Evaluation of the Youth Justice Initiative

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

4 Findings

4.1 Relevance

4.1.1 Responsiveness of the YJI

Since 2006, youth crime as measured by the Youth Crime Severity Index (YCSI)^{Footnote 11} has generally been on a downward trend. Between 2007 and 2017, there was a 44% reduction in the total number of youth accused of a crime^{Footnote 12} and a 30% reduction in youth accused of a violent crime^{Footnote 13} (Figure 2).^{Footnote 14} Consistent with these rates, the YCSI crime measures also decreased by 38% over the last decade, although this decline was more pronounced for the non-violent severity index (50% decrease) than the violent crime severity index (20% decrease). Note that in 2017, the YCSI increased by 3%, representing the first increase since 2007 although data are not available beyond 2017 to determine the stability of this trend.

There is variability in youth crime rates across the country; Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the three territories have higher youth crime and youth violent crime rates compared to other jurisdictions. Data collected by Statistics Canada indicate that declining crime rates and the overall decrease in the number of youth within the youth justice system have not occurred to the same degree among Indigenous youth. Therefore, Indigenous youth are overrepresented in the youth justice system.

Key informants across all respondent groups echoed a number of these trends, identifying declining cases in the youth justice system and overrepresentation of Indigenous and racialized youth. It was also noted that the youth justice system is dealing with increasingly more complex and higher needs cases, including older youth with more entrenched behaviours and youth with multiple mental health diagnoses and addictions issues.

The literature confirms the perception of this increasing complexity as youth face a number of challenges including cyberbullying, social exclusion, and mental health and addictions issues^{Footnote 16Footnote 17} which can lead to damaged relationships, poor academic performance, problems with the law, and reduced overall health.^{Footnote 18} The literature also notes that immediate risk factors must be considered within the broader “social determinants of health such as poverty, social exclusion, racism, unemployment, inadequate housing, and community disorganization.”^{Footnote 19} Indigenous communities experience mental health problems and their consequences (e.g. depression, anxiety, and suicide) at significantly higher rates than the general population, and young people have been found to be most dramatically affected^{Footnote 20}. This literature links current conditions, in part, to a history of cultural disruption, oppression and marginalization.^{Footnote 21Footnote 22Footnote 23}

The implications and needs of provinces and territories related to managing an evolving youth justice system are varied. A common challenge is maintaining efficient program delivery. For instance, because the overall number of youth in the system has declined and fewer received a custodial sentence, existing custodial facilities are consequently underutilized. Provincial/territorial representatives also noted the need to ensure that while the use of court and custody are restricted to the most serious offences, that access to beneficial programs and services by youth who are in conflict with the law is not restricted (i.e., access is not contingent on a charge or sentence). Finally, the overrepresentation of Indigenous and racialized youth, as well as provincial, territorial and local commitments to the implementation of Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations, have continued the push for delivery of culturally responsive and culturally safe programs.

The case studies provided illustrations of all these trends at the program/service level:

• declining numbers of cases which was affording the opportunity for more intensive and individualized interventions such as for probation officers in Ontario using the Single Case Management Model (SCMM), which allows continuity of care for the duration of the youth’s sentence and contributes to relationship building and planning;
• reviewing mandates or increasing outreach to youth who remain at risk but are not formally within the youth justice system. In British Columbia and Ontario, there is some support for extending services of the Youth Forensic Psychiatric Services (YFPS) and probation officers to include youth who have been diverted out of the formal court process or youth who have no yet been found guilty and/or sentenced (i.e. during bail supervision or as a component of EJM or EJS); and
• increasing efforts to engage First Nations communities to re-shape programs and services that serve the needs of Indigenous youth who are in conflict with the law. In British Columbia, YFPS has strengthened work with Indigenous youth, their families and communities through consultations and outreach with First Nations leadership and community members and other stakeholders to learn how YFPS could be more responsive. To support this effort, two Indigenous Youth Interns were hired in the role of Indigenous Community Liaison. The interns will also establish a Community of Practice to share best practices and have a dialogue within and across the clinical teams.

While the youth justice landscape has evolved, the YJI has not changed significantly since the YCJA was enacted. Nevertheless, the evaluation found that the YJI has been responsive overall to these trends due to:

• A flexible YJSFP funding envelope that supports programs and services across the youth justice continuum, including for youth who are diverted, subject to EJM or similar. Provinces and territories may tailor their programming within the broad basket of priorities;
• Programming that addresses the increasing complexity of cases, especially IRCS, that is targeted to youth experiencing complex mental health issues and who have committed serious violent offences; and
• Culturally responsive and culturally safe programs and services that can be supported, at provincial/territorial discretion, through the YJSFP or IRCS Part D special projects. While not a focus of the evaluation, the YJF also funds projects to enhance capacity and pilot test interventions relevant to emerging issues or trends, including for Indigenous and racialized youth who are in conflict with the law.

