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.
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.
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.
In interpreting the results, there are a number of limitations that should be considered, including:
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.
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.
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).
In June 2017, FPT Deputy Ministers approved the following future directions for RJ:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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 |
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.
Referral by Criminal Justice Stage and Jurisdiction
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
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).
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 |
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 |
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.
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.
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.
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
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%.
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.
# 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
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.
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:
|
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.
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:
For concrete steps identified by jurisdiction, see Appendix G.
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:
For best practices/lessons learned identified by jurisdiction, see Appendix H.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
:
Agency:
A unique organization that provides RJ services/processes, according to the definition of RJ.
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).
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 |
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 |
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).
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.
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.
Alberta
British Columbia
Manitoba
New Brunswick
Newfoundland and Labrador
Nunavut
Northwest Territories
Ontario
Prince Edward Island
Quebec
Saskatchewan
Federal
Note: This chart does not include all concrete steps taken, but highlights unique examples provided from each jurisdiction.
Alberta
Manitoba
Newfoundland and Labrador
Northwest Territories
Ontario
Prince Edward Island
Quebec
Saskatchewan
Note: This chart only includes jurisdictions that reported best practices and lessons learned.