Publication

Increasing the Use of Restorative Justice in Criminal Matters in Canada: Findings from a 2019-2020 Jurisdictional Scan

Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on Restorative Justice

Winter 2024

Acknowledgements: The Working Group thanks all of the ministries and jurisdictions that provided data, as well as members of the FPT Working Group on Restorative Justice Sub-Committee: Data Collection and Evaluation for their help and advice.

Table of Contents

• Executive Summary
  • Highlights
  • Recommendations
• Increasing the Use of Restorative Justice in Criminal Matters in Canada: Year Two of Reporting
  • Introduction
  • Background
• Methodology
  • Cautions and Limitations
• Results
  • Key Findings
  • Comparing Baseline to Year 2 Data
  • Participant Demographics
  • Referred RJ Cases: Descriptive Information
  • Accepted RJ Cases: Descriptive Information
  • Restorative Justice Cases: Direct Victim Participation
  • Reaching the Target: Jurisdictional Data for 2017/2018 to 2019/2020
  • Plans to Increase the Use of RJ Processes
• Recommendations
• Conclusion
• Appendix A: Participation in the Jurisdictional Scan: Ministries and Departments that Returned Data
• Appendix B: Definitions Used in the Survey
• Appendix C: Data Submission 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 Comparison
• Appendix D: Available Data

Executive Summary

The Federal Provincial-Territorial (FPT) Restorative Justice (RJ) Working Group (WG) Sub-Committee on Data and Research conducts annual jurisdictional scans on the use of RJ processes in the Canadian criminal justice sector. The goal of the scan is to track progress towards a 5% increase in RJ referrals from the 2017/2018 fiscal year to 2022-23.¹ This report summarizes the results from the 2019/2020 fiscal year, two years after the baseline was collected in 2017/2018.², ³

Survey respondents included 26 FPT ministries and departments who are members of the WG across 14 jurisdictions (see Appendix A for a list of jurisdictions). FPT ministries and departments were asked to provide data on the RJ programs or services they funded or provided, and information about concrete actions taken to increase RJ referrals. Every participating jurisdiction provided data, and 11 jurisdictions provided information about approaches to increase RJ referrals.

The results of the survey indicated some progress towards the target of increasing the number of RJ referrals, accepted cases and participants. Despite that the majority of jurisdictions reported increases in referrals and accepted cases, the minority of jurisdictions that reported decreases dropped the national total of referrals and accepted cases below the baseline due to their large caseloads. In spite of the national total showing decreases compared to the baseline, the results show that the majority of jurisdictions reported increases in their referrals and accepted cases (Table 6).

Jurisdictions have taken concrete action to increase RJ services and improve their data reporting, while the Data and Research Subcommittee of the WG (WGSC) has continued to refine the survey to capture a more robust picture of RJ services across the country. The findings show that majority has surpassed the 5% target for number of RJ referrals.

Highlights

Changes in data collection and reporting between years limit the ability to interpret overall changes from baseline (2017/2018) to year 1 (2018/2019) and year 2 (2019/2020)⁴, although reporting has stabilized between year 1 and year 2, with almost all ministries involved in RJ being able to report some data both years.

The 26 participating ministries supported 339 programs and 328 agencies responsible for delivering RJ programs across the country.⁵ In year 2, 26,559 referrals were received, which represents a 22.7% decrease from the baseline. The number of accepted cases (18,858) decreased by almost a third (33%) since the baseline (28,057), although reporting differences may have contributed to this drop, as 4 ministries were unable to report on accepted cases in year 2.

At least 18,858 offenders and 3,782 victims participated in RJ processes in year 2. This represents fewer offenders (-32.8%; 28,057) and slightly more victims (5.9%; 3,570) from the baseline. Only half of the ministries were able to report on participating victims, similar to the baseline (where 55.0% of ministries reported the number of victims) and much lower than year 1 of the survey (where 85.0% reported the number of victims). These numbers represent a minimum as not all ministries can collect data on offender and victim participation at this point in time. Overall, reporting has improved in the current year from the baseline as the majority of jurisdictions were able to provide information on more indicators. However, reporting has decreased on vitim participation and characteristics.

Below are some highlights on characteristics of RJ referrals and accepted cases and participating offenders in 2019/2020:

• Just under half of referrals (45.1%) involved a young person (aged 12 to 17; see Table 2 of main report) for the ministries able to report this data (22 of 26 respondents).
• The majority of RJ referrals were for crimes against property (51.3%), and against the person (37.3%) (Table 3).
• Where stage of referral was known, almost all referrals occurred at the pre-charge (46.2%), or post-charge (49.6%) stage (Table 4). Remaining referrals were pre- or post-sentence. Quebec had the highest proportion of pre-charge referrals (68.11%), whereas in a number of jurisdictions, more than three quarters of referrals were made at the post-charge stage, including the Northwest Territories, Alberta, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador.
• The main referral sources for RJ were the Crown/prosecution (52.3% of referrals where source was known) and the police (38.8%) (Table 5).

In interpreting the results, there are a number of limitations that should be noted, including:

• The results should not be interpreted as providing nationally comprehensive coverage of RJ in each jurisdiction as this survey only captures RJ processes funded by FPT ministries/departments.
• Data on RJ processes are limited, as the only consistent indicators collected by all ministries/departments were the number of referrals and offender participation.
• Coverage of many indicators has increased since the baseline year, however, significant gaps in coverage due to data availability remain. Despite increased reporting overall, many indicators in the report continue to have limited coverage as various ministries could not provide data on each element (i.e., victim participation, gender and ethnicity).
• Data on victim participants (i.e., number of victims approached to participate, demographics of victim participants) was rarely available, and efforts will be made to address this gap.
• Most jurisdictions do not distinguish between direct and indirect victim participation. However, the survey divides victim participation into these categories. This disconnect limits the data collected on victims and will be addressed in the next round of data collection.

