Publication





Increasing the Use of Restorative Justice in Criminal Matters in Canada:<br />Findings from a 2018-2019 Jurisdictional Scan

Increasing the Use of Restorative Justice in Criminal Matters in Canada:
Findings from a 2018-2019 Jurisdictional Scan

Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on Restorative Justice

Fall 2021

The results presented in this report are for internal discussion purposes only.
A summary of this report may be made public.

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: One Year of Progress
    • Introduction
    • Background
    • Figure 1: A Continuum of Restorative Responses throughout the Justice System
    • Table 1: Revisions to the 2017-18 Baseline Report
  • Methodology
    • Cautions and Limitations
  • Results
    • Key Findings
    • Comparing Baseline to Year 1 Data
    • Table 2: Percent Change on Select Variables between the 2017-18 Baseline and 2018-19 Year 1 Data
    • Figure 2: Youth Accused of Police-Reported Crime, by Clearance Status, Canada, 2009 to 2019
    • Table 3: Age of Offender: Referred and Accepted Cases
    • Table 4: Offence Category for Referred and Accepted Cases
      • Referred RJ Cases: Descriptive Information
    • Table 5: Referral by Criminal Justice Stage and Jurisdiction
    • Table 6: Source of Referral for the 2017-18 Baseline and 2018-19 Year 1 Data
    • Table 7: Police Referrals by Jurisdiction
      • Accepted RJ Cases: Descriptive Information
    • Restorative Justice Cases: Direct Victim Participation
    • Table 8: Offence Category by Direct Victim Participation
    • Table 9: Demographics of Offender by Direct Victim
    • Reaching the Target: Jurisdictional Data for 2017-18 and 2018-19
    • Table 10: Partial, Preliminary Jurisdictional Data for the 2017-18 Baseline and 2018-19 Year 1 Data
    • Plans to Increase the Use of RJ Processes
    • Table 11: Jurisdictional Plans to Increase Referrals and Accepted Cases
    • Progress
    • Challenges and Lessons Learned
  • Discussion
    • Data Collection Practices
    • Defining and Measuring RJ Practices
    • Victim Involvement in RJ Processes
  • Recommendations
  • Conclusion
  • Appendix A: Participation in the Jurisdictional Scan – Ministries that Returned Data
  • Appendix B: Definitions Used in the Survey
  • Appendix C: Participation in the Jurisdictional Scan – Responses Received from WG Members
  • Appendix D: Data Submission 2017-18 and 2018-19 Comparison
  • Appendix E: Available Data
  • Appendix F: Research Initiatives, by Jurisdiction
  • Appendix G: Concrete Steps Made towards Achieving Target, by Jurisdiction
  • Appendix H: Best Practices and Lessons Learned as Jurisdictions Implement their Strategies

Executive Summary

The Federal Provincial-Territorial (FPT) Working Group (WG) on Restorative Justice Sub-Committee: Data Collection and Evaluation (WG) conducts jurisdictional scans on the use of Restorative Justice (RJ) processes in the Canadian criminal justice sector. The goal of the scan is to track progress towards a 5.0% increase in RJ processes from the 2017-18 fiscal year to 2022-23.1 This report summarizes the results from the 2018-19 fiscal year, one year after the baseline was collected in 2017-18.2, 3

Survey respondents included 24 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 concrete actions taken.

The results of the survey indicated significant progress towards the target. Jurisdictions have taken concrete action to increase RJ services and improve their data reporting, while the Data Collection and Evaluation Subcommittee has continued to refine the survey to capture a more robust picture of RJ services across the country.

Highlights

The 24 participating ministries supported 393 programs and 244 agencies responsible for delivering RJ programs across the country.4 In 2018-19, 30,727 referrals were received in 2018-2019 which represents a 10.5% decrease from baseline. The number of accepted cases5 (28,669) slightly increased since 2017-18 (28,057).

Changes in data collection and reporting between years limit the ability to interpret overall changes from baseline to year 1. Differences between the 2017-18 baseline data and the 2018-19 year 1 data should not be interpreted as demonstrating change in RJ services across the country but a reflection of the improvements made to data collection and reporting.

At least 27,649 offenders and 5,625 victims participated in RJ processes from 2018-19. This represents slightly fewer offenders (1.5% less) and more victims (57.6% more) from the 2017-18 baseline. The number of ministries reporting on the number of victims significantly increased from baseline (where 55.0% of ministries reported the number of victims) to the year 1 survey (where 85.0% reported the number of victims). This increase in reporting impacts the higher number of victim participants between years. 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 as the majority of jurisdictions were able to provide information on more indicators than last year.

  • For ministries that could provide age of offender on referral, over half (56.1%) involved a young person (aged 12 to 17; see Table 3 of main report).
  • Where stage of referral was known (95.1%), almost all referrals occurred at the pre-charge (46.7%), or post-charge (51.7%) stage. Remaining referrals were pre- or post-sentence. Quebec accounted for 70.7% of the number of referrals at pre-charge which impacted the overall numbers. There was high variation across jurisdictions from 76.0% of referrals at pre-charge in British Columbia to 7.1% in New Brunswick (see Table 5 of main report).
  • The majority of RJ referrals were for crimes against property (51.0%), and against the person (37.9%; see Table 4 of main report).
  • Of the cases with data (36.3% of cases), the majority of accepted cases were successfully completed (81.2%).

In interpreting the results, there are a number of limitations that should be considered, 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.
  • Data on RJ processes are limited, as the only consistent indicators collected by all ministries were the number of referrals and offender participation.
  • Coverage of many indicators has increased since last 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 (e.g., victim participation, gender and ethnicity).
  • 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.
  • Data on victim participants (e.g., number of victims approached to participate, demographics of victim participants) was rarely available, and efforts will be made to address this gap.

Due to these limitations and questions around standardized definitions apply across the country, cross-jurisdictional comparisons are not possible. In addition, due to changes in data collection, only limited information regarding change in RJ from baseline to year 1 can be made. This report therefore presents the best data available at this time, representing one year’s worth of progress since the 2017-18 baseline.

Recommendations

  1. Ministries continue to implement their plans/strategies to increase referrals and cases.
  2. Continue efforts to involve victims and increase victim awareness of RJ processes, as well the participation of community members in RJ processes.
  3. Ministries 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 (e.g., ethno-cultural identity, age, and gender).
  4. The WG continues its work with FPT jurisdictions towards more comprehensive data collection in the future and in collecting comparable indicators. This could include the development of National Standards for RJ Data Collection so that definitions are consistent across the country and that every program is encouraged to collect the same information reliably.
  5. Establish a national dialogue on best practices and standardization, where possible, regarding data collection.
  6. Dedicate research activities to examine the impacts of the different types of RJ processes on participants and how to measure the participation of Indigenous and non-White populations.

Increasing the Use of Restorative Justice in Criminal Matters in Canada: One Year of Progress Findings from a 2020 Jurisdictional Scan

Introduction

In 2020, the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on Restorative Justice Sub-Committee: Data Collection and Evaluation 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 provides 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. The minimum 5% target was recommended by the FPT working group 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, which may impact their ability to reach the target. Jurisdictions will be asked to complete a similar survey annually over the next three years to inform progress towards the proposed increase.

This report indicates substantial progress since the baseline survey was conducted. This year, data is available for all provinces and territories, and federal partners. Jurisdictions have taken concrete action to improve the quality of their data. Additionally, despite new data challenges arising, the majority of jurisdictions have managed to improve the quality of their data reporting and have shared the lessons they have learned and best practices they have developed in overcoming those challenges.

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 release. 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

Figure 1: A Continuum of Restorative Responses throughout the Justice System

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 Data Collection and Evaluation subcommittee of the WG conducted a baseline survey for the 2017-18 fiscal year on the use of RJ processes in the Canadian criminal justice sector. To facilitate reliable data collection, RJ was defined as:

“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 those directly affected by crime – victims, offenders and communities – to identify and address their needs in the aftermath of a crime.” RJ supports healing, reintegration, the prevention of future harm, and reparation, if possible.9

In addition to the RJ definition, a number of key RJ indicators were developed (see Appendix B for indicators).10 While the Subcommittee 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 concrete action taken to increase referrals to RJ processes from 14 jurisdictions. In January 2020, FPT Ministers approved the summary baseline report for public release. The main findings in the 2019 report were that jurisdictions cumulatively reported funding/providing 240 programs and funding 242 agencies, which reported receiving a total of 22,576 referrals. Of the 22,576 referrals, at least 16,155 offenders and 10,107 victims were involved, engaged or participated in a RJ process. Since the release of the report four jurisdictions revised their data, one jurisdiction substantially increased numbers as additional data became available, and other jurisdictions had their numbers decrease. Decreases resulted from data corrections and ensuring data was aligned with the scope of the survey. Additionally, one jurisdiction and one ministry re-classified their cases involving both a victim and offender to other RJ processes (cases that have only the offender and potentially a surrogate victim participation) since they are unable to verify the number of cases that involve the victim, slightly decreasing the estimated number of victim participants reported for the 2017-18 fiscal. All amendments were done following discussion and obtaining consensus with the Subcommittee to better align with submissions from other jurisdictions. Table 1 provides a summary of the corrections made to the data published in the 2017-18 baseline report. These revisions do not change the recommendations in the baseline report.

