
ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHORS ONLY AND DO NOT
NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OPINIONS OF THE
BOARD OF THE INSTITUTE OR THE MINISTRY
OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL,

STONECREST SERVICES ·LTD.
NOVEMBER 1979

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREAMBLE

i

EXECUTIVE SUPft1ARY

ii

PART I:

THE HISTORY
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

PART II:

The Birth Of An Idea
The Transition
A Change In Name And A Change In Mandate
The Time Of Retreat
The Final Act

3
7
9
11

THE BRITISH COLUMBIA JUSTICE INSTITUTE TODP.Y
A.
B.

Reflections of History
Administrative Reaction

15
19

PART III: AN A~REEMENT FOR THE FUTURE
A.
B.
C.

PART IV:
FOOTNOTES

The Need For Conceptual Agreement
The Need For Structural Agreement
Implementation Of The Agreements

THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

21

23
24
25
27

PREAMBLE

The development of events leading to the Justice Institute of British
Columbia's current status has shown gradual progress toward cultivating
a distinct personality. But the movement in pursuit of identity has
not been entirely self-governing and the shifts in political climate
that have helped shape the Institute should be considered when attempting
to fix its preferred future.
The Justice Institute's hi story reveals a course of open counsel and
cooperation, although some dynamics arising from its formative years
remain in need of resolution. In this regard the Institute i s like any
other institution where the forces that led to its inception continue
to exert their influence in molding its character. By reviewing the
history and by isolating the shifts in its direction, it is hoped that
a step toward lasting concord between all contributing partners can be
taken.

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
During the preparation of this document, the authors were aware of some of the
difficulties confronted by the participants in the course of the Institute' s
development. As research for the paper proceeded, it became increasingly
evident that an historical perspective is required in order to understand the
present situation; to address the strategies involved in solving differences;
to achieve a COITITlon appreciation of the Institute's mandate; and to develop an
effective internal management structure
As a result, the authors have chosen to organize their report in a way which
attempts to clarify the history; to show the present results of the Institute's
early planning initiatives; to identify issues requiring current attention ;
and to propose mechanisms for their resolution.
Structurally, the report is divided into four sections describing (1) the history,
(2) the present situation, (3) the issues needing resolution, and (4) the longrange requirements. As indicated in the Table of Contents, the four general
categories are further refined into detailed subsections
The following is a sunmary of the major issues which are discussed within the
body of the report.
THE HISTORY
(1)

In 1974, the Attorney-General's Ministry established the original objectives
of the Justice Institute to reflect the "reform spirit" of the time. It
was the intention of the 11 refonn spirit" to unify the fragmented service
delivery systems within the administration of justice. Moreover, it was
believed that a Justice Institute could provide the basic influence and
the fundamental source of direction necessary to implement the desired
changes.

(2) An alteration in planning perspective occurred in 1975 resulting from the
requirement tq view the Justice Institute as a "cost-effective" method of
training rather than as a primary resource for organizational change.

iii
(3) As a strategy to resolve the on-going facility acquisition problem, the
Attorney-General considered the possibility of affiliation with the Ministry
of Education.
(4)

In order to negotiate with the Ministry of Education from a unified front,
the Attorney-General's Ministry first had to clarify the internal relationship with its own training services.

(5) By Fall 1976, unity between the training branches became problematical
and interest in negotiating an agreement with the Mi~istry of Education
declined. As a consequence, the Institute's proposed sphere of influence
retreated to within the Attorney-General's operational divisions.
Paradoxically, it was also at this time that renewed attention was given
to the Institute's ill-defined public education capacity
(6)

The continuing failure to secure a suitable site produced an appeal for
political support during 1977. As a strategy to gain favour for the AttorneyGeneral 's position, it once again was proposed that a relationship with the
Ministry of Education should be established to help coordinate curriculum
develoi:rnent.

(7) Before a politica l response was forthcCJT1ing, the Attorney-General ' s Justice
Institute was captured by the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act .
THE PRESENT SITUATION
(1) The introduction by the Ministry of Education of an Act pertaining to the
operation of institutes placed considerable strain on the Ministry of the
Attorney-General. Because the Justice Institute was a product of the
Attorney-General's planning initiatives, at issue now is the nature and the
extent of influence that the Ministry can expect to exercise over the
Institute s affairs.
(2) While the poverning authority of the Justice Institute is clear in law,
the elements of control and responsibility which dictate the relationship
between the Attorney-General and the Institute remain unclear. It is in
this dynamic that the tensions and uncertainties which currently exist

find their cause.

ISSUES FOR AGREEMENT
(1) The fundamental objective of the Justice Institute and the Attorney General 's Ministr.v is not dissimilar. Both seek the best possible quality
of justice services for the Province of British Columbia.
(2)

Nonetheless, there is a distinction between the specific operational responsibilities each institution must fulfill when pursuing the common objective.

(3)

There is a need to identify where operational objectives are shared between
the two institutions.

(4)

There is a need to recognize that the current relationship between the Justice
Institute and the Attorney-General's Ministry must change if the operational
objectives held by either institution are to be effectively realized.

(5)

Current tensions will be perpetuated if an attempt to reach agreement proceeds
without (1) producing a conceptual accord concerninq the nature of shared
operational objectives; and (2) without structurally changing the nature of
the relationship between the two institutions.

(6)

Any structural change must be seen to be to the benefit of both the Justice
Institute and the Ministry of Attorney-General.