Due to these limitations and questions around differences in definitions of RJ that apply across the country, cross-jurisdictional comparisons should be made with caution. In addition, due to changes in data collection, only limited information regarding change in RJ from baseline to year 1 and year 2 can be made. This report therefore presents the most recent data available at this time, representing two years worth of reporting since the baseline.

Recommendations

• Ministries/departments continue to implement their plans/strategies to increase referrals and cases.
• Ministries should continue efforts to collect more data on victims as well as the participation of community members in RJ processes, which still exists as a data gap.
• Ministries/departments evaluate administrative procedures and data collection processes to better identify participants in a RJ process (offender, victim, community) as well as to capture more data on these participants (i.e., ethno-cultural identity, age, and gender), in particular to address gaps in victim-related data.
• The WGSC continues its work with FPT partners to develop RJ data and research. This includes developing more comprehensive data in the future, collecting more comparable indicators, and focusing on the most relevant research to enhance the understanding of RJ.

Increasing the Use of Restorative Justice in Criminal Matters in Canada: Year Two of Reporting
Findings from a 2019/2020 Jurisdictional Scan

Introduction

In 2021, the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on Restorative Justice Sub-Committee on Data and Research conducted a survey to gather data on the use of Restorative Justice (RJ) processes in the Canadian criminal justice sector. The purpose of this report is to assist the FPT Working Group on Restorative Justice (WG) with fulfilling the June 2017 direction from FPT Deputy Ministers responsible for Justice and Public Safety to develop options for increasing the use of RJ in Canada. This report demonstrates progress on the implementation of the direction from FPT Ministers and Deputy Ministers.

The 2020 survey collected year 1 data to measure progress towards the target of “a minimum of a 5% increase per jurisdiction in referrals to, and the number of accused/offenders and victims involved in, RJ processes over the next three years.”⁶ Due to the impact of COVID-19, FPT Ministers approved the WG ’s recommendation to extend the timeline by an additional two years⁷, therefore, extending data collection from the baseline of 2017/2018 fiscal year to 2022/2023. The minimum 5% target was recommended by the WG as a voluntary measure for each jurisdiction to gauge use of RJ and ways to increase RJ. The target was approved by FPT Deputy Ministers in June 2018 and by Ministers in November 2018. It is recognized that achieving the target will require continued commitment by governments and that jurisdictional priority changes may affect attainment of the target. In addition, jurisdictions are at different stages regarding the development and implementation of RJ strategies, policies and programs have differing resource availabilities which may impact their operations.

Background

In January 2010, Federal-Provincial-Territorial Deputy Ministers directed the WG⁸ to prepare an initial report on data collection on RJ in Canada, which led to the 2016 data collection report entitled, “Restorative Justice in the Canadian Criminal Justice Sector.” This was the first effort by FPT jurisdictions to collect and analyze data in a comprehensive manner, and FPT Deputy Ministers approved the report for public release⁹. The main finding in the 2016 report was that there were 411 RJ programs funded, supported, or provided by FPT jurisdictions in the criminal justice sector in 2009-10, and those programs facilitated approximately 34,000 adult and youth criminal matters with RJ. Those cases were facilitated at various points of the justice system, from pre-charge through to post-sentence (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1

A Continuum of Restorative Responses throughout the Justice System

In June 2017, FPT Deputy Ministers approved the following future directions for RJ:

• Increase and expand the use of RJ in criminal and regulatory matters, and enhance accessibility to RJ for all groups and at all points of the criminal justice system;
• Strengthen the quality of practice in accordance with nationally recognized RJ values, principles and guidelines;
• Promote consideration of the needs of victims and enhance collaboration between RJ programs and victim services;
• Increase public and justice system awareness of the value of RJ as an evidence-based and trauma-informed approach; and
• Foster systematic data collection and reporting on RJ processes and encourage research that furthers RJ practice.

In June 2018, the WG submitted a preliminary report on fostering systematic data collection and reporting on RJ processes to Deputy Ministers. That information, along with the definitions for key RJ indicators, complemented the research and data collection efforts being undertaken by Justice Canada, Statistics Canada, and through the Accelerating RJ initiative led by Nova Scotia with participating jurisdictions.

In January 2019, the WGSC conducted a baseline survey for the 2017/2018 fiscal year on the use of RJ processes in the Canadian criminal justice sector. To facilitate reliable data collection, RJ was defined as:

In addition to the RJ definition, a number of key RJ indicators were developed (see Appendix B for indicators).¹¹ While the WGSC was interested in gathering data on many aspects of RJ (e.g., referrals and participants), limitations associated with data collection and reporting processes made it necessary to focus on a smaller, more manageable amount of data. It is hoped that we will be able to add to these initial indicators in the future.

The baseline report included data from 13 jurisdictions and responses on concrete actions taken to increase referrals to RJ processes from 14 jurisdictions. The national baseline figures and 5% targets established from the report are as follows:

• RJ referral numbers were 34,346 in 2017/2018 and the target (5% increase) is 36,063 in 2022-23; and
• RJ offender and victim numbers were 28,057 and 3,570 respectively in 2017/2018 and the target (5% increase) is 29,460 and 3,749 in 2022-23.

Victim Involvement in RJ Processes

Although victims are central to the RJ process,¹² victim involvement does not always occur for many reasons. First, victims are not always made aware that restorative justice may be an option for them. Second, many victims do not want to participate in a RJ process. Third, it may not be possible to locate or reach out to the victim. Fourth, sometimes it may not be appropriate to contact the victim due to the circumstances of the case. Fifth, there may be person-offences where no direct victim is identified. In all these instances, cases are often accepted into RJ processes without direct victim involvement.

