Aboriginal Justice Strategy, Summative Evaluation

Appendix C:
Evaluation of the Impact of the Aboriginal Justice
Strategy on Rates of Re-offending

This appendix provides a condensed and non-technical summary of the study and its results. The reader should refer to the full text of the report for this study, Evaluation of the Impact of the Aboriginal Justice Strategy on Rates of Re-offending, for a more detailed description of the study's methodological approach, findings, and limitations.

1. Background

In 2000, the Department of Justice conducted a study to assess the impact of five AJS programs on recidivism (i.e., on the likelihood that individuals who have committed a crime will re-offend).[33] The study had generally favourable findings; it remained unclear, however, whether the findings would be applicable to other AJS programs, due to methodological limitations. The current study builds on the previous one with the goals of including more programs, increasing the size of the comparison group, and assessing the impacts of the AJS for a longer period following the participation of offenders in the respective programs.

2. Methods

This study compared the likelihood of re-offending of individuals who participated in an AJS program with that of individuals who were referred to, but did not participate in, an AJS program. It is intended to provide insights into the impact of the AJS programs on clients' likelihood of re-offending over time.

To assess this, a series of survival analyses were conducted. Survival analysis assesses the occurrence and timing of an event (in this case recidivism) while still accounting for the possibility that, in some cases, the event may never take place. Survival analysis is well suited to control for the differences in the background characteristics of the two groups examined, such as age, gender, and number of prior convictions. These background characteristics were held constant in the statistical model so that trends in rates of re-offending could be assessed.

Although there were many reasons why offenders would be referred to an AJS program but did not participate in that program, the two most common reasons for non-participation were (a) refusal by the Crown, the program, the victim or the offender, and (b) the offender had moved away prior to program commencement.

3. Study Limitations

The interpretation of findings reported here should be made with caution. Practical constraints precluded the use of random assignment to the program participation or the comparison groups, the use of a true control group (i.e., a group of offenders who went through the mainstream Canadian justice system), and the use of a more representative sample of AJS program participants.

4. Definitions

Offenders who participated in an AJS program are referred to throughout this summary as “program participants.” Offenders who did not participate in an AJS program are referred to as “comparison group members.” Criminal behaviour is defined in terms of criminal offences that result in convictions (or findings of guilt in the case of young offenders).[34]

5. Characteristics of Offenders in the Study

In total, 4246 offenders (3361 AJS program participants and 885 comparison group members) from nine programs across Canada were part of this study. Four of these nine programs had also been included in the 2000 study and most of those offenders (59.88%) in the total sample were tracked for at least four years following the completion of the AJS program to which they had been referred.

The background characteristics of offenders in the total sample were as follows:

The program participants and comparison group members tended to be similar in background characteristics but some key differences between the two groups were identified: comparison group members tended to have more prior convictions, to have been more recently referred to an AJS program, and to be slightly older.[35]

6. Findings

The results from the study lend strong support to the assertion that AJS program participation reduces the likelihood of recidivism. Though more pronounced in the years immediately following program completion, the discrepancy in recidivism scores between program participants and comparison group members continues at every point in time after program completion. Table 1 shows the estimated recidivism rates for program participants and the comparison group at various points in time after participation in the program.

Table 1: AJS Average Recidivism Rates
Time After Program Completion Cumulative Percent Who Have Re-Offended
Participants Comparison Group
6 months 6.12 12.64
1 year 10.85 21.77
2 years 17.57 33.84
3 years 22.32 41.72
4 years 26.73 48.57
5 years 29.86 53.16
6 years 31.25 55.11
7 years 32.20 57.41
8 years 32.24 59.18

As the table shows, recidivism rates are significantly lower among program participants at every point in time after completing the program. In terms of the extent of the impact, AJS program participants are approximately half as likely to re-offend as are comparison group members:

The effect of the AJS programs on the likelihood of re-offending is particularly pronounced in the years immediately following the program, but the cumulative effects, even after eight years, appear to remain.

The beneficial impact of the AJS is evidenced consistently across all AJS programs under consideration. When each of the AJS programs is examined independently, the findings generally mirror those of the total sample and again show that the risk of recidivism is reduced among program participants, relative to comparison group members.