Table 1

Revisions to the 2017-18 Baseline Report
Variable Published Value Revised Value
Number of reported programs 240 233
Number of reported agencies 242 258
Referred cases 22,576 34,346
Number of offenders in accepted RJ cases 16,155 28,057
Number of victims in accepted RJ cases 10,107 3,570
Accepted cases with a known type of victim of participation 2,831 2,738
Accepted cases with face to face participation 1,053 985
Accepted cases with one-way participation 1,305 1,334

To reflect amendments to the baseline data, the 5% target has also been updated:

  • Final RJ referrals numbers were 34,346 in 2017-18 and the updated target is 36,063 in 2022-23; and
  • Final RJ offender and victim numbers were 28,057 and 3,570 respectively in 2017-18 and the updated target is 29,460 and 3,749 in 2022-23.

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 2018-19 fiscal year.11 Seven 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.12 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 to the jurisdictional level in order to provide information about RJ in each jurisdiction.

Data collection occurred from February 2020 to April 2020. However, some jurisdictions noted gaps in data availability and were asked to update their responses once they received most of the data in 2021. Responses were received from 25 ministries/departments in 14 FPT jurisdictions including (see Appendix A). Although 25 surveys were received, 1 ministry noted that all their data was captured in a separate Indigenous Justice Program (IJP) submission and therefore did not have any data to report. Therefore, 24 ministries provided data. In terms of IJP data, this report includes IJP data for all but one of the provinces and territories. IJP data is included in the PT jurisdiction is applies to.

Cautions and Limitations

The results presented in this report do not reflect the full scope of RJ processes across Canada. There are additional RJ processes not funded by governments that are not captured in the survey. In addition, ministries often report having 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 difference 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 and methods. 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 2018-19, 24 ministries reported supporting 393 programs and 244 agencies delivered RJ services (for definitions of programs and agencies, refer to Appendix B).13, 14
  • There were 30,727 referrals in 2018-19, a 10.5% reduction from the 34,346 referrals reported at baseline. There was a very minor decrease (1.5%) in offender participation from 28,057 in 2017-18 to 27,649 in 2018-19.
  • The number of Ministries reporting data on victim numbers increased from 8 Ministries at baseline to 20 Ministries in the 2018-19 fiscal. Therefore, it is not surprising that the reported number of victims increased in 2018-19 with at least 5,625 victim participants. This is up from 3,570 victims in the baseline. The higher number of victim participation is likely a reflection of increased reporting.
  • Stage of referral was known in 95.1% of referrals. The majority of RJ referrals occurred at pre-charge (46.7%) or post-charge (51.7). There was high variation across jurisdictions with Quebec accounting for most pre-charge referrals (see Table 4). Remaining referrals were pre- or post-sentence.
  • Most referrals were for crimes against the property (51.0%) or crimes against the person (37.9%).
  • Of cases with completion data (36.3% of cases reported by 20 of 24 jurisdictions), most cases were successfully completed (81.2%).10
  • Most ministries (n = 20) were able to provide data regarding age of offenders referred for RJ (87.5% of cases) with 56.1% of these cases involving a young offender. Gender was available from about half (45.2%) of the jurisdictions with 59.7% male, 38.5% female, and 1.8% were gender diverse/other. Ethno-cultural background of the offender was only available in 29.5% of cases.
  • Demographic information for victims were rarely available. For referred victims, gender was reported in 5.7% of cases, age in 4.4% of cases, and ethno-cultural background in 3.2% of cases.

Comparing Baseline to Year 1 Data

The differences between the 2017-18 baseline data and the 2018-19 year 1 data should not be interpreted as demonstrating change in RJ services across the country but a reflection of the improvements made to data collection and reporting.

Although a decrease in referred cases was observed, the number of accepted cases increased from 28,057 accepted cases in 2017-18 to 28,669 in 2018-19.15 Of the cases with completion data (of cases), the majority of accepted cases were successfully completed. It is also important to note that because this data captures one fiscal year, it is possible that a case could be opened in 2018-19 but not “completed” until 2019-20 and therefore would not be shown in the completion data.

Table 2 provides information on referred and accepted cases, as well as a select few other key variables. For a jurisdictional breakdown, refer to Appendix D. 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 D 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 in Table 3.

Table 2

Percent Change on Select Variables between the 2017-18 Baseline and 2018-19 Year 1 Data
Variables Year
2017-2018
Year
2019-2020
%
Change
Number of RJ Programs 233 393 68.7
Number of RJ Agencies 258 244 -5.4
Referred Cases 34,346 30,727 -10.5
Total Accepted Cases 28,057 28,669 2.2
Number of Participating Offenders 28,057 27,649 -1.5
Number of Participating Victims* 3,570 5,625 57.6

* The increase in participating victims is impacted by the substantially higher proportion of data reported in year 1 versus the baseline.

As previously mentioned, there were 10.5% fewer referrals at year-1 compared to baseline. This may be related to the long-term trend regarding the decreasing number of youths accused of crime. According to Statistics Canada’s Uniform Crime Reporting Survey, in the last 10 years, the number of youth charged with a crime dropped by 54.3%, from 84,490 in 2009 to 38,603 in 2019, whereas the number of adults charged with a crime has remained stable over the same 10-year timeframe.16 Given that the majority of cases referred to RJ initiatives in 2018-19 are for young persons 12-17 years of age (56.1% of cases, where the age was known), the decrease in referrals might be impacted by this trend (see chart below). It is recommended in future years to look at a proportion of referrals to charge in addition to raw counts. Proportions of referrals are less likely to be impacted by decreasing criminal charges.

Figure 2

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

Figure 2: Youth Accused of Police-Reported Crime, by Clearance Status, Canada, 2009 to 2019
Figure 2: Youth Accused of Police-Reported Crime, by Clearance Status, Canada, 2009 to 2019

Notes: Youth 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.17

Participant Demographics

Similar to last year, the majority of jurisdictions were only able to provide a limited amount of data on offender and victim demographics. See Appendix E for a comprehensive summary of data availability for 2018-19.

Most cases referred and accepted into RJ processes involve male offenders under the age of 18.

Offender age was the most consistently available demographic. Most jurisdictions reported offender age for referred and accepted cases (87.5% and 79.2% respectively, see Appendix E). However, within jurisdictions there were cases with missing data on these demographics. For age, 87.5% referred cases and 80.7% of accepted cases had age information. This represents a significant improvement over the baseline data where only 50.2% and 45.0% of referred and accepted cases provided offender age (see Table 3). While most jurisdictions were also able to report on offender gender (91.7% of referrals and 79.2% of accepted, see Appendix E), there was a high proportion of cases that were missing offender gender within jurisdictions with only 45.5% of and only 25.8% of accepted cases able to report on offender gender (see Table 3).

As indicated in Table 3, for the 2018-19 fiscal, the age and gender of offenders were similar to baseline. Young offenders made up 56.1% of referred cases and 61.3% of accepted cases. In addition, most referred and accepted cases involved a male offender (54.5% of referred and 61.4% of accepted).

Table 3

Age of Offender: Referred and Accepted Cases
  Referred Cases Accepted Cases
  (2017-18) (2018-19) (2017-18) (2018-19)
  # % # % # % # %
Age                
Youth (ages 12-17) 10,218 59.2 15,067 56.1 7,856 62.2 14,185 61.3
Adults (age 18 and older) 7,031 40.8 11,812 43.9 4,770 37.8 8,959 38.7
Total cases with age data 17,249 50.2 26,879 87.5 12,626 45 23,144 80.7
Total cases where age is missing 17,097 49.8 3,848 12.5 15,431 55 5,525 19.3
Gender                
Women 6,941 36.7 5,370 38.4 4,065 34.0 2,751 37.2
Men 11,920 63.1 8,345 59.7 7,859 65.8 4,532 61.4
Gender Diverse 36 0.2 252 1.8 26 0.2 104 1.4
Total cases with gender data 18,897 55.0 13,967 45.5 11,950 42.6 7,387 25.8
Total cases where gender is missing 15,449 45.0 16,760 54.5 16,107 57.4 21,282 74.2

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

Similar to last year, offender’s ethno-cultural background was the least reported offender demographic, with less than one-third (29.5%) of all referred and 20.7% of accepted cases having information for 2018-19. Last year (2017-18) offender ethno-cultural background and gender were reported for 31.0% of referred cases and 22.5% of accepted cases.

Data reporting for all victim demographics has slightly improved.