The critical consideration is that victims should always be given the opportunity to participate; however, if they decide not to, other types of RJ processes can still provide positive results for offenders and communities. Processes without direct victim involvement can result in outcomes that are valued by victims and communities, such as significant amounts of restitution paid directly to victims and community service hours completed by offenders. That said, research suggests that processes that involve the victim will have a stronger impact on reducing offender recidivism than processes that do not involve the direct victim (Maxwell & Hayes, 2006; Umbreit & Coates, 2005). Further research is required to be able to better describe the various outcomes that result from the different categories and definitions of RJ processes.

RJ philosophy requires that programs be committed to the involvement of victims, offenders, and where appropriate, communities as well. RJ should focus on both the recovery and healing of victims and the accountability and rehabilitation of offenders. Many programs describe noteworthy efforts to seek victim involvement and, even where participation is declined, efforts are made to keep the victim informed and to gather input from the victim regarding the impact of the offence and how they feel the matter should be resolved. Also, victim involvement can occur in many ways, from face-to-face participation to shuttle communication, or by sharing their views with the facilitator. Surrogate and indirect victims can also be engaged in the process. While not all victims want to engage in RJ, RJ processes should continue to strive to give victims the opportunity to participate if they are interested.

Methodology

The survey was sent to all FPT ministries and departments on the WG and focused only on RJ processes that were delivered by or funded by the ministry or department for the 2019/2020 fiscal year.¹³ Some WG members indicated that they did not meet the criteria to complete the survey (i.e., did not fund RJ programs that pertained to criminal matters). The survey focused on ministry- or department-level data, rather than jurisdictional-, program-, or agency –level.¹⁴ This is because many jurisdictions have multiple ministries or departments supporting RJ, each of which might collect their own data. This method was also intended to reduce the reporting burden on community-based agencies, particularly since some jurisdictions already collect information from RJ programs. The results have been aggregated at the jurisdictional level to provide information about RJ in each jurisdiction.

Data collection occurred from August 2021 to November 2021. Responses were received from 26 ministries/departments in 14 FPT jurisdictions (see Appendix A). In terms of the Indigenous Justice Program (IJP) data, this report includes IJP data for the PT jurisdiction it applies to.

Cautions and Limitations

The results presented in this report do not reflect the full scope of RJ programs across Canada.¹⁵ There are additional RJ programs not funded by governments that are not captured in the survey. In addition, ministries that are not directly administering a program may have limited data on the programs/agencies they fund and, aside from indicators assessing the number of referrals, victims, and offenders, there is an absence of comparable indicators across ministries.

While agreed upon definitions were established, there are still some differences in how these definitions are operationalized across ministries. Therefore, RJ processes can look different across jurisdictions. Additional discussion is required to achieve consistency. Considering these limitations, cross-jurisdictional comparisons are not possible as discrepancies between jurisdictions are likely impacted by the differing definitions, methods of data collection, and RJ processes. This suggests a clear need for supporting data collection infrastructure across Canada.

Results

The results below demonstrate the progress jurisdictions have made towards achieving the goal of a 5% increase. Key findings are listed below with a more detailed analysis of the data provided later in the report:

Key Findings

• In year 2, 26 ministries reported supporting 339 programs and 328 agencies delivered RJ services (for definitions of programs and agencies, refer to Appendix B)¹⁶, ¹⁷
• There were 26,559 referrals in year 2, a 22.7% reduction from the 34,346 referrals reported at baseline. There was a decrease (32.8%) in offender participation from 28,057 in baseline to 18,858 in year 2. To meet the national target, referrals will need to increase by 36% by 2022/2023.
• The number of ministries reporting data on victim numbers increased from 8 ministries at baseline to 20 ministries in year 1 but dropped to 13 in year 2, which limits our ability to make annual comparisons. The reported number of victims remains similar in year 2 compared to the baseline year with at least 3,782 victim participants. This is up from 3,570 victims in the baseline, though a drop from the previous year with 5,625 victims.
• Stage of referral was known in 67.6% of referrals. The majority of RJ referrals occurred at pre-charge (46.1%) or post-charge (49.6%) stages. There was high variation across jurisdictions with Quebec accounting for the most pre-charge referrals (see Table 4). Remaining referrals were pre- or post-sentence.
• Most referrals were for crimes against property (51.3%) or crimes against the person (37.5%).
• Most ministries (n = 19) were able to provide data regarding age of offenders referred for RJ (62.1% of cases) with 45.1% of these cases involving a young offender. The gender of the offender was available for less than half (45.5%) of referrals. In the referrals where gender was available, 59.7% of referrals involved a male offender, 38.4% involved a female, and 1.8% involved gender diverse individuals. Ethno-cultural and Indigenous background of the offender was available for less than a quarter (22%) of referrals.
• Demographic information for victims were rarely available. For referred victims, gender was reported in 6.0% of cases, age in 7.0% of cases, and ethno-cultural background in 6.7% of cases.

Comparing Baseline to Year 2 Data

Overall, year 2 saw a decrease in the number of referrals (down 22.7%), the number of accepted RJ cases (down 32.8%) and the number of participating offenders in RJ (down 32.8%) from the baseline year. The number of victims was the only category with an increase from the baseline year (up 5.9%). Table 1 provides information on referred and accepted cases, as well as a select few other key variables.

Table 1

First, looking at the results by jurisdiction, 9 of 14 jurisdictions¹⁸ saw an increase in RJ referrals (64%) and all these jurisdictions have already reached their target (see Table 6a below). However, some of the jurisdictions with larger caseloads saw large decreases in referrals and these decreases resulted in the national total referrals in year 2 to drop below the baseline. For accepted cases and participating offenders, fewer ministries were able to report, which contributed to the decreases. However, for ministries that could report, the year-over-year changes in year 2 were similar to changes in the referrals indicator. For victims, only 13 ministries reported these data, and most of these jurisdictions reported increases across all categories (referrals, accepted cases and offenders), not just victims.