THE LONG-RANGE PLAN
(1) Given the history and the present situation, it is important that any
agreement be entered into with a style that will clarify misunderstandings;
create the best possible atmosphere for policy and propra1T1T1e development;
define the nature of the structural adjustments required; and allow all
parties to "own" the result. It is suggested that the style required should
be highly participatory and should seek the involv.ement of all major operating
groups affected by the agreement. t'loreover, it might be unadvised to enter
into a paper a9reement apart from a clear process established to implement
its tenns.

v

(2) The obligation between the Justice Institute and the Ministry of Education
which requires the development of a five year Educational Plan would appear
to offer a unique opportunity to COfTITlence a process which can result in
(a) a definite and lasting agreement between the Justice Institute
and the Attorney-General's Ministry;
(b) clarification of funding issues;
(c) clarification of structural requirements (manpower planning,
progralllTle development, reporting relationships et al); and,
(d) a long-tenn Educational Plan that can receive the joint endorsation
of the Justice Institute, the Ministry of Education and the AttorneyGenera s Ministry.

PART I: THE HISTORY
A. THE BIRTH OF THE IDEA
The initial concept of a learning centre dedicated to justice-related issues
gained prominence within the Attorney-General's Ministry as early as 1974. In
one sense the motives behind the first planning discussions were wholly practical
and were given impetus by the need to find acconmodation for the B.C. Police
College following proclamation of the Police Act.
Under the Act's authority the British Columbia Police Conmission was establ ished
and given stewardship over the Province s newly acquired responsibility to provide
training services for police constables and recruits attached to municipal law
enforcement agencies. In searching out a site to house the Police College
attention fell upon the old Dawson School in downtown Vancouver. The size of
the facility led to speculation that it could acconmodate other training and
education prograll1iles and the preliminary investigation of a Justice Education
Centre began .
Lending force to the concept, a belief was current within the Attorney-General's
Ministry that all training and education progranmes associated with the criminal
justice system would benefit from the coordination and integration of their
delivery. It was further believed that a Justice Education Centre would not
only provide a reasonable means of reducing duplication between the in-house
training services maintained by the Ministry's branches, but also would give the
Attorney-General a measure of influence over justice training progranmes offered
by other educational institutions.
While practical interests presented the planners with a finn base to work from,
their discussions were coloured by two assumptions then enjoying currency. The
first of these, expressed in the language of the day, concerned the crosssystems implications" stenming from any change within the criminal justice
ac:tnfnistration. Attempts were being made to reduce fragmentation and to remove
the traditional barriers that were seen to isolate Police, Legal Services,
Courts
l
11d Corrections from each other. Accordingly, centralized training 'seemed an
ideal strategy to erode entrenched attitudes and to engineer greater cooperation
across the Ministry.
11

2

A second assumption affecting the early planning stage pertained to the nature
of planning itself. Because 1t is generally held that day-to-day "priority
shock" within any organization's operational divisions disturbs a deliberate and
objective planning enterprise. the Justice Education Centre was considered an approrriate place to locate the Attorney-General's manpower planning and development
capacity. By doing so. the manpower planners could maintain some insulation from
daily operational demands and keep in pood standing with conventional planning
practices.
Moreover it seemed reasonable to place a manpower planning unit under the same
roof as the training groups so long as the Justice Education Centre was expected
to be an adjunct of the Attorney-General's Ministry, over which the Ministry
could exercise uninhibited control. The manpower planners could liaise directly
with the training staff and would be in an excellent position to recommend policy
regarding cOl'TITlon training and personnel development objectives to their executive.
It is significant that the first discussions saw utility in the Justice Education
Centre idea only in so far as it was an i11111ediate creature of the AttorneyGeneral 's Ministry; that its area of interest rested specifically in the criminal
justice system; and that it sat well in the general atmosphere of change favoured
at the time. Far from being affected by legislated constraints set down by the
Ministry of Education, it was seen as a vehicle to influence other educational
establishments in a manner rewarding to the Attorney-General.

3

B. THE TRANSITION
When ft became known that the Dawson School was unavailable, a haitus occurred
in the planning. Given the 8.C. Police Corrmission's opinion that further
delay in establishing the Police College would be detrimental to the quality
of municipal law enforcement, the College conrnenced operations in temporary
facilities during March 1975, after entering into a two year lease arrangement
with the Department of National Defense at the Seaforth Annouries.
While the decision to proceed independently dampened the prospect of consolidating training resources, the College's ability to provide an effective service
remained uncertain. Operating from a fragmented campus, police training
activities were scattered between the Vancouver location, the Boundary Bay
Airport in Delta and the Coast Marksman Range in Burnaby. Combined with the
limitation set forth in the lease, the College s inadequate facilities forced
the planners once again to begin the search for a permanent site and the Justice
Education Centre idea was given new vitality.
During the same period, other training branches of the Ministry continued to
experience considerable strain on their resources. Corrections Staff Development
Branch depended upon a mixed assortment of facilities in Burnaby, Marpole and
Chilliwack. Similarly, Courts Services operated pre-employment vocational
training courses for Court Reporters at the B.C. Institute of Technolooy and
Sheriff's training progranmes at the Willinodon School. Throughout 1975, all
the training groups felt a need to acquire new instructional aids including
simulation space, media labs, physical education areas, residential accommodations
and food services
Led once more by the planninp foresight within the B.C. Police Commission, the
Attorney-r,eneral's Ministry resumed its enquiry into a shared facility and by
April 1976 a report 1 was tabled with the Ministry's Executive Comnittee outlining the dimensions a Justice Education Centre should encompass. The document
expressed some fundamental changes to precedin9 versions and reflected a new
wind blowf ng throu!fh the bureaucracy; as a catchword. "reform" had been replaced
by "financial restraint" and "cost-effectiveness". Although the principle

