Call for contributions

No 152: “Sociojudicial Intervention: practices, experiences and emerging contexts”  

Under the direction of Audrey-Anne Dumais-Michaud, Ph.D., post-doctoral researcher, University of Liège and Célyne Lalande, S.W., Ph.D., professor, Department of Social Work, UQO

This call for contributions is issued in the wake of a symposium organized as part of the 87th ACFAS convention held in May 2019 and dealing with the roles, status and anchoring of psychosocial professionals in the area of sociojudicial intervention. The symposium gave rise to rich and dynamic discussions among the professionals, researchers and administrators. One observation quickly arose: there are currently few works addressing sociojudicial intervention, hence the interest in publishing an issue on this theme.

The first question to which thought must be given: what is sociojudicial intervention? From the outset, it would appear that, in the absence of a precise definition, the term “sociojudicial” is rather vague. Moreover, this notion is hardly used by professionals in the field (Lalande, 2018). That being said, an investigation of this term reveals that it is linked to a wide range of words (ex.: intervention, protocol, practice, field, follow-up, framing, system, agreement, intervener, coaching, concertation) and effectively illustrates the hybridation of practices involved in the social and judicial sectors.   

Overall, we note that, in Europe, the “sociojudicial” notion is associated exclusively with practice targeting offenders [Jonckheere, 2013; French Ministry of Justice, (undated); French Senate, (undated)]. In Quebec grey and scientific literature, the term “sociojudicial” is used in texts dealing with interventions in the fields of youth protection (Gauthier, 2015; Lambert, 2013), domestic violence (Bilodeau, Allard, Lefebvre et al., 2007; Cadrin, Alary and Pineault, 1999; Gouvernement du Québec, 1995; Groulx, 2002; Lalande, 2018; Morier, Bluteau, Bruneau et al., 1991), with offenders (F.-Dufour, 2011) and, more recently, with victims of elder abuse (Gouvernement du Québec, 2017; Longpré, 2017).

Also, some Quebec authors refer to “sociojudicial intervention” in a more general way, to designate, for instance, psychosocial practices that are legally supported (Lambert, 2013; Trottier and Racine, 1992), while, others use it to refer to specific formal agreements and protocols such as the Multisectoral Agreement concerning children who are victims of sexual abuse, physical abuse or lack of care threatening their safety (Gouvernement du Québec, 2001). Finally, several Quebec texts dealing with sociojudicial intervention address interaction, collaboration and interdisciplinarity. 

It thus appears that the notion is polysemic and refers to diverse practices and fields where the psychosocial and the judicial are intertwined. These links can be explained by the fact that, in contemporary societies, there is a recurring call for justice to manage social relationships and society’s problems (Blichner and Molander, 2008; Kaluszinski, 2007; Lemire, Langlois, Noreau et al., 1998). This answer, which combines, at the very least, the psychosocial and judicial fields resulted in the creation of different specialized intervention systems, such as specialized tribunals (Dumais Michaud, 2017) or crisis intervention cells such as the support team for psychosocial emergencies.   

The development of these systems and areas of practice gives rise to different questions. For example, we can question the roles assumed by the stakeholders operating within these systems involving multiple professions as well as the roles assigned to them. Furthermore, since the encounter of the social and judicial creates new work environments, it may be appropriate to ask if these multi or interdisciplinary environments have an impact on the professional identity of those who practice within them. Thirdly, it is known that collaborative difficulties can be caused, in part, by a poor allocation and misunderstanding of the roles of the persons who care called to collaborate (Hertel et al., 2005; Munkvold and Zigurs, 2007, cited in Karoui and Dudezert, 2010; Quirouette, 2018). As well, where status is concerned, some research makes the point that a more equal distribution of power within collective sociojudicial-types of action fosters greater efficiency and satisfaction among participants (Bilodeau, Allard, Lefebvre et al., 2007; Dubé and Boisvert, 2009). Therefore, it would be interesting to learn more about conditions that favour the exercise of sociojudicial intervention, as well as the challenges and issues encountered by the professionals who practice in different environments involving both the psychosocial and the judicial.     

This call for contributions is an invitation to reflect on these questions in order to develop and enhance knowledge in an area where we note a growing number of sociojudicial interventions in Quebec and Canada. The dissemination of results as well as a sharing of tools or practices will make it possible to better inform and prepare professionals who are required to work, in the short or medium term, within these specific systems.  The goal of this issue is to document realities poorly covered in research but which are being increasingly deployed and are consistent with the realities of the daily practice of various professionals and social workers. 

More specifically, we seek to bring together articles that will make possible to: a) document the current environment in which these practices are emerging or developing; b) document possibilities, restrictions and challenges related to practice in different sociojudicial environments; c) illustrate clinical examples or innovative projects dealing with psychosocial intervention in sociojudicial environments; d) document the views of persons with whom the professionals work, by illustrating their experience and perspectives. We are therefore interested in essay reporting innovative practices as well as articles presenting the results of empirical research on these themes.    

Deadline for abstracts (max. 350 words): October 10, 2019
Deadline for articles: February 14, 2020
Email: revue.intervention@otstcfq.org

For further information, please contact:

Audrey-Anne Dumais-Michaud audrey-anne.dumais-michaud@umontreal.ca

or

Célyne Lalande celyne.lalande@uqo.ca

References:

Bilodeau, A., Allard, D., Lefebvre, C., Cadrin, H. and M.-J Pineault (2007). « Le protocole sociojudiciaire en matière de violence conjugale : une mobilisation ciblée pour une innovation limitée dans un champ fortement conflictuel », Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, vol. 49, no. 3, 403-422.

Blichner, L. C. and A. Molander (2008). “Mapping Juridification”, European Law Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, 36-54.