Another factor was the decreasing youth caseload, which is a noted trend across criminal justice sectors, not just in RJ. In year 2, unlike the previous years, the number of referrals for adults outnumbered referrals for youth. Compared to year 1, youth referrals have decreased by 51%, compared to referrals for adult (-23%)¹⁹. The decreases in RJ caseload reflect similar trends in the criminal justice system, as youth crime (see figure 2), youth court cases²⁰ and youth corrections admissions²¹ have also declined over the three-year period, whereas similar indicators for adults have remained stable over this timeframe. Given that a large proportion of RJ is composed of youth cases, this trend will have significant effects on total referrals and cases. One point to note, decreases in youth crime have recently stabilized post COVID-19 and actually begun to increase in 2022. With this reversal of trend in the criminal justice system, it’s possible that there will be increases in RJ referrals and cases post COVID-19.

Note that although the number of accepted RJ processes and the number of participants are related, the relationship is not always a 1:1 ratio. Participants may be involved in multiple processes and/or one process may involve multiple of the same category of participant. While jurisdictions are asked to explicitly report the number of both victims and offenders, some jurisdictions may not record the number of participants involved in a case. A proxy of 1:1 is used when jurisdictions can only report on the number of cases. Appendix C provides a jurisdictional breakdown of the number of accepted RJ cases (both those with and without victim involvement), which can provide additional context for the number of participants reported.

Figure 2

Youth Accused of Police-Reported Crime, by Clearance Status, Canada, 2009 to 2019

Notes: ¹Youth not charged includes youth diverted from the formal criminal justice system through the use of extrajudicial measures, such as warnings, cautions, or referrals to community programs. Data is based on the number of youth aged 12 to 17 who were either charged (or recommended for charging) by police or diverted from the formal criminal justice system through the use of warnings, cautions, referrals to community programs, etc.²²

Comparing Year 1 to Year 2 Data

Participant Demographics

Similar to year 1, the majority of jurisdictions were only able to provide a limited amount of data on offender and victim demographics. See Appendix D for a comprehensive summary of data availability for 2019/2020.

Most cases referred and accepted into RJ processes involve adult male offenders for 2019/2020

Offender age was the most consistently available demographic. Most ministries reported offender age for referred and accepted cases (73.1% and 50% respectively, see Appendix D). However, within jurisdictions, there were cases with missing data on these demographics. For ministries reporting age, 82.6% of referred cases and 80.1% of accepted cases had age information. About half the ministries were also able to report on the offender’s gender (50% for both referred and accepted cases, see Appendix D). In ministries reporting gender, most cases had this information available (66.9% of referred cases and 79.8% of accepted cases).

As indicated in Table 2, for year 2, the age and gender of offenders show differences in reporting when compared to year 1. Youth made up 45.1% of referred cases and 47.5% of accepted cases. These proportions are lower than the year 1 (where in 56.1% of referrals and 61.3% of accepted cases the offender was a youth). In addition, most referred and accepted cases involved a male offender (60.8% of referred cases and 61.7% of accepted cases).

Table 2

^*Total referrals with age data is higher than Table 1 due to cases with multiple offenders with known age.

The ethno-cultural background of offenders are still often unknown by ministries

Similar to year 1, the offender’s Indigenous and ethno-cultural background was the least reported offender demographic, with less than a quarter (22.0%) of all referred and accepted cases (26.5%) having information for year 2. Percentages were slightly increased from the previous year.

Data reporting for all victim demographics slightly increased from the previous year

While it is challenging for most ministries to provide information on victims (see Appendix D for an overview of how many ministries were able to provide victim information), there has been a small improvement in reporting. For referred cases in year 2, gender information was provided for 6.0% of victims, age information was provided for 7.0% of victims, and information on ethno-cultural background was provided for 6.7% of victims, which represented a slight increase from the previous year.

For accepted cases in year 2, availability of demographic information increased from the previous year and was slightly more complete than for referrals. Gender information was available for 18.5% of cases, age information was available for 17.7% of cases and ethno-cultural background information was available for 22.2% of cases.

While there is not enough information to reliably report victim demographics or trends, the increase in reporting demonstrates that jurisdictions are making some improvements to their data collection processes.

Crimes against property account for approximately half of all referred and accepted cases

For year 2, just under three quarters of ministries (18) provided information on offence category for referred cases, although only a third of total referrals had offence category related to the offence, which was a steep decline from the previous year. As indicated in Table 3, when offence category is reported, crimes against property still represent approximately half (51.3%) of all cases, followed by crimes against the person (37.5%).

The offence category distribution for accepted cases is similar to the offence category distribution for referred cases, suggesting that the offence category of the case has little influence over whether or not it is accepted into an RJ process²³. As indicated in Table 3, crimes against the person and crimes against property are the most common offence categories, representing 31.1% and 52.6% of accepted cases. The offence category distribution for accepted cases is similar to the offence category distribution for referred cases, suggesting that the offence category of the case has little influence over whether or not it is accepted into an RJ process. Like with referred cases, the proportion of accepted cases with offence information dropped considerably from the previous year.

Table 3

Referred RJ Cases: Descriptive Information

While all reporting ministries were able to provide a number of referrals, not all ministries are able to report on all variables. To account for this variation, the tables show only cases for which the variable in question was known. Details on the key variables are provided below.