4

users continued to be identified as Police, Legal Services, Courts and Corrections
and. while the "cross-systems" thene was maintained, the primary argument in
favour of a joint facility had altered. The guiding rationale now became the
Justice Education Centre s assumed capacity to provide the most cost-effective
use of resources.
Unlike earlier attempts to define the proposed institution the revised planning
strategy emphasized the Ministry's manpower development needs and the Centre's
ability to serve as a broker in coordinating justice education programmes throug hout the Province. By using the Centre in this manner, progra1T1T1ing in the
universities and colleges could be influenced to parallel the career training
requirements of the justice system. What once was implied, now was stated
explicitly.
Equally important, the Centre'~ projected function no longer was restricted
to amalgamating the Attorney-General's training branches. Where originally
the service area had been the criminal justice system, the new discussion paper
addressed the training needs of the justice system in its entirety. The concept
had become much broader and set out to capture public education in a general
sense by identifying conmunity-based organizations and municipal libraries
amon9 its potential clients.
Translated into organizational tenns, the shift in clientele cannot be over
anphasized. At one stroke, the Justice Education Centre moved beyond its
principle users within the Ministry to a universal population while failing to
suggest either a definition of the larger comnunity it intended to serve or
conmenting on the administrative mechanisms necessary to manage two different
sets of clients. As an added complication, the proposed movement toward public
education crossed into the legislated domain of other agencies such as the
Legal Services Comnission - an invasion which remains unclarified to this day.
Two further departures from the first planning discussions became apparent by
the Spring of 1976. 2 The first concerned a stated desire for the Justice
Education Centre to assume coordinating responsibility over the Ministry•s
research activities; a duty compatible with the belief that the Centre would

5.

remain under the Ministry's authority. The second issue was more complex and
expressed caution about the nature of affiliation between the Centre and the
Ministry of Education.
It is interesting that the question of affiliation arose out of the continuing
problem confronting the planners whenever the issue of securing a suitable
location was approached. Short of a major facilities building progra1TUT1e,
unlikely in a time of restraint, the magnitude of the physical requirements for
justice training made it difficult to select a single educational institu t ion
capable of housing such an undertaking.
As an alternative, thought was given to developing a multi-site campus" and
to entering into affiliations with other educational institutions already active
in the field. But to do so called up the problem of control once again. If
the Attorney-General's Ministry was to exercise authority over justice training,
an agreement would have to be reached which would grant the Attorney-General
powers over course content, the employment and supervision of academic staff,
programne scheduling, student selection and any certificates granted as a
consequence of successful course completion. In addition, it was argued that
the Ministry's training groups should be represented on the management Boards
of any educational establishment where they might be situated, while also
continuing to operate within their own branch of management structures. 3
11

Although the "multi-site campus" was soon to be dismissed as too unwieldy, the
attempt to discover a management formula that would satisfy the Attorney-General s
wish to control programming shed light upon the lack of homogeneity within the
Ministry's training service itself. Prerequisite to establishing a structure
that could relate to a cross-section of post-secondary institutions, the planners
first had to detennine how the trainers representing Police, Legal Services,
Courts and Corrections could relate to each other.
1

The question of their inter-relationship was confused by the independence each
group traditionally exercised and by the diversity of their reporting procedures.
Police training, for example, fell within the legislated jurisdiction of the
B.C. Police Comnission while Corrections training operated solely within its

6.

branch of the Ministry and Courts training largely discharged its duties through
separate agreements with B.C.I.T. and Vancouver City College.
The organization necessary to produce a unified front when negotiating with
other participants in the post-secondary field also revealed a degree of
territoriality between the training groups which the eclectic approach to
training originally had been designed to irradicate. Some feared that amalgamation and integration 11might jeopardize the unique features and identity of
individual prograntnes 114 , forgetting that the first arguments in favour of an
integrated training facility set out to accomplish precisely that end. Whi l e
statements of this kind were allowed partially to submerge in the planning
activity which followed, one criticism surfaced that remains unresolved: 5 a
Justice Education Centre contains the potential to isolate training from the
operational branches of the Attorney-General's Ministry unless the relationship
between ministerial policy, manpower planning and training programs is bound
by a clear and wel l -publicized agreement.

7

C. A CHANGE IN NAME AND A CHANGE IN MANDATE
Notwithstanding the debate internal to the Ministry, pro9ress continued Moved
by the need to enter into discussions with the Ministry of Education regarding
the "multi-site campus", the Attorney-General's Policy Executive, in April 1976,
designated the Director of the Police College as their negotiator. By June,
two important changes happened as the planning pace quickened.
The first change concerns the appearance of a new name. After a brief period
where the Justice Education Centre was referred to as the Justice Training
Centre, the title Justice Institute was chosen to reflect the organization's
desired personality. While the alteration in title seems unimportant, it should
not pass unnoticed for several reasons.
As opposed to a college, which is recognized to have regional responsibility
for providing comprehensive program services, an institute has service respon sibility in areas of specialization. An institute serves a defined category of
knowledge rather than a set geographic area. In this respect the title "institute"
becomes significant in relation to the second change which occurred in June
1976; the addition of a new dimension to the Centre's proposed mandate. On
top of its other functions, the Justice Institute was expected
" ••.. to provide central resources for the exploration of
conflicting ideologies, fragmented planning, role ambiguity
and the planning for future delivery of justice services
within the Pro vi nee. 116
Once the bureaucratic language in which the statement was written has been
translated, it appears that the new area of specialization the institute intended
to serve reached far beyond the principle users identified originally and beyond
the conmunity organizations suggested previously. Again, the lack of definition
attached to the expanded conmunity-of-interest compounded the future organizational problems previously discussed.
As a final conment, the change from Justice Education Centre to Justice Training
Centre to Justice Institute raises another issue. Without wishing to stray