While it is challenging for most ministries to provide information on victims (see Appendix E) 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 2018-19, gender information was provided for 5.7% of victims (compared to 3.8% in 2017-18), age information was provided for 4.4% of victims (compared to 3.5% in 2017-18), and information on ethno-cultural background was provided for 3.2% of victims (compared to 1.7% in 2017-18). For accepted cases, in 2018-19, gender information was available for 5.5% of cases (compared to 2.6% in 2017-18), age information was available for 4.4% of cases (compared to 3.1% in 2017-18) and ethno-cultural background information was available for 3.4% of cases (compared to 1.9% in 2017-18). While there is not enough information to reliably report victim demographics or trend, the increase in reporting clearly demonstrates that jurisdictions are making improvements to their data collection processes.

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

For 2018-19, all but two (of 24) ministries provided information on offence category for referred cases. There has been little change between this year and the 2017-18 baseline. As indicated in Table 4, when offence category is reported, crimes against the property still represent approximately half (51.0%) of all cases, followed by crimes against the person (37.9%).

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 process18. As indicated in Table 4, crimes against the person and crimes against property are the most common offence category, representing 36.2% and 50.6% 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.

Table 4

Offence Category for Referred and Accepted Cases
  Referrals Accepted Cases
  2017-18 2018-19 2017-18 2018-19
Offence Category # % # % # % # %
Crimes against the person 6,972 38.1 7,060 37.9 4,938 39.4 6,202 36.2
Crimes against property 9,290 50.8 9,507 51.0 6,238 49.7 8,662 50.6
Narcotic offences 766 4.2 470 2.5 557 4.4 404 2.4
Traffic offences 1,222 6.7 1,490 8.0 784 6.3 1,764 10.3
Administration of Justice offences 52 0.3 122 0.7 23 0.2 88 0.5
Total cases with offence category data 18,302 53.3 18,649 60.7 12,540 44.7 17,120 59.7
Total cases missing offence category 16,044 46.7 12,078 39.3 15,517 55.3 11,549 40.3

Referred RJ Cases: Descriptive Information

In addition to working towards the 5% target, jurisdictions have made major improvements in their data collection processes. For example, the availability of descriptive information on referred and accepted cases has improved significantly over the past year. 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

This year’s data represents a significant improvement in the amount of cases for which referral stage was provided. Last year the referral stage was known for only 57.9% of referred cases, whereas this year referral stage was known for 95.1% of referrals representing 22 of 24 participating ministries and all 14 jurisdictions. In year 1 (2018-19) the majority (98.4%) of cases were referred at either the pre- or post-charge stage, similar to baseline results (where 98.3% of cases were referred at the pre- or post-charge stage). The overall numbers are heavily influenced by jurisdictions with higher numbers of referrals. For example, Quebec accounts for 48.7% 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 5 below.

Table 5

Referral by Criminal Justice Stage and Jurisdiction

Baseline (2017-18)
  Pre-charge Post-charge Pre-sentence Post-sentence Total
  # % # % # % # % #
YK 23 63.9 0 0 0 0 13 36.1 36
NW 105 77.2 31 22.8 0 0 0 0 136
NU 97 57.7 71 42.3 0 0 0 0 168
BC 1,219 76.5 312 19.6 0 0 62 3.9 1,593
AB 28 1.8 1,525 98.2 0 0 0 0 1,553
SK 289 8.8 3,000 91.2 0 0 0 0 3,289
MB 1,161 28.8 2,869 71.2 0 0 0 0 4,030
ON 984 36.7 1,696 63.3 0 0 0 0 2,680
QC 4,013 93.5 280 6.5 0 0 0 0 4,293
NB 20 43.5 26 56.5 0 0 0 0 46
NS 569 30.3 1,231 65.7 57 3.0 18 1.0 1,875
PEI 7 41.2 10 58.8 0 0 0 0 17
NL
CSC 0 0 0 0 0 0 144 100 144
All* 8,387 42.6 11,020 56.0 57 0.3 224 1.1 19,688

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

Year 1 (2018-19)
  Pre-charge Post-charge Pre-sentence Post-sentence Total
  # % # % # % # % #
YK 14 11.6 101 83.5 0 0 6 5 121
NW 18 37.5 30 62.5 0 0 0 0 48
NU 51 38.6 81 61.4 0 0 0 0 132
BC 1,051 76.0 281 20.3 23 1.7 28 2.0 1,383
AB 108 9.3 1,033 88.6 8 0.7 17 1.5 1,166
SK 317 10.1 2,807 89.9 0 0 0 0 3,124
MB 751 20.1 2,976 79.8 0 0 1 0 3,728
ON 880 27.6 2,304 72.4 0 0 0 0 3,184
QC 10,062 70.7 4,128 29.0 0 0 45 0.3 14,235
NB 6 7.1 70 82.4 0 0 9 10.6 85
NS 435 22.4 1,398 72 81 4.2 29 1.5 1,943
PEI 3 14.3 16 76.2 0 0 2 9.5 21
NL 0 0 8 9.1 80 90.9 0 0 88
CSC 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 100 140
All* 13,664 46.7 15,102 51.7 192 0.7 271 0.9 29,229

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

There were also a substantial improvements in the data available regarding the referral source. For the baseline year, the referral source was known for slightly more than a quarter (27.8%) of cases, whereas nearly three-fourths (71.7%) of cases for 2018-19 had a known referral source. Therefore, any difference between the baseline year and year 1 is impacted by the increased coverage of the indicator and should not be interpreted as change in referral sources.

In 2018-19, the proportion of cases referred by the Crown/Prosecution decreased by 9.6%, from 61.9% in 2017-18, to 52.3% in 2018-19, but still remained the most common source of referral (see Table 6). The proportion of cases referred by the Police increased by 8.3% from baseline to year 1. The increase in police referrals is driven by additional coverage of the indicator in a couple jurisdictions rather than a proportional increase in police referrals from baseline to year 1 (see Table 7 for a Jurisdictional breakdown).

Table 6

Source of Referral for the 2017-18 Baseline and 2018-19 Year 1 Data
Referral Source 2017-18 2018-19
  # % # %
Police 2,915 30.5 8,548 38.8
Crown/Prosecution 5,920 61.9 11,522 52.3
Defense/Legal aid/Bar 0 0.0 4 0.0
Courts 127 1.3 726 3.3
Corrections 393 4.1 397 1.8
Offender 102 1.1 369 1.7
Victim 30 0.3 27 0.1
Community member/organization 73 0.8 443 2.0
Referrals where source was known 9,560 27.8 22,036 71.7
Referrals with missing source data 24,786 72.2 8,691 28.3

Table 7

Police Referrals by Jurisdiction
  Baseline
(2017-2018)
Year 1
(2018-2019)
Jurisdiction # % # %
Nunavut 97 56.7 55 41.7
Northwest Territories 105 77.2 20 41.7
Yukon 13 52.0 16 12.0
British Columbia 1,071 60.5 715 52.9
Alberta 21 1.4 149 8.4
Manitoba 169 13.9 192 5.1
Ontario 860 34.6 785 26.1
Quebec 6,187 43.4
New Brunswick 27 58.7 6 7.0
Nova Scotia 551 29.6 422 21.7
Prince Edward Island 1 4.8

Accepted RJ Cases: Descriptive Information

Limited Information regarding Type of Victim Participation

This year, type of victim participation was reported by 5 ministries representing 5 jurisdictions. The most common way victims participated in RJ was to meet face-to-face with the offender, representing over half (58.8%) of the cases where victim participation was known. In about one-fifth (21.7%) of these cases, victims used indirect forms of communication (e.g., shuttle communication, back and forth through facilitator).

This demonstrates a large change when compared to the baseline. This is likely due to reporting differences as different ministries reported in different years and only a small number of ministries able to report on the data. In addition, larger shifts can occur with fewer participants and this indicator has limited coverage. Last year, the most common type of victim participation was one-way participation, representing a little less than half (48.7%) of cases, followed by face-to-face meetings at 36.0%.

Conferences and mediation are the most common type of RJ models used

In the 2016 report, the Subcommittee asked ministries to report the kind of RJ models used. Though this question was not included in the 2017-18 survey, it was included in the 2018-19 survey. Twenty of the 24 responding ministries were able to provide this information. Half (50.0%, 10) of those ministries reported using some type of conference, the most common type being accountability conferences (reported by all 10 ministries), but also included family group conferences and youth justice committee conferences. Mediation and healing circles were also very common, each being used by at least 9 ministries. This year’s results are similar to 2016 findings, in which victim-offender mediation, healing circles and accountability conferences were the three most commonly used models. Some of the other common models ministries reported include: community/cultural justice forums, program/cultural specific processes, and sentencing circles.

Restorative Justice Cases: Direct Victim Participation

Two types of RJ case were asked about, those that had participation from both offenders and direct victim (VO), and those that did not have participation from the direct victim (ORJ). Six participating ministries (25%) were able to report on both types of cases. Considering that this data is only from a few ministries, it should not be considered representative of RJ cases.