Nearly all reported cases are referred pre- or post-charge

In year 2, the number of referred cases with a known referral stage decreased from the previous year. In year 1 data, the referral stage was known for 95.1% of referred cases, whereas for year 2 the referral stage was known in only 67.6% of referrals representing 23 of 24 participating ministries and all 14 jurisdictions. Similar to previous years, the majority (95.7%) of cases were referred at either the pre- or post-charge stage. The overall numbers are heavily influenced by jurisdictions with higher numbers of referrals. For example, Quebec accounts for 52.5% of referrals where stage of criminal justice system was known and has a large proportion of pre-charge cases. Therefore, results are presented by jurisdiction in Table 4 below.

Table 4

Referral by Criminal Justice Stage and Jurisdiction

Notes: YK = Yukon; NW = Northwest Territories; NU = Nunavut; BC = British Columbia; AB = Alberta; SK = Saskatchewan; MB = Manitoba; ON = Ontario; QC = Quebec; NB = New Brunswick; NS = Nova Scotia; PEI = Prince Edward Island; NL = Newfoundland; CSC = Correctional Service Canada (Federal).
^*All= Total referrals with data about stage of referral

Notes: YK = Yukon; NW = Northwest Territories; NU = Nunavut; BC = British Columbia; AB = Alberta; SK = Saskatchewan; MB = Manitoba; ON = Ontario; QC = Quebec; NB = New Brunswick; NS = Nova Scotia; PEI = Prince Edward Island; NL = Newfoundland; CSC = Correctional Service Canada (Federal).
^*All= Total referrals with data about stage of referral

The majority of RJ cases were referred by the Crown/Prosecution

While data availability of the source of referral decreased in year 2 compared to year 1 (availability dropped from 71.7% to 38.8%), availability is still higher than the baseline year. Therefore, differences between the reference periods may be impacted by the varying coverage of the indicator and caution should be used when analyzing yearly changes in referral sources.

Similar to the previous year, just over half of cases (52.8%) were referred by the Crown/Prosecution (see Table 5) and was the most common referral source reported in year 2. The next most common referral source was police, although the proportion of referrals dropped in year 2 from 38.8% to 21.7%. The relative use of other referral sources (corrections, self-referrals, victim-referrals and community referrals) increased in year 2 from the previous year, and with the exception of offender self-referrals, the actual number of referrals from the other sources also decreased, despite a sharp decrease in the number of cases where referral source was known.

Table 5

Accepted RJ Cases: Descriptive Information

Conferences, victim-offender mediation, and healing circles are the most common type of RJ models used

In the 2016 report, the WGSC asked ministries to report the kind of RJ models used. Though this question was not included in the baseline survey, it was included in the year 1 and the year 2 survey. Eighteen of the 26 responding ministries were able to provide this information. Just under half of those ministries (44.4%, n=8) reported using some type of conference, with justice conferences being the most common type reported (5 ministries), but also included family group conferences. Victim-offender mediation and healing circles were also very common (50%), each being used by at least 9 ministries.

Reaching the Target: Jurisdictional Data for 2017/2018 to 2019/2020

Due to the significant negative impact of COVID-19 on all jurisdictions, in June 2020, FPT Ministers approved the WG’s recommendation to extend the timeline to achieve the 5% target increase by an additional two years.²⁴ Additionally, amendments to the baseline data have occurred to better reflect the state of RJ processes in Canada. The year 2 data and the baseline data for number of referrals are provided in Table 6a and 6b below.

Each jurisdiction is responsible for achieving their target. Of the 14 jurisdictions, 9 have already surpassed the 5% target for number of RJ referrals. However, declines in Quebec (which accounts for a large proportion of the national caseload) has resulted in a decrease of referrals of 22.7% at the national level. Note that this data is not meant for cross- jurisdictional comparisons, but to illustrate the journey jurisdictions are on to increase RJ referrals. While this data is not comprehensive, it is hoped that this current snapshot facilitates greater awareness of the challenges and gaps regarding data collection, which will allow for tracking of future improvements in data accuracy and collection in years to come.

As previously noted, should each jurisdiction be successful in achieving their target, this would mean that collectively, and only taking into account jurisdictions who could provide baseline data, the number of reported referrals would increase from 34,346 in 2017/2018 to 36,063 in 2022-23.

Table 6a

Notes: CSC = Correctional Service Canada; NR = no response from jurisdiction.
^*The target is based on year 1 data as baseline data is not available

Table 6b

Notes: CSC = Correctional Service Canada; – data not available; NR = no response from jurisdiction.
^*The target is based on year 1 data if baseline data is not available.
^**% change from baseline is based on year 1 data if year 2 data is not available.

Plans to Increase the Use of RJ Processes

Jurisdictions were asked about their plans as of 2021 to increase referrals, the number of victims and offenders involved in RJ processes to achieve the 5% target by 2022/2023, since data collection for the last cycle of the scan (which occurred in 2019). As shown in Table 7, of the 17 jurisdictions that reported on their strategies, the most frequent response indicated was raising educational awareness. All but two jurisdictions indicated that they are actively increasing education of criminal justice professionals and another 13 jurisdictions (77%) reported that they are raising awareness with groups that work with offenders and victims. Also, of the jurisdictions working to increase awareness, almost all jurisdictions have been working on concrete steps and strategies in achieving the target. Some examples of these steps include: developing communications products, presentations to police about pre-charge diversion, and establishing committees with involvement of a number of criminal justice stakeholders from the court system, police, Crown prosecutors, victim services and correctional services. Aside from raising awareness, increasing programming and developing collaborative partnerships were frequently reported strategies. The importance of increasing funding was less prominent in the year 2 cycle than engagements in previous cycles. For example, in the previous cycle, 90% of respondents indicated they were pursuing strategies for increased funding. Reasons for this change could be different jurisdictions responding to these questions, and the possible impact of COVID-19 which was affecting jurisdictions at the time of data collection.