8.

too far into the clutches of learning theory, the important difference between
the words "training" and "education" should be acknowledged. When the tenns
are used ambivalently, the organizational structure necessary to incorporate
the two activities at an applied level also may suffer from ambivalence.
"Training" can be equated with instruction that is intended to bring the
recipient to some desired standard of efficiency; it is task-oriented, factua l
and finite. "Education", on the other hand, is value-laden and open-ended .
The prefix of the word "education" evolves from the Latin "ex" or "out of"
while the prefix of instruction" contains the idea in or "into". Where
learning is concerned, it is easy to see that "in" and "out" are distinct
processes and may require separate methods of presentation within an institutiona l
context.
11

11

11

9.

D. THE TIME" OF RETREAT
Following the Attorney-General's appointment of a Director to oversee the
Institute's planning activities, events proceeded rapidly into the Fall of
1976. As in the past, the search for an appropriate site acted as a catalyst,
particularly after it was learned that the Worker's Compensation Board facilities
in Vancouver might be available.
Reconrnendations made by the planners were endorsed by the Ministry's Policy
Executive in September and were carried forward to the Attorney-General. 7
They included a fonnal rejection of the "multi-site campus" based on a consolidation of earlier arguments favouring a single facility. Given that the
resources available to the Ministry were limited by the new spirit of constraint,
it was argued that issues of productivity and organizational effectiveness
acquired critical importance. To improve effectiveness, the planners suggested
that specialized training progran111es offered the key to better productivity.
Capping the arg1JT1ent, the "multi-site campus" was discarded in the belief that
the training process could be cost-effective only if it was not fragmented.
Therefore, a systematic and logical progression of training progran111es from
initial employment through to executive management was required.
The rec0111nendations also refined the Justice Institute's anticipated role.
They called for an acceptance of the Institute's central function within the
Ministry by claiming responsibility for the identification, development,
coordination, integration and delivery of all training and education progranrnes
Additionally, the recomnendations sought authority for the Institute to provide
leadership in articulating the Ministry's manpower planning and development
policies, organizational planning, and research, wherever the delivery of
Provincial justice service was involved.
Notably absent fran the policy paper was any mention of the Institute's role
as broker for justice education progranming within the post-secondary field.
By turning away from the "multi-site campus" idea, the planners' attention
had shifted strictly to the lnstitute's position within the Ministry and
affiliation with other educational centres ceased to be a dominant concern

10.

The only indicator suggesting that consideration was still alive for a clientele
beyo~~ the Attorney-General's operational branches was contained in a re-statement
of ·the objective quoted earlier: the Institute would
" .... provide a forLJT1 through which conflicting ideologies,
fragmented planning and role ambiguities could be interfaced, explored, evaluated, and, hopefully, resolved. 118
While the language in which the proposition was expressed had changed slightly,
it still failed to define the community-of-interest under reference and continued
to raise the spectre of future or~anizational problems.
Throughout the remainder of the year and into 1977, site acquisition eluded
the planners and was quickly becoming the lnstitute's albatross. The Police
College lease had expired on January 31, although a one year extension had
been negotiated. Adding fuel to the search, Sheriffs and Court Services
training had been told to vacate the Willingdon School by September in order
to make room for the Lower Mainland Regional Juvenile Detention Centre.

11.

E. THE FINAL ACT
As the urgency increased, so did the frustration with the seemingly unaccountab l e
delay in bargaining for the Worker's Compensation Board buildings. In order to
break the apparent stalemate, an appeal for political support was made. 9 A
change in strategy emphasized the pressing need to find accomnodation for the
Police College and the issue of consolidating the Attorney-General's in-service
training and research prograrrmes became a related but secondary priority.
Although arguments favouring a Justice Institute that continued to concentrate
on the Attorney-General's internal training needs remained largely unchanged,
one new and important element was added to the mix. For the first time it was
pointed out that a Justice Institute could provide training benefits to those
Ministries other than the Attorney-General s that had a law enforcement responsibility. Pressing the point home, it was proposed that a committee representing
the Ministry of Education and the Attorney-General should be convened to coordinate
curriculum development and to insure that the best utilization of resources
could be achieved. Accordingly the Justice Institute's sphere of influence
once more expanded to include a broader clientele and involvement with the
Ministry of Education was renewed.
1

Keeping company with the efforts to find political support, the Attorney-General
put a proposal before Treasury Board requesting funds to purchase the Worker's
Compensation Board facility. Before a response was received, the single most
important event in the Institute's evolution jarred the planning process. The
situation as it became clear in August 1977 is best described in a memorandum
sent the Deputy Attorney-General by the Director of the Police College:
11

The intention of this Ministry to establish internally a
Justice Training Centre is now inconsistent with the
proposed legislation contained in Bill 82 - Colleges and
Provincial Institutes Act. The proposed Bill clearly
captures the developing Justice Training Centre as a
Provincial Institute within the interpretation of the
legislation and effectively removes it from the direct
control of the Ministry of Attorney-General. 1110

12.