As outlined in Table 8 below a larger proportion of cases with a direct victim participating are offences against the person than those without a direct victim participation. Data is only reported for 5 of the 6 jurisdictions as 1 jurisdiction was not able to report on offence category. There are a higher proportion of other offences in cases with no direct victim participation, though this is not consistent across jurisdictions.

Table 8

Offence Category by Direct Victim Participation
  Person Property Administration Narcotics Traffic Total
Jurisdiction # % # % # % # % # % #
YK                      
VO 10 31.3 16 50.0 1 3.1 0 0.0 5 15.6 32
ORJ 3 42.9 2 28.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 28.6 7
BC                      
VO 130 31.6 268 65.2 3 0.7 7 1.7 3 0.7 411
ORJ 3 42.9 2 28.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 28.6 7
SK                      
VO 519 28.8 1,240 68.9 36 2.0 6 0.3 0 0.0 1,801
ORJ 510 16.7 1,322 43.4 969 31.8 244 8.0 0 0.0 3,045
NB                      
VO 29 51.8 22 39.3 5 8.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 56
ORJ 7 36.8 7 36.8 4 21.1 1 5.3 0 0.0 19
NS                      
VO 390 23.9 1,125 69.0 92 5.6 8 0.5 16 1.0 1,631
ORJ 5 2.3 18 8.3 140 64.5 47 21.7 7 3.2 217
Total VO 1,078 27.4 2,671 67.9 137 20.3 21 2.5 24 17.3 3,931
Total ORJ 530 16.0 1,369 41.3 1,113 33.6 292 35.0 9 31.8 3,313

Notes: YK = Yukon; BC = British Columbia; SK = Saskatchewan; NB = New Brunswick; NS = Nova Scotia; VO = direct victim; ORJ = no direct victim

Demographic information regarding gender of the offender was available for 5 of the 6 ministries and Age of the offender from 4 out of 6 ministries. For the most part the gender of the offender was fairly balanced between type of cases. There are some differences in Ontario as there were some that were other gender or missing in cases with no direct victim participation. The Yukon also was not as balanced, but this is likely impacted by the few cases. Regarding age, there was a higher proportion of adults in cases that included direct victim participation as seen in Table 9 below.

Table 9

Demographics of Offender by Direct Victim
  Jurisdiction by Direct Victim (VO)
Demographics BC NB NS ON YK Total
Gender:            
Male # 324 31 771 12 20 1,158
% 51.8 60.8 58.3 54.6 71.4 56.5
Female # 293 17 552 10 8 880
% 46.8 33.3 41.7 45.5 28.6 42.9
Other/Missing # 9 3 0 12
% 1.4 5.9 0 0.6
Age:            
Adult # 315 29 1,002 16 1,362
% 56.4 60.4 75.7 4.1 58.6
Youth # 244 19 321 377 961
% 43.7 39.6 24.3 95.9 41.4

continue Table 9

Demographics of Offender by no Direct Victim (ORJ)
  Jurisdiction by no Direct Victim (ORJ)
Demographics BC NB NS ON YK Total
Gender:            
Male # 136 13 286 351 2 788
% 51.9 59.1 75.9 66.4 40 65.9
Female # 126 9 91 97 3 326
% 48.1 40.9 24.1 18.3 60.0 27.3
Other/Missing # 0 0 81 81
% 0.0 0.0 15.3 6.8
Age:            
Adult # 212 13 189 425 839
% 65 100.0 66.6 22.5 33.4
Youth # 114 0 95 1,467 1,676
% 35.0 0.0 33.5 77.5 66.6

Notes: BC = British Columbia; NB = New Brunswick; NS = Nova Scotia; ON = Ontario; YK = Yukon; VO = direct victim; ORJ = no
direct victim.

The last comparison is regarding the successful completion rate. Overall the completion rate for cases that involved the direct victim was 95.0% whereas for cases without a direct victim, it was 71.2%.

Reaching the Target: Jurisdictional Data for 2017-18 and 2018-19

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.19 Additionally, amendments to the baseline data (2017-18) have occurred to better reflect the state of RJ processes in Canada. The 2018-19 data and the revised 2017-18 baseline data for number of referrals, number of participating offenders and number of participating victims are provided in Table 10 below. Note that this data is not meant for cross- jurisdictional comparisons, but to illustrate the journey jurisdictions are on to increase RJ processes. 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.

Each jurisdiction is responsible for achieving their target. As previously noted, should each jurisdiction be successful, 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 2017-18 to 36,063 in 2022-23, and the number of reported participating offenders and victims would rise from 28,057 and 3,570 respectively in 2017-18 to 29,460 and 3,749 in 2022-23.

Table 10

Partial, Preliminary Jurisdictional Data for the 2017-18 Baseline and 2018-19 Year 1 Data
  # of Cases Referred # of Accused/Offender Participants
Jurisdiction 2017-18 2018-19 % Change Target # 2017-18 2018-19 % Change Target #
Alberta 1,591 1,779 11.8 1,671 1,541 1,628 5.7 1,618
British Columbia 1,813 1,439 -20.6 1,904 1,729 1,103 -36.2 1,815
Manitoba 4,777 3,780 -20.9 5,016 902 881 -2.3 947
New Brunswick 44 86 95.4 46 46 72 56.5 48
Newfoundland & Labrador NR 89 93** NR 79 83**
Northwest Territories 136 48 -22.8 143 65 30 -53.9 68
Nova Scotia 1,876 132 N/A 1,970 NR 1,914 N/A N/A
Nunavut 171 48 -64.7 180 171 67 -60.8 180
Ontario 3,145 3,607 14.7 3,302 2,914 2,626 -9.9 3,060
Prince Edward Island 17 59 247.1 18 14 38 171.4 15
Quebec 17,296 14,335 -17.1 18,161 17,296 14,219 -17.8 18,161
Saskatchewan 3,293 3,157 -4.1 3,458 3,325* 4,847 45.8 3,491*
Yukon 43 126 193.0 45 27 120 344.4 28
Federal: CSC 144 140 -2.8 151 27 25 -7.4 28
Total 34,346 1,779 36,157 28,057 27,649 29,543

Notes: CSC = Correctional Service Canada; – data not available; NR = no response from jurisdiction.

*Saskatchewan reports number of cases for referrals and number of charges for offender and participants. This results in a higher number of participants than cases.
**The target is based on year 1 data as baseline data is not available

Plans to Increase the Use of RJ Processes

Lastly, jurisdictions were asked about their plans to increase referrals and number of victims and offenders involved in RJ processes within the established timeline. As shown in Table 11, of the 11 jurisdictions that reported on this, the majority of jurisdictions plan to use a number of strategies to achieve the target. The most frequent response indicated for 2017-2018 fiscal was increased funding, with all but one jurisdiction indicating that they are actively pursuing additional funding for the programs and agencies they oversee. Of the 10 jurisdictions that sought additional funding, 80.0% of them have already made concrete steps towards obtaining additional funding and some jurisdictions have already successfully found new funding avenues and opportunities. Aside from funding, increased public awareness, increased awareness/education for groups that work with victims and/or offenders, increased awareness/education for criminal justice system professionals, and collaborative partnerships between RJ agencies, justice sector organizations, and other organizations are frequently reported strategies.

Table 11

Jurisdictional Plans to Increase Referrals and Accepted Cases
Strategy # of jurisdictions who identified strategy # of jurisdictions taken concrete steps to implement strategy
  # % # %
Increased funding 10 90.9 8 80.0
Increased public awareness 9 81.8 8 88.9
Increased awareness/education for groups that work with victims and/or offenders 9 81.8 8 88.9
Increased awareness/education for criminal justice system professionals 9 81.8 7 77.8
Increased programming 8 72.7 6 75.0
Collaborative partnerships between RJ agencies, justice sector organizations, and other groups to increase referrals/cases facilitated with RJ (e.g., BC Blueprint Project) 9 81.8 6 66.7
More training for RJ programs/practitioners 8 72.7 4 50.0
Development/enhancement of standards or guidelines 8 72.7 4 50.0
Development of or changes in policies and/or protocols 5 45.5 2 40.0
Other:

  1. Collaborate with a community organization to provide surrogate victim-offender mediation. This would mean additional victim referrals
  2. New specialty courts are running. Some with RJ principals.
2 18.2 1 50.0

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.

Progress

As in the baseline survey, jurisdictions were asked to comment on their progress, concrete steps taken, future steps, challenges and lessons learned, pertaining to each relevant strategy. Overall, jurisdictions reported progress as evidenced through various concrete steps, including:

  • Securing additional funding for their programs/agencies;
  • Holding events (conferences, symposiums, meetings, and trainings);
  • Hiring additional staff;
  • Creation and implementation of new programs, projects and/or policies;
  • Meeting with various Indigenous communities to explore their interest in developing RJ programs within their communities;
  • Training of Crown prosecutors and/or other criminal justice professionals;
  • Investing in and/or conducting research (see Appendix F); and
  • Investing in better data reporting.

For concrete steps identified by jurisdiction, see Appendix G.