Despite concrete steps to increase RJ since the baseline, many jurisdictions still reported limited resources (e.g., lack of funding, capacity, and staff member turnover) as a major challenge in implementing their strategies. Moving forward, jurisdictions continued to stress the importance of government and community partnerships as well as ensuring multi-year funding agreements to not only increase but sustain the number of referrals and accepted cases.

Jurisdictions were also asked to again report on lessons learned and best practices that they could offer. Overall, jurisdictions highlighted the same key practices/lessons learned as they did for 2017/2018:

• Importance of government/community partnerships: Many jurisdictions stressed the importance of partnerships, highlighting:
  • their focus on building relationships (e.g., between Crown prosecutors, police, and RJ programs) and clear communication between partners;
  • relationships based on trust and respect, and engaging in activities to build those relationships (e.g., ongoing meetings and communications with RJ agencies);
  • ensuring authentic engagement with Indigenous partners and communities;
  • creating opportunities for RJ agencies to talk and learn from each other; and
  • working together to organize events [e.g., hosting events (such as the National Restorative Justice Symposium) that can foster positive, trusting relationships between the partners].
• Training: Providing face-to-face training in the community (including with community leadership, and managers, etc.) as well as within the criminal justice system (e.g., Crown prosecutors, police, etc.).
• Multi-year funding: Multi-year funding is more effective than annual funding agreements and provides the security to explore and implement improved plans to increase RJ processes.
• Sustained effort and time: Successful initiatives do not happen overnight, or even in just one year. It is important to recognize that fruitful initiatives require sustained effort and time to implement. Further, once implemented, it may still take some time before the desired results can be noticed.

Table 7

Note: Respondents were asked to check all that apply, so totals will exceed 100%. If more than one ministry responded from the same jurisdiction, then the responses were combined and if checked by one ministry, then it was counted for that jurisdiction.

COVID-19 impacted the use of Restorative Justice

Ministries were asked about the impact of COVID-19 on referrals to RJ, as data collection for the 2019/2020 cycle occurred in 2021. While COVID-19 has significantly impacted RJ programs, with the exception of March 2020, most of this impact occurred in the following years, and will be more apparent in the subsequent reports following the 2019/2020 reference period. The questions in the 2019/2020 report focused more on perceptions, than counts of referrals or cases.

Out of the 19 ministries that responded, the majority (67%) indicated that all RJ programs running prior to COVID-19 were currently operational at the time of their response. Most other ministries (22%) stated that between 80-99% of programs were currently operational, with the remaining 11% of ministries indicating that between 50-79% were operational. When asked how COVID-19 during the fiscal year of 2019/2020 has impacted referrals to RJ, only 4 of the responding 14 (29%) ministries stated that referrals initially decreased with COVID-19 but are now back to normal. Another 6 ministries (42%) indicated referrals initially decreased with COVID-19, but have started to increase, and 4 ministries (29%) stated the RJ referrals have decreased. All of the ministries indicated that the pandemic impacted referrals. Examples of actions that have been taken to increase the use of RJ in the context of COVID-19 include the use of virtual platforms for meetings, communication on social media, as well as the extension of grant terms for agencies.

Ministries were also asked how COVID-19 during the 2019/2020 cycle impacted offender and victim participation. Most ministries that responded (10 of 16, 63%) indicated that COVID-19 has impacted offender participation in RJ programs by having no face-to-face meetings, having fewer referrals, requiring remote participation, and over-the-phone participation. The other six ministries (38%) indicated that COVID-19 had not impacted offender participation. Similar results were found for the impact of victim participation in RJ programs, with 68% indicating that COVID-19 had impacted victim participation. The reasons also include lack of resources for virtual participation and less opportunity to meet in-person. Overall, ministries believe that continuing access to technology and offering flexibility in ways to participate will increase participation.

The final set of questions were related to the impact of COVID-19 on RJ services and models in 2019/2020. Almost all respondents (84%) stated that COVID-19 had an impact on RJ services, mostly by the reduction of in-person meetings and the increase in virtual conferencing and programs. Out of the 10 jurisdictions that responded, 60% indicated that COVID-19 had impacted RJ models used, while 40% indicated that there has been no impact on the RJ models used since COVID-19.

In addition, due to the impact of COVID-19 on RJ caseloads and referrals and on the criminal justice system in general, the WG does not intend to collect and produce data for the 2020/2021 reference period. This is consistent with the extension of the target period, which now covers the 2017/2018 to 2022/2023 timeframe, rather than the original end date, which was 2021/2022. Although a scan will not be produced, the WGSC did draft a report entitled ‘The Impact of COVID-19 on Restorative Justice in Criminal Matters in Canada’ that was presented to DMs and Ministers in 2022. Following the onset of COVID-19 and associated restrictions, the analysis surveyed WG jurisdictions across the country to gain information on how COVID-19 has impacted RJ processes and what innovative steps have been taken to deliver RJ services during this time.

The WG will launch the next data collection cycle in 2024. The cycle will cover two reference periods (2021/2022 and 2022/2023), which will complete the 5-year target period. For the next cycle, a much more streamlined report will be submitted to the Deputy Ministers in 2025.

Over the coming months, the WG will engage in discussions, led by the SC, about reporting options. The focus of the discussions will be on the key elements of the report to retain, and on options for dissemination, such as the use of a dashboard to replace the report. In addition, the WG intends to continue to produce indicators on RJ referrals and participation on an annual basis, past the end of the target period, 2022/2023. Making the data collection exercise more efficient will enable the WG to continue with this work.