Cadrin, H., Alary, F. and M.-J Pineault (1999). Le protocole sociojudiciaire en matière de violence conjugale du Bas-Saint-Laurent: conception, mise en œuvre, expérimentation et évaluation, Rimouski: Director of Public Health, Planning and Evaluation, Regional Health and Social Services Board of the Lower St. Lawrence.  

Dubé, M. and R. Boisvert (2009). Évaluation du projet pilote d’implantation du Protocole de collaboration intersectorielle pour les enfants exposés à la violence conjugale : rapport de recherche, Montréal: CRI-VIFF. Online: http://www.deslibris.ca/ID/217611.

Dumais Michaud, A. A. (2017). « Fou ou délinquant. Ambivalence dans les réponses judiciaires », Revue générale de droit, vol. 46, no. 2, 127-148.

F.-Dufour, I. (2011). « Travail social et champ sociojudiciaire : vers une contribution renouvelée? », Revue Service Social, vol. 57, no. 1, 63-79. Online: https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/ss/2011-v57-n1-ss5004186/1006287ar/.

Gauthier, M. (2015). L’Entente multisectorielle en protection de la jeunesse : trajectoire judiciaire et victimologique, mémoire de maîtrise, Université Laval. Online: https://www.crujef.ca/sites/crujef.ca/files/GAUTHIER%20Maryse_m%C3%A9moi....

Gouvernement du Québec (1995). Prévenir, dépister, contrer la violence conjugale : politique d’intervention en matière de violence conjugale, Quebec: Government of Quebec. Online: http://www.scf.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/publications/Violence/ Prevenir_depister_contrer_Politique_VC.pdf.

Gouvernement du Québec (2001). Entente multisectorielle relative aux enfants victimes d’abus sexuels, de mauvais traitements physiques ou d’une absence de soins menaçant leur sécurité, Quebec: Government of Quebec. Online: https://www.mfa.gouv.qc.ca/fr/publication/Documents/SF_entente.pdf .

Gouvernement du Québec (2017). Mise en œuvre d’une procédure sociojudiciaire pour contrer la maltraitance envers les personnes ainées, Quebec: Government of Quebec. Online: http://publications.msss.gouv.qc.ca/msss/fichiers/ainee/Bilan-entente-socio-Mauricie_site_web.pdf.

Groulx, J. (2002). Protocole de collaboration en violence conjugale pour l’aide psychosociale et l’accompagnement sociojudiciaire synthèse de l’évaluation du protocole dans dix secteurs de la Montérégie, Longueuil: Regional Health and Social Services Board of the Montérégie. Online: http://collections.banq.qc.ca/ark:/52327/67369.

Jonckheere, A. (2013).  « L’accompagnement socio-judiciaire saisi par l’informatisation en Belgique », Déviance et Société », vol. 37, no. 3, 345-357.

Kaluszinski, M. (2007). « La fonction politique de la justice : regards historiques. Du souci d’historicité à la pertinence de l’historicisation » : 7-23,  in J. Commaille and M. Kaluszinski (dir.), La fonction politique de la justice,  Paris : La Découverte. Online: https://www.cairn.info/la-fonction-politique-de-la-justice--978270715247... 7.htm.

Karoui, M. and A. Dudezert (2010). « La collaboration centrée sur le partage de connaissances et de l’information au sein des équipes virtuelles : revue de littérature et perspectives de recherche » :  xx-xxi, in 15e colloque de l’Association Information et Management, La Rochelle, France. Online: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00509749.

Lalande, C. (2018). Intervention sociojudiciaire en violence conjugale au Québec : représentations professionnelles des intervenantes qui en font l’expérience, doctoral thesis, University of Montréal. Online: https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1866/21785/Lalande_Celyne_2018_these.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y.

Lambert, A. (2013). La gestion des risques en protection de l’enfance, Sainte-Foy : Presses de l’Université du Québec.

Lemire, G., Brochu, S., Noreau, P., Proulx, J. Rondeau, G., Langlois, C. ... C. Fredette (1998). Le recours au droit pénal et au système pénal pour régler les problèmes sociaux, Montréal : Centre international de criminologie comparée.

Longpré, D. (2017). Déploiement national d’une entente sociojudiciaire en matière de lutte contre la maltraitance envers les personnes aînées,  Bulletin : Ensemble pour contrer la maltraitance, vol. 4, no. 1, 1-4.

Ministère de la Justice de France (s.d.). Suivi socio-judiciaire (définition), Paris : Ministère de la Justice de France. Online: http://www.justice.gouv.fr/mots-cles/mc_s.html.

Public Safety Canada (s.d.). Support Team for Psychosocial Emergencies. Online: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/plcng/cnmcs-plcng/ndx/snpss-en.aspx?n=34.

Morier, Y., Bluteau, C., Bruneau, G., Lessard, C. and P. Beaudet (1991). Intervention sociojudiciaire en violence conjugale, Montréal: Wilson & Lafleur Ltée.

Quirouette, M. (2018). “Community Practitioners in Criminal courts: Risk Logics and Multiply-Disadvantaged Individual”, Theoretical Criminology, vol. 22, no. 4, 582-602.

French Senate. (s.d.). Les délinquants dangereux atteints de troubles psychiatriques : comment concilier la protection de la société et une meilleure prise en charge médicale ? Paris : Government of France. Online: https://www.senat.fr/rap/r05-420/r05-4205.html.

Trottier, G. and S. Racine (1992). « L’intervention en contexte d’autorité. Points saillants », Revue Service Social, vol. 41, no. 3, 5-24. Online: https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/ss/1992-v41-n3-ss3511/706582ar/