Challenges and Lessons Learned

Despite concrete steps to increase RJ since the 2017-18 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 2017-18:

  • 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) 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.

For best practices/lessons learned identified by jurisdiction, see Appendix H.

Discussion

The purpose of this data collection exercise was to better understand national RJ caseloads and, with data collection repeated annually over a 5 year period, to track changes in caseloads over time. Despite the low reporting of some indicators, a number of interesting findings emerged.

Data Collection Practices

Although progress has been made since the 2017-18 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 this 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, 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.20 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, 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).

Defining and Measuring RJ Practices

To ensure accuracy of any data collection, establishing definitions of what is being captured is critically important. In consultation with the WG, and as evidenced in the 2016 report, it was apparent that there are a wide variety of RJ processes occurring with varying interpretations to the consensus definition. Ideally, all categories of RJ processes would be captured, but for the purposes of this report the only distinction made was processes with and without victim involvement as the number of victim participants was one of the indicators in the 5% target.

One of the primary achievements of the 2016 exercise was the establishment of definitions that can be used by all jurisdictions. Nevertheless, while these definitions were established, many key terms are still interpreted and/or defined differently across ministries, and additional time and discussion is still required to achieve consistency in their use. Like the baseline year, slight revisions were made to this year’s survey to add further clarity to the definitions and questions, ideally resulting in more accurate data collection.

The 2016 exercise also required the WG to examine the types of RJ processes that can occur and discuss how best to categorize them for accurate measurement. As we progress and ministries continue to improve their data reporting, it will be useful to be able to categorize and capture data on all types of processes (i.e., victim-offender dialogue; healing circles; sentencing circles, conferences) and to examine outcomes.

One option for the future might be a “Roadmap Project”, a study that would involve a thorough investigation of data collection and data storage practices of caseload information and characteristics in community-based RJ programs. The study could include 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.). The conclusion of the report could be a roadmap to improving capacity of programs and organizations in each participating PTs to report data and to move towards more comparability or standardization of indicators and definitions across Canada.

Victim Involvement in RJ Processes

Although victims are central to the RJ process,21 victim involvement is not always possible for many reasons. First, many victims do not want to participate in a RJ process. Second, there may be cases where no direct victim is identified. Third, sometimes it is not possible/appropriate to locate or reach out to the victim. In all these instances, cases are often accepted into RJ processes without direct victim involvement.

Given that not all jurisdictions were able to submit this data, the data that was submitted indicated that victims were involved in various degrees, in the RJ process in at least 42.8% of all accepted cases in 2018-19. Due to the limitations in data collection and reporting, it is difficult to determine whether this is an accurate reflection of victims’ desire for RJ. 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. For example, the experience of Saskatchewan and some other jurisdictions is that 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 of RJ processes.

Another important consideration when examining this data is the majority of pre- and post-charge diversion cases are property crimes. This may be relevant regarding the participation of victims, as they may be less likely to want to participate in RJ processes when the impact of the crime was relatively minor and the process does not affect the sentence. Research has shown that victims seem to benefit by participating in RJ processes in cases involving crimes against the person, particularly in cases of serious crime.

RJ philosophy would suggest that programs should be committed to the involvement of victims, offenders, and where appropriate, communities, and 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 through 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 will want to engage in RJ, RJ processes should continue to strive to give victims the opportunity to participate if they are interested.

Recommendations

A number of recommendations stem from this annual data collection:

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 a national dialogue on best practices in data collection to obtain more accurate and complete data, and to better facilitate standardization of data collection on RJ across the country, perhaps to be facilitated by the Data Collection and Evaluation Subcommittee. 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.

  1. Ministries continue implementing their plans/strategies to increase referrals and cases. Questions will be added to future questionnaires to continue to track progress.
  2. Efforts to involve victims, increase victim awareness of RJ processes, and share best practices on victim engagement and participation should continue. The WG intends to develop supplementary materials on best practices for engaging victims. The Joint Subcommittee on Victim Issues in RJ, which includes representatives from the WG and on Victims of Crime, has been developing a literature review that could be used as a basis for this.
  3. Ministries should evaluate administrative procedures and data collection processes, striving to capture more data on participants (e.g., ethnicity, age, and gender) and RJ processes (e.g., various categories of victim, offender and community involvement) and, ideally, a centralized database per jurisdiction. For example, consistent data gathering on process type, as well as ethnicity, age and gender for both victim and offender participants would enhance our understanding of the population experiencing different categories of RJ processes.
  4. The WG to continue its work with FPT jurisdictions towards more comprehensive data collection in the future. Several jurisdictions have expressed interest in this and have indicated that this data collection exercise has been valuable in helping them to consider a number of issues regarding the use of RJ and how that relates to both research and program development. As previously discussed, the WG will also discuss the idea of a “Roadmap Project” about data collection and data storage practices in community-based RJ agencies and supporting organizations across Canada.
  5. Establish a national dialogue on best practices and standardization regarding data collection. This could include the development of National Standards for RJ Data Collection so that definitions are consistent across the country and that every program is encouraged to collect the same information reliably.
  6. Dedicate research activities to examine the impacts of the different types of RJ processes and how to increase the participation of Indigenous and minority populations. The WG will continue discussions on the additional variables suggested by members for inclusion in future data collection efforts (e.g., information on who initiates referrals/cases).

It will also be important to continue efforts to involve communities in RJ and increase community awareness of RJ processes. The WG will consider recirculating the public materials previously prepared about community engagement.

Conclusion

As directed by FPT Ministers and Deputy Ministers, some progress has been made towards increasing the use of RJ and data collection. Data collection definitions were developed, surveys were created to collect national data, and data challenges and gaps have been identified. This report presents data on one year of progress, and in that year, jurisdictions have made significant progress on a number of fronts to support the increased use of RJ and to measure progress toward the target. Although referrals have decreased from 34,346 to 30,707, victim participation has already exceeded the 5% target, increasing from 3,570 to 5,625 (representing an increase of 57.6%). Additionally, offender participation has had a minor decrease (28,057 in 2017-18 to 27,649 in 2018-19) and data reporting has improved for most of our selected variables. This report is evidence that ministries are dedicated to increasing RJ processes across the country, and these vital steps will help FPT jurisdictions move forward towards reaching our goal.

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

 
Jurisdiction Ministry
British Columbia Public Safety and Solicitor General
Alberta Justice and Solicitor General (two separate submissions)
Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice – Integrated Justice Services
Manitoba Justice
Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General
Quebec Department of Justice
New Brunswick Department of Public Safety
Nova Scotia Department of Justice
Prince Edward Island Department of Justice and Public Safety
Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Justice and Public Safety
Nunavut*
Northwest Territories Department of Justice
Yukon Health and Social Services
Federal Correctional Service of Canada
Federal* Justice – Indigenous Justice Program (IJP) (13 submissions)

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.

Program22:

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.

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 restorative 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 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).

Appendix C: Participation in the Jurisdictional Scan – Responses Received from WG Members

 
Jurisdiction-Ministry (# of Members) Data or Response Re-Target Indicators Data or Response Re-Strategy Implementation
AB – Justice and Solicitor General (2) Data Response
BC – Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (1) Data Response
MB – Justice (1) Data Response
NB – Department of Justice & Public Safety (2) Data Response
NL – Department of Justice & Public Safety (3) Data Response
NS – Department of Justice (2) Data Response
NW – Government of the Northwest Territories (1) Data Response
NU – Department of Justice (3) Response Response
ON – Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services (2) No response No response
ON – Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (1) No response No response
ON – Ministry of the Attorney General (5) Data Response
PE – Department of Justice and Public Safety of PEI (1) Data Response
QB – Department of Justice (1) Data Response
SK – Ministry of Integrated Justice Services (2) Data Response
YK – Health and Social Services (1) Data YK Response
YK – Department of Justice (2) Data YK Response
Federal – Correctional Service Canada (2) Data Response
Federal – Department of Fisheries and Oceans (3) Not applicable Not applicable
Federal – Department of National Defence (1) Not applicable Not applicable
Federal – Justice Canada (5) Data Response
Federal – Parole Board of Canada (1) Not applicable No response
Federal – Justice Canada (5) Data Response
Federal – Public Safety Canada (2) Not applicable Partial response
Federal – Royal Canadian Mounted Police (5) Not applicable Response
Federal – Statistics Canada (1) Not applicable No response