The SC and WG members are also undertaking several projects and activities to improve data collection and statistical analysis on the use of RJ in Canada. One project currently ongoing is the RJ data quality project, led by Statistics Canada and supported by Justice Canada and the SC. This project aims to improve our understanding of current RJ data holdings at a national level, along with identifying key data gaps and recommendations for improvements.

Data development

Although progress has been made since the baseline report, this report demonstrates the continuing need to increase data collection capacity (either directly from RJ programs or data collection and storage techniques used by ministries overseeing RJ). Despite receiving more surveys in year 2 than the baseline year, many ministries were unable to provide information for many of the indicators. Indicators reported on were often still partially incomplete for a variety of reasons. For example, a number of ministries noted that the information on a given variable reflected only some of their reported programs/agencies because they all collected and reported data separately. While many of the main indicators (number of referrals, accepted cases, offenders) are well represented, most of the additional data elements (e.g., type of offences, victim data, demographics) were only provided for a small sample, therefore the data is not representative of RJ processes and participants across Canada. Like the baseline, this was particularly evident with data on victims, as it was rarely available. While positive strides have been made since the baseline report, this is still an area that requires consideration. Resources towards these efforts continue to be a challenge for many jurisdictions as well. Data is the key to determining progress, and ideally each jurisdiction would be able to provide these statistics regularly. For example, disaggregated data on the ethno-cultural background of offenders and victims using RJ processes can be used to identify underserved communities; trends in the distribution of the types of offences being resolved in RJ programs, such as an increase in crimes against the person, would indicate how RJ is evolving over time. As we move forward, we must also be mindful of any potential increased reporting burden on community-based agencies and place the focus more on FPT partners working together to better collaborate on data collection (particularly in co-funded situations).

Delays in producing the 2019/2020 report

The release of the 2019/2020 jurisdictional scan report was delayed by more than a year for a couple of reasons. First, the pandemic disrupted the normal operations of the WG members. The production of this jurisdictional scan report is a collaborative effort between the FPT ministries involved in the WG (and their related partners) who organize and provide the data, and the SC who is responsible for collecting, compiling, analyzing the data, and developing the scan to disseminate the results. Both the ministries and the SC were impacted by COVID-19, as priorities shifted during this time due to the necessity of responding to the pandemic.

The second reason is that the composition of the SC changed. SC members who led this initiative left the SC, and it took some time to find and train new SC to take on this task. Moving forward, the SC is looking to simplify the data collection and reporting process for this scan, so that the project will be more sustainable. See the next section on the next steps for the jurisdictional scan for more information on these proposed changes.

To address current challenges in the collection and availability of RJ data, and in lieu of the 2020/2021 jurisdictional scan, Statistics Canada, supported by Justice Canada and the SC, is undertaking the Restorative Justice data quality project (RJ data quality project), with a report on the findings expected in 2024. The project team will hold a series of consultations with WG members, associated RJ practitioners and FPT victims’ stakeholders in participating jurisdictions to explore a series of questions concerning data and analysis. The study will involve a thorough investigation of data collection and data storage practices of caseload information and characteristics in community-based RJ programs. The study also includes an examination of jurisdictional differences in data collection processes and procedures, a review of definitions, and availability of data to create variables (e.g., demographics, activities in a case plan, etc.). Finally, the study will look at information needs and data gaps from an RJ perspective and explore ideas for improving RJ data. The conclusion of the report will contain recommendations for improving capacity of programs and organizations in each participating PT to report data and to move towards more comparability or standardization of indicators and definitions across Canada, and to more relevant statistical information on RJ. Findings from the project will help inform the work to revise the scan for subsequent cycles of the report.

Recommendations

A number of recommendations stem from this annual data collection report and supporting document on concrete steps, best practices and plans. To improve our understanding of RJ in Canada, ministries are encouraged to both evaluate their own processes for collecting data (strengths, areas for improvement) and, where possible, contemplate implementing enhancements. The WG also recommends participation in future RJ data projects and research to support building national RJ data. Jurisdictions may need to invest in their capacity to gather data if the goal is to continue to provide annual snapshots and a comprehensive picture of the state of RJ in Canada.

• Ministries continue implementing their plans/strategies to increase referrals and cases to meet or exceed the 5% targets set by Deputy Ministers. Efforts to involve victims, increase victim awareness of RJ processes, and share best practices on victim engagement and participation should continue.
• Ministries should evaluate administrative procedures and data collection processes, striving to capture more victim data that is within capacity to collect, data on participants (e.g., ethnicity, age, and gender), and RJ processes (e.g., various categories of victim, offender and community involvement). Ideally, jurisdictions would develop a centralized database that collects micro-level data. Consultations through the RJ data project should assist with this recommendation.
• Based on consultations from the RJ data project led by Statistics Canada, research should acknowledge definitional differences between RJ programs. More context should be provided when analyzing and disseminating RJ trends and data to the public. The findings should promote and develop relationships that are key components of establishing a research strategy. Current research on data gaps in the areas of outcome studies, return on investments (i.e., cost-benefit analysis), and qualitative research should be addressed.
• The WG should continue its work with FPT jurisdictions towards more comprehensive data collection in the future, focusing on best practices and standardization regarding data collection. A national survey including RJ programs that are not affiliated with WG ministries could be developed in the future to provide a complete picture of RJ. The RJ Data project led by Statistics Canada is an example of this, as several FPTWGRJ partners participated in the consultation on data holdings and gaps. The engagement included discussion of research activities to examine the impacts of the different types of RJ processes and how to increase the collection of RJ data that involve Indigenous and racialized participants.