There can be little doubt that the Director's assessment was correct. Bil l
82 placed the long-standing issue of control in a new light by granting the
Minister of Education power to participate in all decisions regarding postsecondary education and training which affected institutions funded by the
Governnent. In part the Minister of Education's authority would be exercised
through two newly created corporations known as the Occupational Training
Training Council and the Academic Council. Furthennore, the Bill contained
provisions to establish a nine member Board charged with administrative and
managerial responsibility at each Provincial Institute. Each Board was required
by the legislation to constitute a Program Advisory C01T1T1ittee comprising
professional, employee and student representation. Similarly, the Occupational
Training Council was obliged to create Occupational Advisory Corrnnittees to
assist in its deliberations.
With the sudden proliferation of Councils, Boards and Advisory Corrmittees al l
holding power to influence the Justice Institute's development, the AttorneyGeneral 's Ministry was forced to retrench.
Not surprisingly, earlier rec001T1endations detailing the Institute's central
role within the Ministry had to be reconsidered. Given that ministerial responsibility is a political fundamental in parliamentary systems, it would have been
improper for the Attorney-General to allow policy decisions affecting organizationa l
develo?Jlent, research and manpower planning to be made external to his ministry.
On the other hand, consolidating training resources in an Institute receiving
financial support from another ministry had to seem attractive; particu l arly
when an answer to the facility question could no longer be postponed.
Moving decisively, the Attorney-General's Policy Executive agreed to launch
a joint proposal with the Ministry of Education to pursue the establishment
of a Justice Institute in accordance with the Colleges and Provincial Institutes
Act. By October 1977 both ministries had appointed representatives to preoare
a position paper on the subject.
The policy bugbears associated with organizational developnent, research and
manpower planning figured strongly in the terms of reference set out in the
Attorney-General's n_egotiating stance. 11 Equally important, the Attorney-

13.

General did not want participation in the Institute to isolate training prograrrmes
fran the operational requirements of service delivery; it was argued that the
complete transfer of personnel was unadvised because it would restrict the
trainers' connection to manpower planning and personnel development activities.
In order to preserve the continuity of planning, training and manpower development within the Ministry, the Attorney-General required a contract with the
Ministry of Education that would:
1) exclude the complete transfer of personnel to the Justice Institute;
2) agree to share the core resources. space and services of the Institute;
3) offer full participation in the coordinating of justice training throughout the Province;
4) undertake to cooperate fully in achieving the objectives and the effective
management of the Institute; and
5) establish a fonnula to reimburse the Institute for services rendered.
As negotiations commenced in October, site acquisition was left the responsibility of the Attorney-General's Ministry. By the time the two ministerial
representatives tabled their rec0111T1endations, 12 the Justice Institute concept
was declared to have been developed in response to the fragmented and i solated
delivery of justice training programnes throughout the Province. As a secondary
consideration, the Institute was deemed capable of centralizing and coordinating
the Attorney-General's training programnes, but it was emphasized that the
enterprise would take place within the broader context of post-secondary education.
The reconmendations also reached agreement on specific issues including:
1) that reconmendations to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council under the
Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act for the appointment of the Board
would be mutually agreed upon by the Minister of Education and the AttorneyGeneral;
2) that the initial funding of the Justice Institute for facilities, staff
and resources, where not otherwise already existing, would be generated
fran consolidated revenues under Section 84 of the Act;
3) that the fiscal budget to maintain the core staff and support services
of the Institute as required by the Act would be allocated to the Justice
Institute by the Ministry of Education;
4) that the mandate of the Institute would include responsibility for fire
service training and that the specific objectives for this aspect of the

14.

Institute would be developed in consultation with the Provincial Fire
Marshall;
5) that police training would continue to be identified as the British
Col1111bia Police Academy to provide for continuity and recognition of
training standards and certification of the police service; and
6) that the Attorney-General's Ministry would pursue the site acquisition
and would transfer ~itl e to the Board of the Institute at the time of
its incorporation. 1
Following acceptance of the proposals outlined in the negotiators' position
paper, organizational details were put in place and the selection of the
Institute's Board commenced. After the long delays in securing a pennanent
residence, and with uncanny fortune, the Jericho School became available once
agreement with the Ministry of Education had been concluded.
On April 27, 1978, an Order-in-Council was passed making the Justice Institute
a reality at last and giving it authority to perfonn the following functions:
1) provide courses of instruction which are consistent with the identified

needs specifically for, but not limited to, Police, Corrections, Courts
and Sheriffs;
2) identify the educational and specific training needs for all components
of the British Columbia Justice··System, including Fire Services;
3) develop a cooperative system of coordination bet\'ieen its own progra111T1es
and those of the other institutes, colleges, universities, public
schools and corm1unity-based organizations; and
4) provide a provincial forum for discussion and examination of justice
and socially related issues.

15 .