Appendix D: Data Submission 2017-18 and 2018-19 Comparison

for 2017-18
Jurisdiction Provided Data (Overall)
2017-18
Number of Reporting Ministries
2017-18
Number of RJ Programs
2017-18
Number of RJ Agencies
2017-18
Referred Cases
2017-18
Accepted Cases
2017-18
YK Yes 2 4 9 43 27
NW Yes 1 30 30 136 65
NU Yes 1 25 1 171 171
BC Yes 2 76 37 1,813 1,729
AB Yes 2 16 1,591 1,541
SK Yes 1 2 37 3,293 3,295
MB Yes 2 13 13 4,777 902
ON Yes 2 59 80 3,145 2,914
QC Yes 1 3 33 17,296 17,296
NB Yes 1 2 7 44 45
NS Yes 1 1 9 1,876 0
PE Yes 1 1 1 17 14
NL No NR   0
CSC Yes 1 1 1 144 28
Total 13 18 233 258 34,346 28,057
Number of jurisdictions that provided data for variable     13 12 13 13
for 2018-19
Jurisdiction Provided Data (Overall)
2018-19
Number of Reporting Ministries
2018-19
Number of RJ Programs
2018-19
Number of RJ Agencies
2018-19
Referred Cases
2018-19
Accepted Cases
2018-19
YK Yes 2 14 1 126 123
NW Yes 1 32 1 48 46
NU Yes 1 8 1 132 113
BC Yes 2 106 40 1,439 1,294
AB Yes 3 48 18 1,779 1,631
SK Yes 1 2 39 3,157 4,847
MB Yes 2 14 0 3,780 881
ON Yes 2 96 69 3,607 3,321
QC Yes 2 61 58 14,335 14,263
NB Yes 2 4 6 86 94
NS Yes 2 2 8 1,950 1,914
PE Yes 2 2 1 59 38
NL Yes 1 3 1 89 79
CSC Yes 1 1 1 140 25
Total 14 24 393 244 30,727 28,669
Number of jurisdictions that provided data for variable     14 13 14 14

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 E: Available Data

 
Variable Responding Ministries
(N = 24)
#
Responding Ministries
(N = 24)
%
# Referred Cases 24 100
Referred Cases
Offence Category
23 95.8
Referred Cases
Gender – Offender
22 91.7
Referred Cases
Gender – Victim
13 54.2
Referred Cases
Ethnicity – Offender
21 87.5
Referred Cases
Ethnicity – Victim
12 59.0
Referred Cases
Age – Offender
21 87.5
Referred Cases
Age – Victim
11 45.8
Referred Cases
Stage of Criminal Justice System
22 91.7
Referred Cases
# of Victims Approached
18 75.0
Referred Cases
Organization as Offender
0 0.0
Referred Cases
Organization as Victim
10 41.7
Accepted Cases
# of Cases Accepted
22 91.7
Accepted Cases
# of Participants – Victims
8 33.3
Accepted Cases
# of Participants – Offenders
14 58.3
Accepted Cases
Offence Category
21 87.5
Accepted Cases
Gender – Offender
19 79.2
Accepted Cases
Gender – Victim
13 54.2
Accepted Cases
Ethnicity – Offender
19 79.2
Accepted Cases
Ethnicity – Victim
12 50.0
Accepted Cases
Age – Offender
19 79.2
Accepted Cases
Age – Victim
11 45.8
Accepted Cases
# of Successful Completions
19 79.2
Accepted Cases
# of Community Representatives
4 16.7

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 ministries 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.

Appendix F: Research Initiatives, by Jurisdiction

Alberta

  • “Restorative Justice Review: A Frame for Criminal Justice Transformation in Alberta” by Jennifer Llewellyn, PhD et.al [completed].
  • Options for Restorative Justice in Alberta, 2019 [completed].
  • Jurisdictional scan of current provincial-level RJ policies, procedures, legislation, standardized training [tentative].

New Brunswick

  • Conducting a literature review to inform upcoming work in RJ.

Northwest Territories

  • Participating in an IJP Recidivism Study.

Quebec

  • Madame Catherine Rossi, une chercheure de l’Université Laval, suit le déploiement du PMRG en deux volets qualitatif et quantitatif.

Statistics Canada

  • Published following report on July 2, 2020: “Socioeconomic circumstances of youth who participated in restorative justice in Nova Scotia, 2009/2010”.

Note: This chart only includes jurisdictions that reported research projects or descriptions. Also, though only NWT reported participating in the IJP Recidivism Study, there is representation from X Jurisdictions in the study.

Appendix G: Concrete Steps Made towards Achieving Target, by Jurisdiction

Alberta

  • For the 2018-19 grant term, annual funding for the Alberta Community Restorative Justice Grant was doubled to $720,000.
  • In 2019 the Alberta Restorative Justice Association hosted the annual provincial and federal restorative justice conference in Banff. There were over 350 attendees.
  • Alberta JSG’s Victim Services received federal funding to develop a document and Webinar on “Serving Victims of Crime Through Restorative Justice.”; Victim Services hosted a presentation and round table discussion about the benefits of RJ for its over 100 Victim Service Unit Managers.
  • JSG, in collaboration with the Alberta Restorative Justice Association, is developing a draft set of standards of practice for RJ, for discussion and review around the various tables (e.g. police and the judiciary) currently looking at expanding RJ referrals.
  • Meetings with RCMP and judiciary continue and work plans are being put into place that are shared amongst a variety of service providers (Crown, judiciary, defence council, RCMP, community service agencies, Indigenous serving agencies working in the RJ space; continued coordination and connection building work re: RJ by the Alberta Restorative Justice Association.
  • Meetings with judges, crown and police to inform of the work that Youth Justice Committees do.

British Columbia

  • The BC government awarded over $620,000 in grants to community-based RJ programs through the Civil Forfeiture Crime Prevention and Remediation Grant Program.
  • The BC government has increased the amount of funding that RJ programs can apply for through the Community Accountability Program. This funding will go partly towards increasing awareness and providing training.

Manitoba

  • In the 2019/2020 fiscal Manitoba provided a $400,000 increase in funding for RJ programs and Community Justice Committees (CJC).
  • The Restorative Justice Centre (RJC) in Winnipeg has diversified programming, as well as implemented an Indigenous based cultural program, which involves sharing circles, crafts and teachings for women
  • In Feb 2020, the RJ Branch established RJ North in Thompson in collaboration with the Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF), MKO and the Thompson Restorative Justice Centre (TRJC). RJ North had its first community Triage with partners MMF, MKO, and the TRJC.
  • Several meetings have occurred with First Nations communities regarding expanding RJ services to their communities.
  • The RJ Branch implemented a process for simplifying referrals delivery so programs in the Interlake/Eastman part of the province are able to access referrals in a more-timely manner and Crowns/Police agencies have a one stop shop. To do so, the Restorative Justice Branch has established a centralized mailbox referral system for the Interlake/Eastman areas of the Province.
  • The RJ Branch has recently shared their Healthy Relationships program with Victim Services so victims and offenders of domestic violence will receive the same information in regard to healthy behaviour and healthy relationships.
  • The RJ Branch provides training for IJP and Manitoba funded programs, should training needs be identified by a program or CJC. Additionally, Manitoba has provided training in the area of anger management and domestic violence for IJP funded programs.
  • MB has revised our Community Justice Committee Reference Manual which it provides to Justice Committees.

New Brunswick

  • Secured federal funding to support expansion of RJ and has submitted applications to both the Youth Justice Fund and the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund to receive additional funding.
  • Confirmed that there are First Nations groups in NB interested in developing RJ programs within their communities, and included the members of First Nations communities in NB in an RJ facilitator training session put on by the Government of NB.
  • Contracted RJ facilitator to present to Diversion Coordinators to increase their awareness/understanding of RJ and presented on diversion/RJ during the provincial Public Prosecutions meeting, the NB Legal Aid meeting and to the NB Association of Chiefs of Police.

Newfoundland and Labrador

  • Newfoundland and Labrador received federal funding for the completion of a feasibility study, implementation work and the launch of the new Drug Treatment Court (DTC) pilot in St. John’s. The DTC opened in 2018 for offenders with serious drug addictions, who commit non-violent, drug-motivated offences. This offers court-monitored treatment, random and frequent drug testing, incentives and sanctions, clinical case management and social services support as alternative to traditional criminal justice responses by addressing the underlying problems that contribute to crime.
  • The provincial government launched an Adult Diversion pilot program in March 2019 to divert people charged with non-violent offences from the traditional court room process. Although currently only in two communities, the department is currently working towards implementing it across the province.
  • NL also has a Family Violence Intervention Court (FVIC) process to prevent and reduce incidents of family violence by addressing the roots of violence through teamwork with key community partners. The Court focuses on improving victim safety and offender responsibility. Additionally, the FVIC gives presentations to community groups to increase awareness.
  • The NL Minister of Justice and Public Safety is raising awareness around RJ. Most notably, the Minister proclaimed and November 18-25, 2018 as Restorative justice Week and participated in a panel session on RJ.
  • Victim Services participated in the half-day education session the department organized on increasing RJ practices in our Province.
  • Training sessions on RJ were led by Dalhousie University’s Jennifer Llewelyn for the Department’s solicitors.
  • The Restorative Justice – Shifting the Paradigm Together event was held in February 2019. This educational half day allowed key stakeholders in the criminal justice system (i.e. judiciary, legal aid, corrections, probation, public prosecution, etc.) to develop a greater understanding of the need for RJ in NL.