Conclusion

As directed by FPT Ministers and Deputy Ministers, some progress has been made towards increasing the use of RJ and data collection and many ministries reaching their 5% target, though the findings remain mixed in part due to some of the larger programs reporting decreases in referrals and accepted cases, which impacted national totals. This report presents data on the two-year progress, and in year 2, there were mixed results in the RJ programs, number of referrals, and accepted cases. For example, although referrals have decreased from 34,346 to 26,559, referrals did increase in 9 of 14 jurisdictions. Victim participation has exceeded the 5% target, increasing from 3,570 to 3,782 (17.1% increase from baseline to year 2). Additionally, offender participation has decreased (28,057 in baseline to 18,858 in year 2).

Furthermore, the findings show that only a few indicators are consistently collected, therefore leads to incomplete data on certain indicators such as data on victims. This demonstrates the need for more data on victims and demographic indicators, such as gender and ethnicity.

Lastly, revisions to the scan have been proposed in order to disseminate the information in a more efficient and streamlined process. The jurisdictional scan needs to focus more on data that can be reported consistently for trend analyses. Recommendations from the RJ Data Project that have been highlighted in this report can assist with the changes in the scan.

Appendix A: Participation in the Jurisdictional Scan: Ministries that Returned Data

Note: Nunavut Department of Justice data was fully captured in the IJP submission. ^*While IJP is a federal jurisdiction, their data is integrated with the PT jurisdictions where they operate.

Appendix B: Definitions Used in the Survey

Restorative Justice (RJ; in the criminal justice sector):

An approach to justice that focuses on addressing the harm caused by crime while holding the offender responsible for his or her actions, by providing an opportunity for the parties directly affected by crime – victim(s), offender and community – to identify and address their needs in the aftermath of a crime.

Program:

A unique program that provides RJ services/processes, according to the definition of RJ.

• one program with multiple locations would be one program
• one program serving multiple populations would be one program
• one program could have multiple funding sources
• different programs would have different names

Agency:

A unique organization that provides RJ services/processes, according to the definition of RJ.

• one organization with multiple locations would be one agency
• one organization serving multiple populations would be one agency
• one organization could have multiple funding sources and various programs under their umbrella
• one agency would have one name

Referral:

An act of referring a case for consideration for participation in the RJ program/service.

Case:

An incident/set of circumstances/crime affecting a particular person or persons. A case would typically involve one incident (i.e., crime), and would have one offender and at least one identifiable victim. There could be a series of incidents in one case.

Victim:

A person who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage, or economic loss as a result of a crime. In this case, victims are defined as persons who have been personally harmed, either directly or indirectly, by the offender involved in the case/referral.

Organization:

An organization would include businesses, non-profit organizations, schools, etc.

Accepted Case with a Victim & Offender (VO):

An incident/set of circumstances/crime affecting a particular person or persons that is accepted into an RJ program where the affected parties agree to participate in a RJ process. To be included in this section, an accepted case would include at least one offender who accepts responsibility and consents to participate AND at least one victim who consents to participate in some way (such as participating in a face-to-face RJ process or through indirect means such as exchange of letters or videos, or by providing written or verbal input to the facilitator). An accepted case would meet the eligibility criteria of the program.

Victims are defined as persons who have been personally harmed, either directly or indirectly, by the offender involved in the case/referral. Programs that use surrogate victims (i.e., victims of a different offender than the one involved in the RJ process) would not be counted in this section (they would be included in Section C).

Successfully Completed VO Case:

A case is considered “completed” successfully when a RJ process has taken place, and/or when the primary activity has concluded (e.g., RJ process has occurred, any agreements have been completed, and/or there will be no more or limited contact with participants; the program considers the case closed). A case can be considered completed, even if follow up may occur in the future.

Closed Case without Successful Completion:

Cases that have been closed but not considered to be successfully completed (e.g., victim or offender passes away, victim or offender withdraws participation).

Community Representative:

Someone who participates with the role of representing the community for the purposes of discussing the impact of the crime on the community in a general sense, to explore the community’s role in addressing the root causes of crime and in reintegrating the victim and offender into the community. For example, this could include members of a community-based organization other than the RJ agency, people who are concerned about the impact of the crime on the victim, the offender, or the community as a whole. RJ facilitators, RJ caseworkers, family members, and support people would not count as community representation.

Accepted Case without a Victim or Offender (ORJ):

An incident/set of circumstances/crime affecting a particular person or persons that is accepted into a RJ program where at least one of the affected parties agrees to participate in a RJ process. This section is designed to capture cases that do not include BOTH the offender and direct victim, so for example, accepted cases would include either at least one offender who accepts responsibility and consents to participate OR at least one victim who consents to participate. Processes that incorporate surrogate victims and offenders would be captured under this Section. An accepted case would meet the eligibility criteria of the program.

Successfully Completed Case:

A case is considered “completed” successfully when a RJ process has taken place, and/or when the primary activity has concluded (e.g., RJ process has occurred, any agreements have been completed, and/or there will be no more or limited contact with participants; the program considers the case closed). A case can be considered completed, even if follow up may occur in the future.

Appendix C: Data Submission 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 Comparison

continue the table

Notes: YK = Yukon; NW = Northwest Territories; NU = Nunavut; BC = British Columbia; AB = Alberta; SK = Saskatchewan; MB = Manitoba; ON = Ontario; QC = Quebec; NB = New Brunswick; NS = Nova Scotia; PEI = Prince Edward Island; NL = Newfoundland; CSC = Correctional Service Canada (Federal).

Appendix D: Available Data

Note: Although this chart indicates the number of ministries that were able to report on a given variable, it is important to note that it does not mean that every ministry that reported on a variable were able to provide full data for the variable. For example, some ministries run a number of programs and are only able to report data from a subset of their programs on some indicators. In addition, some ministries were able to report information about an indicator, but not on all response options. For example, when reporting ethnicity some were only able to report Indigenous or non-Indigenous, meaning the data is still somewhat limited.