PART II:

THE JUSTICE INSTITUTE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA TODAY

A. REFLECTIONS OF HISTORY
The inaugural meeting of the Institute's Board took place in May 1978 and shortly
thereafter the Director of the Police Academy won the competition for the
Principal's position. By July the Police Academy had taken up residence at
Jericho. When Corrections Staff Development and the new Fire Services Academy
followed suit during the Fall, the Justice Institute finally became operational.
In keeping with the guiding legislation, the Institute' s management and policy
direction devolved upon its nine member Board. The day-to-day administrative
responsibility was given to the Principal who was assisted by the Director of
Educational Services, the Director of Finance and Administration, and the
directors of the three main training divisions.
As the Institute's managers set out to locate staff, upgrade facilities, develop
policies and establish budgets, the need became obvious to resolve some specific
issues inherited from the Institute's earlier history. For example, while the
Board's mandate was clearly defined by legislation, it was equally clear that
the training staff answered to more than one master: Corrections Staf_;·
Developnent remained accountable to the Comnissioner of Corrections; the Police
Academy to the B.C. Police CorT1T1ission; and the Fire Services Academy to the
Fire Services C011111issioner.
Conversely, staff from Finance and Administration and Educational Servi ces were
direct employees of the Justice Institute and were accountable to the Board
through the Principal. Once again attention was called to the long-standing
question of control as differences in reporting procedures appeared.
To appreciate the issue it is necessary to recall the original planning discussions.
The principle users were consistently identified as the core branches of the
Attorney-General's Ministry and there can be little doubt that the Institute
derives its capacity to exist from their participation. _Once the enterprise
had fallen within the Ministry of Education's purview, the Attorney-General
had hoped to maintain influence over the training activities by three devices:

16.
1) by playing a consultative role in the selection of the Institute's

Board;
2) by continuing the direct employment of training staff within the
Ministry's operational branches; and
3) by adopting a contract model to finance the cost of instructional support.
With the Ministry's authority over the Institute strictly limited by provisos
in the Colleges and Provincial Institute's Act, the Attorney-General's coselection of Board members represents a symbol of good intentions rather than
an actual instrument of control. On the other hand, the staff reporting
relationships and the funding fonnula impact directly on the Institute ' s
operational activities.
With regard to the reporting relationships, the Attorney-General' s participation
in the Institute has tended to complicate the Ministry's training services by
adding new and diverse levels to the trainers ' lines of accountability. Like
the horseman who rides off in all directions at once, each training component
continues to respond to a unique set of expectations and historical ly-based
needs while simultaneously trying to cooperate within the larger context of
the Institute's affairs.
By complicating rather than simplifying the reporting relationships , three
problems emerge:
1) The role delegated to the Institute's Principal contravenes a basic

tenet of good business practice. While he is fully accountable to
the Board for the Justice Institute's management, he 1s not fully
responsible for the majority of the Institute's training activities.
2) So long as their affiliation with the Institute is based on the
financial contract model, and so long as their first allegiance in that
relationship is with the Attorney-General's operational branches, it
remains unclear how the core users ought to participate in achieving
the Institute's broader objectives.
3) The relationship between training programmes and the development of
the Attorney-General's manpower planning policies has not yet been
clarified.
Peculiarities in the reporting procedures parallel peculiarities in the funding
fonnula. At present, the Attorney-General's Ministry finances the total cost
of instructional support - including instructors' salaries, travel expenses,

17.
clerical services and stationary. On its part, the Ministry of Education provides
capital and operating funds for facilities, library and media resources, and
all Institute-wide administrative services.
At first appearance the fonnula seems reasonable and straight forward but some
anomalies are present. For example:
l) Through its corporate identify the Justice Institute owns the institution s
physical assets which include a fleet of vehicles, but capital expenditures on patrol cars used for instructional purposes are funded by the
Attorney-General.
2) The salaries paid to the instructional faculty of Courts and Corrections
training are processed directly from Victoria. On the other hand, the
salaries paid to Courts and Corrections clerical staff are processed by
the Justice Institute.
1

Using hindsight, it seems that the funding fonnula evolved in response to two
different circumstances:
1) The Attorney-General's training components moved to the Justice Institute
at mid-point during the 1978-79 fiscal year. In order to avoid an
accounting nightmare, expediency prevailed. Agreements that served a
temporary purpose now appear to have become entrenched.
2) More important, it appears that the Attorney-General's Ministry believed
that budgetary control, based on the contract model, equates with control
over the direction of training progranmes.
With due respect to the Ministry's planners, it should be pointed out that it
is the contract itself, not the contract's financial ingredients, tha t offers
the Attorney-General opportunity to influence the services provided by the
Institute. Seen in this way, the funding fonnula i s inconsistent with the
training agreements developed by other ministries. Nurses training, for
example, is controlled by the medical profession and financed directly by the
Ministry of Education rather than the Ministry of Health. By renegotiating
the contract, it is suggested that substantial savings would accrue to the
Attorney-General without altering the Ministry's influence in detennining the
nature of the services rendered by the Institute.
Nevertheless, in times of close cooperation and readily available funds, the
present financial relationship is workable and satisfactory. Should resources
become scarce, however, the current division of financial responsibility could

18.

breed severe problems. The following factors are at issue:
1) The present division of responsibility is not comprehensively defined.
It is not certain in all cases exactly where instructional support
costs end and Institute-wide services begin.
2) Duplications in the accounting system would not appear to be cost
efficient.
3) When accounting services are provided by the .Institute for budgets
established within the Attorney-General's Ministry, and when the Institute
receives payment in arrears for expenditures made on the Ministry's
behalf, what authority would be held accountable if a substantial overrun
occurred? Moreover, in such a situation, should Institute staff intervene
in the management process of the training components, withhold funds and
demand that the budget parameters be respected?

19.