Nunavut

  • Positions in Cape Dorset, Pond Inlet, Qikiqtarjuaq filled, and RJ programs are now accepting files in those communities.
  • New staff members were hired to fill vacancies.
  • Staff members have been assigned to work on revamping CJOW and RJ Facilitator training manual.
  • Meetings continue to take place between Community Justice Specialists and local RCMP detachments and Crown Prosecutors regarding RJ programming, as well continued training with RCMP and meetings with Crown Prosecutors to develop working relationships.

Northwest Territories

  • Funding was increased in some agreements as part of our effort to stabilize and add consistency to funding amounts which allowed increased allocated funding amounts to communities.
  • Formal inclusion in training activities together with all partners: Trauma-Informed training, RJ, procedural, and others.
  • Partnership building with Probation, Parole, Corrections, PPSC, Victim Services, RCMP and HSS.
  • With the help of IJP, we had regional training sessions as well as included partners in Victim Services Training.

Ontario

  • Additional cost savings analysis has been completed using predictive modelling to estimate potential savings relating to increased diversion to Indigenous RJ Programs for minor offences in some areas where there is a high proportion of Indigenous accused persons.
  • Funding has remained consistent to the existing 58 Indigenous RJ Programs in Ontario. This consistent funding has enabled new programs to become completely operational, increase awareness of the programs and begin accepting referrals on a larger scale. This consistent funding has enabled existing programs to continue to accept referrals at a highly efficient rate. Additionally, internal steps have been taken to explore viable options to expand adult RJ across the province.
  • In Kenora, MAG completed a Justice Centre needs assessment. In consultation with the Ontario Court of Justice, MAG is continuing to work with local Indigenous leadership and organizations, and stakeholders across all sectors to develop a small-scale pilot that will inform the future implementation of a full-scaled Justice Centre in Kenora. The Kenora Justice Centre will include parallel criminal and Indigenous restorative justice processes. The goals of the Kenora Justice Centre are to increase referrals to existing Indigenous Restorative Justice programs, reduce the remand population, facilitate access to multi-disciplinary, culturally-relevant and trauma-informed services delivered by Indigenous organizations and local service providers, incorporate restorative practices into justice system processes, and prioritize solutions so more Indigenous people in northern Ontario can remain in their home communities.
  • IJD has provided funding to support Revitalization of Indigenous Legal Systems Projects aimed at increasing Indigenous community awareness of Indigenous legal principles and systems and available programs that implement Indigenous law including Indigenous RJ Programs.
  • Bimickaway training has been provided to the majority of Victims Services staff who are employed by the Ministry; most staff have received Modules 1 through 4 of Bimickaway. Planning discussions are underway to organizer the delivery of Bimickaway Modules 3, 4 and 5 to crown prosecutors. Module 5 will include information on Gladue and diversion to Indigenous RJ Programs so that crown prosecutors can take what they have learned in the first 4 Modules and apply it in their daily work.
  • Bimickaway is also being offered and some sessions have taken place with probation and parole as well as institutional and operational staff from the Ministry of Solicitor General.
  • IJD participates on a collaborative working group with police, other justice sector professionals and Indigenous RJ Programs staff to streamline RJ referrals. This collaborative work has resulted in increased referrals at the pre-charge stage.
  • IJD has funded an Indigenous RJ Liaison Worker to work directly with police services in Kenora to provide information and seamless connections with Indigenous RJ Programs in that area.
  • Collaborative work is ongoing between Indigenous RJ Programs with local Gladue/Indigenous Peoples Courts, which have been established in nine communities across Ontario – including several in the Toronto area, Thunder Bay, Sarnia, London, Brantford, Cayuga, Walpole Island, Niagara and Ottawa.

Prince Edward Island

  • Funding was provided for public education/awareness activities and for initial training activities.
  • The Department of Justice and Public Safety (JPS) has been committed to funding public education and awareness events in the spirit of building capacity and laying the groundwork for future RJ program development initiatives.
  • In May 2019, JPS committed to funding a one-day provincial symposium to highlight the use and application of restorative practices in Canada. Barry Stuart was the keynote speaker.
  • In December 2019, JPS committed to building capacity through an initial training opportunity. The training will be launched in 2020.
  • In October 2019, the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee for Restorative Justice (the “Committee”) submitted a RJ Advancement Action Plan to senior officials in JPS. The Action outlines proposed next steps with regards to program development in PEI, including the option to pilot a program out of one of the provincial courthouses.
  • In 2019, JPS hosted a one-day provincial symposium to highlight the use and application of restorative practices in Canada. The event involved representatives from various sectors, including justice, education health, social services. This includes community, government and private sector.
  • In addition to the one-day symposium, JPS hosted a session with the Law Society with keynote speaker Barry Stuart. The session discussed the use of RJ in the criminal justice sector and the role of judges/lawyers.
  • In March 2020, JPS will host a session with provincial and Supreme Court judges which will dive deeper into the application of RJ in the criminal and civil justice context.
  • PEI has contracted with a facilitator to lead a two-day Foundational Restorative Justice training and offering to community, government and private sector stakeholders in mid March 2020. Approximately 40 individuals (from across sectors) will receive this in-depth training.
  • In summer 2019, the Advisory Committee applied to the Law Foundation of PEI for financial support to continually host the Community of Interest for RJ sessions and bring speakers from across the region/country to PEI.
  • The Principles and Guidelines for RJ in Criminal Matters (2018) document has been shared with community, private and public sector stakeholders, and has been referenced at public education events and has also been used as a foundational guide for PEI’s Action Plan on RJ Advancement.
  • The Attorney General’s Advisory Committee (the “Committee”) continues to meet regularly to discuss ways to develop RJ in PEI. The Committee comprises of government, private and community sector who work collaboratively and bring their expertise to dive into the issues/considerations relevant to RJ program development. The Committee is responsible for reporting recommendations to the Attorney General and will provide ongoing support as programs are developed. So far, the Committee has already developed a Terms of Reference and guiding principles to inform decision making.

Quebec

  • Financement octroyé l’an dernier pour 5 ans pour le Programme de mesures de rechange pour adultes.
  • Déploiement du programme par phase afin qu’à terme tous les districts seront couverts. Présentement 18/36 districts couverts. Chaque nouveau district reçoit une formation.
  • Pour l’instant, notre sensibilisation du public est limité aux réponses médias et aux divers sites Internet ou médias sociaux du ministère et des partenaires pour faire connaître les programmes.
  • Dans chaque district judiciaire déployé, un Centre d’aide aux victimes d’actes criminels est impliqué. Les employés du centre sont également formés sur ce qu’est la JR.
  • Présentation dans des congrès/symposium/formations dédiées de criminologues, d’avocats et de juges.
  • Avant chaque formation auprès des partenaires locaux, nous nous assurons de prévoir une rencontre préparatoire des partenaires du programme.

