5. Conclusion

Justice Canada’s SOCJS is a performance monitoring tool developed to help understand how Canada’s youth and adult CJS are doing. It does so by monitoring whether and to what extent the systems are achieving their objectives, as well as identifying trends, strengths, gaps and areas for improvement. Regular data collection, analysis and reporting increases accountability and transparency of the system, and helps improve the government’s ability to make evidence-based decisions that can have a positive effect on the lives of Canadians. It also supports Open Government by making information about the CJS easier to access. This iteration of Justice Canada’s SOCJS Report uses the SOCJS Youth-Adapted Framework to explore the performance of the youth CJS from 2017/2018 to 2021/2022, when possible, with respect to: its fairness, accessibility and operation; its use of resolution mechanisms and non-custodial processes, when appropriate; and finally, in reducing the overrepresentation of Indigenous youth and Black youth in contact with it. For more information on the experiences of youth with Canada’s CJS, see the SOCJS Dashboard’s Youth Theme.

Data from the SOCJS Youth-Adapted Framework indicate that the youth CJS is improving in 7 of the 32 indicators (see Annex V for a tally of all framework indicators). Improvements with respect to enhancing the safety of communities include substantial decreases in the police-reported youth crime rate and the youth crime severity index over time. Though significant decreases were observed between 2018 and 2022, both measures increased in 2022. Various social contexts, events and movements may provide some insights into these trends in youth crime, but ongoing research and performance monitoring are essential to better understanding these results.

Data also show consistent improvements in the use of non-custodial processes, with decreases in youth custodial sentences and youth incarceration rates.^{Footnote 130}, ^{Footnote 131} Data from the SOCJS Youth-Adapted Framework also show that the percentage of youth admitted to community supervision has increased, as well as the number and percentage of Indigenous children and youth homicide victims have decreased.

Although the youth CJS has improved in some areas over the years, Framework data highlight areas not showing signs of improvement. Overall, the youth CJS showed a decline in 3 of the 32 indicators. For example, youth case completion time increased significantly over the years.^{Footnote 132} Data also show that Indigenous and Black youth continue to be overrepresented in the CJS, particularly as admissions to correctional services, and even more so as admissions to custody. Indigenous youth also continue to be overrepresented as accused of police-reported homicide.

Some areas of the youth CJS are showing stability, for example with respect to a previously identified operational issue with AOJOs—where youth who violate their bail conditions may be required to return to court on new AOJO charges, creating a revolving door within the youth CJS.^{Footnote 133} In recent years, the number of AOJOs cases in youth courts declined. The percentage of AOJOs of all cases in youth court, however, remained stable over the years, and a less prominent issue than in adult courts. Further, the IRCS program continued to successfully fund treatment for all eligible cases, and approved youth criminal legal aid applications also remained high over the five-year period.

Assessment of performance was not possible for 17 indicators in the Framework because the data were too limited to establish a trend (e.g., only one year of data available during the time period covering the report, or data are not comparable across years).^{Footnote 134}

The Framework further highlights key data gaps on the experiences of youth in Canada, including more disaggregated data by Indigenous identity and Black identity. This would allow for a more comprehensive analysis of the performance of the youth CJS. There is also a need to further examine the use of extrajudicial measures in the youth CJS, given that the Youth Criminal Justice Act encourages the use of these measures instead of custody and formal court processes. This report also highlights the need for additional data on the experiences of youth and adult victims of crime in the CJS. Lastly, more information is needed on the interactions of justice-involved youth with other social systems such as the education, child welfare, health and mental health systems.

Justice Canada will continue to monitor the performance of the youth and adult criminal justice systems in effort to improve our understanding of how the systems are performing and the experiences of individuals in contact with them, and make policy and/or legislative decisions informed by the latest data and research. Justice Canada will continue to consult with partners and data holders to find ways to fill data gaps. See the SOCJS Dashboard’s page on data development for more information about data gaps.

Footnotes

Footnote 130

The youth incarceration rate includes youth in any type of detention, such as those in sentenced custody, in Provincial Director Remand, in pre-trial detention, and other types of temporary custody.

Return to footnote 130 referrer

Footnote 131

Of note, since finalizing the report, new correctional data from 2022/2023 were released which indicate an increase in the number of youth in detention and custody that year. Ongoing monitoring of these data will be needed to determine if this is indicative of a new emerging trend in youth justice.

Return to footnote 131 referrer

Footnote 132

However, a slight decrease was observed between 2020/2021 to 2021/2022.

Return to footnote 132 referrer

Footnote 133

See the section on the “Revolving Door” of Youth Justice for more information. Also, see: Smandych and Corrado 2018; Burczycka and Munch 2016.

Return to footnote 133 referrer

Footnote 134

These include: self-reported victimization among youth (Expected outcome 1); self-reported physical and sexual abuse during childhood (Expected outcome 1); witnessing family violence during childhood (Expected outcome 1); satisfaction with personal safety from crime among youth (Expected outcome 1); public perception that the youth criminal justice system is fair and accessible to all people (Expected outcome 2); youth served by the Indigenous Courtwork Program (Expected outcome 2); public awareness of the role of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Expected outcome 3); youth confidence in the police and the criminal courts (Expected outcome 3); youth perception of the prison system (Expected outcome 3); youth victimization incidents reported to the police (Expected outcome 3); referrals to a restorative justice system (Expected outcome 5); victims and offenders accepted into a restorative justice process (Expected outcome 5); youth referrals to an Indigenous Justice Program (Expected outcome 5); youth victim satisfaction with the actions taken by police (Expected outcome 7); self-reported violent victimization among Indigenous youth (Expected outcome 8); and self-reported violent victimization among Black youth (Expected outcome 9).

Return to footnote 134 referrer

Date modified:: 2024-07-25

Language selection

Search

Phone Scam Warning

5. Conclusion