8. THE ADMINISTRATIVE REACTION
As the difficulties attendant upon staff reporting relationships grew more
prenounced, the Institute's Principal produced a report in November 1978 which
outlined three organizational alternatives. Excerpted from the report, the
three models proposed are as follows:
Model 1, would "layer in" the existing staff development Branches of the
Ministry to the Institute. Lines of accountability would remain directly
with the Ministry as is the present case and the Justice Institute would
establish an organization to provide space and some coordination of conmen
resources (library, food, residences, etc.).
Model 2, would involve the complete transfer of all training and staff
development resources within the Ministry of Attornev-General to the
Justice Institute. This would involve all personnel, equipment and resources.
Model 3, would require the transfer of all resources in the Ministry to the
Institute with the exception of the Director of Staff Development, Corrections
and the Director of Staff Development, Courts. These positions, plus
directly related support staff, would remain within the respective Branches
of the Ministry and constitute the interface through which the Institute
would develop and deliver the training progranrnes for the two Branches.
In addition, incumbents in these positions would perform all the other
staff development functions that are not and should not be the responsibility
of the Justice Institute (e.g. administer training relief funds, educational
leave requests and coordinate regional staff development personnel, etc.). 14
The reorganization proposals elicited vigorous reaction and the Institute' s
Board quickly carried a motion endorsing Model 3. But during the Board's
review of the rec0111Tiendations, notice was taken of the fact that the training
directors for Courts and Corrections exercised non-instructional responsibilities
when perfonning their staff development duties. After the propriety of the
directors' dual roles was questioned by a Board member, renewed attention was
drawn to the independence exercised by the Attorney-General's training units
within the Institute's operational mandate. Controversy ensued .

20.

The Ministry's response to the Principal's proposals was delivered by the
Attorney-General's Executive Conmittee in March 1979. Excerpts from the
Deputy Minister's letter on the subject best describe the Conmittee's position:
" •••• we would very much like to step back from decision making as
to staff allocation and begin from a finn planning basis. Staff,
like facilities and financial resources, are secondary to a finn
and agreed-to understanding as to what the goals and objectives are
of the Justice Institute and the training prograrrmes that are carried
out therein and reflect an allocation of resources based on agreedto work plans and curriculum develoi:xnent.
We thus believe that in considering the question of reporting
relationships of staff, we begin an orderly process to agree to
goals and objectives, to develop more plans, to establish staffing
criteria and levels and to do so in an orderly and timely way. 1115
In a subsequent letter from the Deputy Minister to the Chainnan of the Institute ' s
Board addressing the same issue, the desired content of a joint work plan was
put forward:
11

I would expect that the detail would include matters such as
courses, course content, instructors, financing of courses and
instructors, the sharing of resources from both the Ministry and
the Institute, the use of Ministry and Institute facilities, seconding
and/or rotating of teaching staff between the Ministry and the Institute
for the above purposes.
••••

It was agreed that we would put aside concerns revolving around
models related to bureaucratic structures and concentrate on issues
relating to use of resources and facilities to accomplish training
objectives for the Ministry. 1116
The exchange finally set the stage upon which a lasting understanding could be
constructed between the Justice Institute and the Ministry of Attorney-General.

21.

PART III: AN AGREEMENT FOR THE FUTURE
A. THE NEED FOR CONCEPTUAL AGREEMENT
Bound by its history and caught in the tensions of daily actninistration, there
can be little doubt that the Justice Institute requires a fonnal agreement
defining its relationship to the Attorney-General's Ministry. Before a durable
accord can be reached, however, two fundamental interests must be clarified:
1) it should be jointly recognized that where the exchange of knowledge
is at issue, excellence can only be achieved in tenns of identifiable
objectives; and
2) it should be jointly accepted that curriculllll content forms the essence
of any educational institution.
Because both parties are corrmitted to raising the quality of justice and public
safety services in British Columbia, cooperative agreement on the conceptual
nature of training objectives and curriculllll will provide the key to harmony.
Once accomplished, the administrative formulas necessary to accorrmodate the
training regimens should be a straight-forward and practical matter.
Objectives
Four stages of activity are required to resolve issues related to objectives:
1) The Attorney-General's Ministry should make a clear declaration of its
training objectives and make known its manpower planning and personnel
development procedures and policy.
2) While any given principle may be widely accepted, its interpretation
may vary significantly. Therefore, a consensus should be established
concerning the interpretation of the Institute's functions, as they are
expressed in the Order-in-Council.
3) A joint statement should be developed to amalgamate the Attorney-General's
training objectives with the consensus interpretation of the Institute's
functions.
Where the Attorney-General's objectives are patently at odds with those
of the Institute, the activities required to meet the Ministry's goals
should be removed from further involvement with the Institute.
4) As an addendllll to the joint statement, the manner in which the AttorneyGeneral 'straining components participate in promoting the Institute's
province-wide mandate should be described.
Curriculum
Three stages of activity are required to resolve issues related to curriculum:

22.

1) The Institute and the Attorney-General's Ministry should develop a
method of cooperatively perfonning training needs analysis studies.
2) A mechanism should be created to carmunicate the Ministry's manpower
planning and personnel development policies to the Institute.
3) Collaborative procedures should be established between the Institute
and the Attorney-General's Ministry for conducting programme eva l uations.

23.