Saskatchewan

  • Several divisions of the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General and the Ministry of Corrections, Policing and Public Safety are collaborating to update the Victim-offender Mediation Training Program, which is mandatory for mediators in RJ programs funded by these ministries. Due to COVID-19, the training sessions are being held online on the Web-Ex platform in spring 2021. The trainer’s manual is also being updated. In addition to ensuring that mediators in funded programs continue to access training despite the challenges posed by COVID-19, the review ensured that the materials are consistent with current referral policies; principles of cultural sensitivity and gender-based analysis; and with the “Principles and Guidelines for RJ Practice in Criminal Matters.”
  • In fall 2020, Integrated Justice Services (which serves the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General and the Ministry of Corrections, Policing and Public Safety) held a gathering of the RJ and community justice agencies and a second gathering with fee-for-service mediators who provide RJ services in areas of the province that do not have a funded program. Among other things, the participants discussed new directions for RJ in Saskatchewan; the impact of COVID-19; access and privacy; 2017-18 data regarding referrals in Saskatchewan; community referrals, which involve non-criminal matters; and the “Principles and Guidelines for RJ in Criminal Matters”.
  • During the fall 2020 gatherings mentioned above, Integrated Justice Services organized a discussion with the funded agencies and fee-for-service mediators about the potential for using online processes in RJ. Officials conducted a literature review, gathered documents with good practices and considerations for using online technology in RJ, prepared a short discussion paper, and shared the discussion paper and suggested resources with the participants. The discussion indicated that some of the RJ and Indigenous justice agencies in Saskatchewan have begun experimenting with online processes during COVID-19. Their experiences were mostly positive, although there are challenges such as the difficulty in assessing the body language of clients; technological matters; and the desire for IT supports.
  • Integrated Justice Services provides in-kind support to the Saskatchewan RJ Network, which includes funded RJ and Indigenous justice programs as well as those which do not receive ministry funding; other non-profit organizations in the justice and human service sectors; justice agencies; volunteer organizations; faith communities; and educational institutions. In 2020, a collaborative quarterly newsletter was launched titled The Collective, which promotes RJ education, news, book reviews, and events. The network has its own logo and Facebook page to engage community and increase the awareness about RJ.
  • In 2021, information about RJ will be included in the Victim Services Coordination Training curricula. Through a long term partnership between the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General and Saskatchewan Polytechnic, the training provides a post-secondary credentialed educational opportunity for staff of Saskatchewan’s Police-based Victim Services Programs, which include Indigenous Resource Officers, Missing Persons Liaisons, Victim Services Responders, and Domestic Violence Victim Services Programs. Delivered at least once a year, the training is mandatory for all new staff members and has a total of 75 hours. In September 2021, Police-based Victim Services staff will receive an RJ presentation, focusing on the enhancement of their knowledge of RJ principles and benefits, key stakeholders, resources available in the province and their role in encouraging victims to participate.
  • Integrated Justice Services staff usually give regular presentations about RJ to cadets at RCMP Depot Division in Regina. These presentations are currently on hold due to COVID-19.
  • Integrated Justice Services staff provide in-kind support for Saskatchewan RJ Week. In 2019, they created a fillable form to enable RJ and Indigenous justice agencies to provide information about their RJ Week events. This information is organized into an events calendar. In 2020, they created a toolkit to assist community-based groups with organizing online and in-person events. For example, during RJ Week 2019, the Network organized an event in which national best-selling author Shannon Moroney came to Saskatchewan to speak about RJ at locations such as the public library, College of Law, police services, and a local theatre.
  • In 2019-21 two Integrated Justice Services employees developed an Engaging and Developing Government Employees (EDGE) Personal Project about barriers to referring cases to RJ. This required working with Public Prosecutions as well as other areas of the ministries to develop and circulate a short survey for prosecutors. The resulting data will help support efforts to increase RJ. The project indicated that there is a need to continue reviewing and revising current alternative measures/extrajudicial sanctions policies, consider ways to build capacity in community resources, support the RJ agencies to improve communications with justice agencies regarding the status of a case, and develop materials to create awareness about their programs and services.
  • Staff from Integrated Justice Service supported the organization of the National RJ Symposium, which was held online and hosted by British Columbia in 2020. The RJ Association of British Columbia also provided staff and financial support. The Steering Committee included members from the Canadian RJ Consortium, Correctional Service Canada, John Howard Society of BC, several academics, Vancouver Integrated Youth Probation, Six Nations, and Smart Justice. 291 people registered for an “all access” pass for the NRJS. The keynote dialogues were diverse and well attended and there was a wide variety of workshops. Members of the FPT Working Group on RJ provided positive feedback following the event.
  • Work is continuing on the work plan to increase RJ/community justice, which includes initiatives in areas such as collaboration, training and data collection. For example, stakeholder meetings have continued or begun in additional communities. The stakeholder meetings include RJ programs and Indigenous justice programs funded by the ministries, criminal justice agencies, educators, and other partners.

Federal

  • A briefing note is being prepared by the RJ Division to the Assistant Commissioner Communications and Engagement to seek approval to further explore options to collaborate with a community organization in Quebec that wishes to provide surrogate victim-offender mediation at the federal level.

Note: This chart does not include all concrete steps taken, but highlights unique examples provided from each jurisdiction.

Appendix H: Best Practices and Lessons Learned as Jurisdictions Implement their Strategies

Alberta

  • Increased funding alone does not automatically accompany an uptake in interest in RJ.
  • Continued reinforcement, support and education are critical to enact a change in perspective around RJ. It is not a “one and done” exercise. It requires constant messaging with reinforcement of key concepts, and illustration of successful examples by peers/colleagues in other jurisdictions.
  • Building connections, including all stakeholders at all levels of the planning and implementation process, will be critical to moving ahead efficiently and coherently with efforts to build referrals and referral capacity.

Manitoba

  • The importance of communication and dialogue.
  • The importance of ongoing communication and resolving conflict as it arises.

Newfoundland and Labrador

  • There is a great need for education and information sharing sessions in which participants can come to understand the need for (and use of) RJ in NL, not only for justice professionals, but more broadly.
  • Discussion and communication critical to ensure each stakeholder is on the same page with regard to measuring outcomes.

Northwest Territories

  • We know we need to do more to foster those relationships to help see that our specific outcomes may be different (prosecution/offender support), but our broader goals and vision of safe communities does mean we need to work together.
  • Sometimes it really only requires a facilitator to bring everyone together, not necessarily requires buy-in to restorative practices.

Ontario

  • New programs need consistent multi-year funding to gather community input, establish processes, hire staff, and raise awareness about their programs with local police and crowns. As a result, funding organizations need to provide for enough time for the program to become established for new programs to become fully operational in accepting diversions.
  • New Indigenous RJ Programs need time to gather Indigenous community input, hire staff, establish processes and raise awareness about the availability of programs to police and crowns who have discretion to divert to those programs. It is helpful to have government staff dedicated to helping new programs connect with established programs and to facilitate awareness and connections between police, crowns and Indigenous restorative justice programs.
  • IJD has had to prioritize what tasks are most important and public awareness, outside of Indigenous communities, is not as high on our list as other priorities listed in this table.
  • New Indigenous RJ Programs are more successful if IJD provides support in increasing awareness and facilitating connections with local police and crowns.
  • It takes time and effort to develop a new, effective database but it is well worthwhile in the end.
  • Changes in policy are most effective when coupled with education initiatives supporting those changes in policy.
  • The direction that all criminal Crown prosecutors take Bimickaway showed leadership on the part of the CLD’s Senior Management and demonstrated the importance of this knowledge in the work of criminal Crown prosecutors.
  • Dedicated staff to support the creation of connections and increase knowledge of police and Crown prosecutors of RJ programs is ideal.
  • It takes a lot of effort and time to build an effective, tailored database that will provide functionality for both Indigenous RJ Programs own purposes and IJD’s reporting purposes, but it is well worthwhile.
  • It is important to provide useful functionality for Indigenous RJ Programs so that they can benefit from entering all the data that they collect into government designed databases.
  • Descriptions or definitions of data variables being reported should be clear so that service providers are reporting the same data consistently and using a consistent data collection methodology.
  • Access to other statistical information from other justice sector organizations, such as police and correctional institutions, and Stats Can is needed to perform program impact analysis.

Prince Edward Island

  • It is important and necessary to ensure that various sectors are represented at public education events.
  • It is necessary to have cross-sectoral representation in the development of RJ programming.
  • The experiences and knowledge each representative holds is valuable to ensure a proposed program truly reflects the need of our community.

Quebec

  • Il y a de la résistance de la part de certains partenaires judiciaires, mais la formation et la sensibilisation les aident à mieux comprendre le changement et ainsi, à y adhérer plus facilement.
  • Concertation entre les partenaires est essentielle.
  • Les études sur l’impact de la JR sur les victimes sont très importantes pour aider à atténuer la résistance.
  • Certains professionnels (criminologues et avocats de la défense) sont très intéressés et ils peuvent être d’excellents « porte-parole » de la JR.

Saskatchewan

  • The RJ/community justice workers have various levels of experience. We have found that it is helpful to provide opportunities for the RJ agencies to talk to and learn from each other. During the fall 2020 gatherings described in Appendix F, the workers expressed the desire to network and share information and experiences more regularly.
  • Many community-based RJ and Indigenous justice groups lack staffing and capacity to write funding proposals, develop new initiatives, participate in collaborative events and initiatives, and provide crime prevention and public education work. They often express that they value and appreciate the in-kind assistance provided by Integrated Justice Services on these matters.
  • It takes a significant amount of time, effort, and ongoing attention to establish and maintain positive, trusting, collaborative relationships and initiatives. This includes working with community-based agencies and justice professionals, whether on policy matters, events, or data collection and evaluation. Ministry staff also demonstrate support for RJ by attending events hosted throughout the week by our community partners. This support is both acknowledged and appreciated, helping to strengthen and build relationships.
  • A reflection tool was created in fall 2019 to gather feedback on the “Principle and Guidelines for RJ Practice in Criminal Matters”. Feedback from RJ agencies in SK suggests that more education and awareness is needed on how organizations can incorporate and better understand this document in their work. As discussed in Appendix F, the Principles and Guidelines are being considered in initiatives such as the updates to the Victim-Offender Mediation Training Program.
  • With funding from Justice Canada, SK offered to Victim Engagement Training (VET) to all mediators in funded agencies. Feedback indicates that the VET was highly valuable, but more can be done to focus on the needs of the victim and address the perception that RJ is offender-focused. As discussed in Appendix F, SK Integrated Justice Services will include information about RJ into the Victim Services Coordination Training curricula.
  • More training is needed with the RCMP and frontline workers/crisis responders on the Victim’s Bill of Rights Act. For example, our experience with providing training to RCMP cadets at RCMP Depot suggests that they did not seem to understand how this fits into their policing work and RJ.
  • National organizations and events such as the Canadian RJ Consortium and the National RJ Symposium need a variety of supports, ranging from funding and in-kind assistance to translation. There is also some interest in creating or revitalizing a national RJ award.

Note: This chart only includes jurisdictions that reported best practices and lessons learned.