B. THE NEED FOR STRUCTURAL AGREEMENT
Once a carmon set of objectives are defined and procedures for curriculum
development are set in place. the overriding concern of both the Institute
and the Ministry should be to see that the conceptual agreements are translated
into practice. Before entering into the exercise, it should be anticipated
that fair and reasonable compromise will be required in order to resolve past
tensions. By accepting the structural changes necessary to insure that the
COITlllon objectives are fulfilled, the benefits to both parties should exceed
any concessions that might be made.
Four stages of activity are required to resolve issues related to structura l
change:
1) The Reporting Relationships should be reviewed. Where changes are
needed to correct outstanding problems, the design of any new structure
should be tailored in a manner best suited to accomplishing the conmen
objectives.
2) The Funding Fonnula should be redesigned. Any alteration to the funding
fonnula should reflect the revised reporting relationships and should
support the efficient, responsible and cost-effective management of the
Institute's affairs.
3) A Fonnal Agreement should be developed. The agreement should authenticate
any changes to the reporting relationships and the funding fonnula; it
should specify the exact nature of contract services offered to the
Ministry by the Justice Institute; and it should be expressed in a clear
and well-publicized statement of accord.
4} A Coordinating Carmittee should be established. Based on the accord
described in the fonnal agreement, the function of the C0111T1ittee should
be to review and to coordinate the relationship between the Institute
and the Ministry.

24.

C.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENTS

The distinction between policy creation and policy implementation raises a
well-known organizational dilemma. By using a participatory model to develop
a conrnon set of objectives and structural guidelines, it is suggested that
the process used to define the terms of agreement should help guarantee that
they will be successfully put into practice. In this sense, participation in
developing an agreement should be encouraged from line staff, senior managers
and Board members alike. Moreover, it might be unadvised to enter into a
paper agreement at this time apart from a clear process established to implement
its terms.

25.

PART IV: THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
Throughout the foregoing analysis, the Ministry of Education has been seen as
a third party to the central drama between the Justice Institute and the AttorneyGeneral 's Ministry. However, the Ministry of Education's role in detennining
the Institute's future is of vital importance. Because the Education Minister
is responsible for allocating prograntne, facilities and administrative funds
to the Institute, acceptance from the Ministry of Education will be required
concerning any new directions taken by the Institute resulting from a revised
agreement with the Attorney-General.
It is timely, therefore, that the Minister of Education has asked every
institution operating under the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act to
prepare a comprehensive five-year Educational Plan before the end of 1980.
It seems clear that the develo)l'Tlent of a five-year plan coincides neatly with
•
a review of the relationship between the Institute
and the Attorney-General
and the opportunity is available to conduct both exercises at the same time.
Should the decision be made to proceed with a joint exercise, an assessment
of the Institute's history suggests that a number of issues remain outstanding
apart from the relationship with the Attorney-General's Ministry. They include
the following:
1) How should the Justice Institute relate to the education system's goals?
2) What is the relationship in justice service's training between technical
need and educational need? Between instruction and education?
3) To what extent is research a desirable function of the Justice Institute?
4) What is an appropriate definition of the "justice and public safety"
conmunity?
5) How can the Justice Institute provide province-wide services from a
central campus?
6) How can the overlapping mandates of the Institute and the Legal Services
Societ~ regarding library services and public education initiatives be
clarified?
7) How can the Institute's facility develo)l'Tlent plans match programne needs?
8) What are the support service requirements needed to satisfy a growing
training population?
While the foregoing questions are pertinent to the Ministry of Education's

26.

request for a five year Educational Plan, they also may be seen with regard
to the Institute's internal management. It seems clear that the Board's response
to the task of developing a five year plan has the potential for clarifying a
nllTlber of structural issues still outstanding. Therefore, the Board might
wish to consider such a clarification as a primary objective in relation to
the task.

27.
FOOTNOTES
1) Apri 1 30, 1976. Memorandum from G. Kilcup, Director, B.C. Police Col lege
to D. Vickers, Deputy Attorney-General.
2) Ibid
3) Ibid
4) Ibid
5) Ibid
6) June 21, 1976. Letter from G. Kilcup, Director, B.C. Police College and
Director, Justice Education Centre (appointed May 26, 1976) to B. Parfitt,
Executive Assistant to the Deputy Attorney-General.
7) September 16, 1976. Memorandum from M. Krasnick, Director, Policy Planning
to The Honourable Garde B. Gardom:-Attorney-General.
8) September 8, 1976. Memorandum: Justice Institute Proposal, from G. Kilcup
Director, B.C. Police College to D. Vickers, Deputy Attorney-General.
9) May 19, 1977. Ministry of Attorney-General's submission to Cabinet.
10) August 9, 1977. Memorandum from G. Kilcup, Director, B.C .. Police College
to R. Vogel, Deputy Attorney-General.
11) September 30, 1977. Memorandum from G. Kilcup, Director, B.C. Police Col lege
to R. Vogel, Deputy Attorney-General.
and
October 12, 1977. Letter from R. Vogel, Deputy Attorney-General to G.
Kilcup, Director, B.C. Police College.
12) November, 1977. Paper: British Columbia Justice Institute, prepared by
Dr. Bruce Fraser, Executive Director, Program Services, Ministry of Education
and G. Kilcup, Director, B.C. Police College, Ministry of the AttorneyGeneral.
13) Ibid
14) November 28, 1978. Paper: Organization - Justice Institute of B.C.,
prepared by G. K11cup, Principal, Justice Institute of B.C.
15) March 9, 1979. Letter from R. Vogel, Deputy Attorney-General to G. Kilcup,
Principal, Justice Institute of B.C.
~
16) March 23, 1979. Letter from R. Vogel, Deputy Attorney-Genera l to R. Stewart,
Deputy Chief Constable, Vancouver City Police