Where there were issues identified with the responsiveness of the YJI, these often had to do with the level of funding available to provinces and territories, including a decrease in federal contribution to youth justice. For some, a funding gap and consequent capacity issues have limited their responsiveness to offer a full suite of effective programs and services across the youth justice continuum and for complex cases that do not meet the IRCS criteria. These issues are discussed in more detail below.

4.2 Effectiveness

4.2.1 YJSFP Contribution to the YJI Expected Outcomes

4.2.1.1 Impacts of YJSFP on Provincial/Territorial Capacity

Annual YJSFP reports submitted by provinces and territories confirm that they use YJSFP funds for multiple types of programs and services across the youth justice continuum. Consistent with previous evaluations of the YJI, federal YJSFP funding contributes to the cost of alternatives to formal court processes and custody. Provincial/territorial representatives confirm the importance of the funding for this purpose. The programs and services appear to be sustainable as there is significant stability in the offerings over the study period (i.e., provincial/territorial YJSFP programming in 2015-16 is similar to programs being offered two to three years later).

There are limited data on the amount that provinces and territories invest by priority area or how these investments have changed over time. Statistics Canada CCJS data and case studies suggest that as fewer youth are charged or sentenced to community supervision, provincial/territorial focus should be shifting to interventions earlier in the continuum.

The federal contribution to the costs of youth justice has decreased over time. There was a 20% YJSFP funding reduction in 2013-14 and prior to this time, the federal cost share of youth justice was 24%. In 2018-19, the federal contribution represented 20% of total costs of youth justice services and programs. Considering high priority programming only, the YJSFP contributes 36% of the total costs of high priority programming and 50% of the portion of high priority programming that is eligible for YJSFP funding.^{Footnote 24}

The formula to calculate the federal YJSFP contribution for each province and territory has not been changed for many years. The formula has not been updated to consider factors such as the rate of growth of the youth population and provincial/territorial system capacity and expenditures. There is a significant degree of variability in the FPT cost sharing ratio across provinces and territories. The federal contribution varies between 9-38% of the total cost of youth justice depending on the jurisdiction (the 2016 evaluation reported a similar variability of between 9 and 44%). The federal contribution to eligible (75%) high priority programming expenditures varies between 23%-134%. In the event that the YJSFP budget were to be increased in the future, this would provide an opportunity to review the YJSFP funding formula to ensure a more equitable distribution of resources across jurisdictions.

As the method provinces and territories use to estimate the costs of youth justice are variable, another way to consider the federal contribution is per capita. Based on 2018-19 data, the YJSFP contribution per youth varies between $45 to $724, with higher per capita contributions for regions such as the North and Atlantic where services are more expensive to provide due to low population. This differential will be affected in future years as the forecasted growth of the youth population across jurisdictions is variable. Note that the cost/youth is a blunt measure that does not take into consideration crime rates, severity of crime and charging practices that all vary by province and territory.

While the number of youth justice system cases is declining overall, capacity reportedly remains a challenge for some jurisdictions. This is often due to the expense of providing services in areas where there is a lack of economies of scale, the overall greater complexity of cases in the youth justice system and the unpredictability of provincial/territorial funding.

The evaluation found that YJSFP-funded programs and services are timely and waitlists for programs and services are not an issue. There are, however, some reported gaps such as programs and services for youth with serious mental health issues who do not qualify for IRCS Part C (exceptional cases) funding (discussed below), as well as a need to continue to bolster culturally responsive and culturally safe programs and services in rural and remote areas.

4.2.1.2 Impacts of YJSFP on Youth

The YJSFP is intended to support the implementation of the YCJA with programs and services that encourage proportionate and timely measures. Measures should encourage effective rehabilitation and reintegration of young persons into the community and reserve the formal court process and detention in custody for the most serious offences. The following section discusses each of these impacts in turn.

Rehabilitation and Reintegration

• It was found that chronic and repeat youth offenders in Nova Scotia were responsible for nearly 82% of youth contacts with Nova Scotia police during the time period that was studied.^{Footnote 25} The Nova Scotia study also found the police re-contact rate increased with the severity of the crime and youth processing through the formal court system: 77% of youth offenders who went to court for the initial incident (no restorative justice contact) had re-contact with Nova Scotia police, compared to 45% of youth who only came into contact with police and 46% of youth who came into contact with police and restorative justice programs.
• Findings from a study of the Saskatchewan youth criminal justice system also indicated that a high proportion of youth in Saskatchewan that are in conflict with the law have repeated contacts with the system.^{Footnote 26} Specifically, the study found that 77% of youth appearing in court had subsequent contact with police two years after their court appearance. Furthermore, after initial contact with the corrections system, 85% of youth had subsequent contact with police within two years.^{Footnote 27}
• Findings from an evaluation of the Intensive Support and Supervision Program (ISSP) in British Columbia found that “The recidivism rate for youth while on ISSP was 33% (convictions), with 46% of youth obtaining new charges during this time. Youth accumulated fewer charges, fewer convictions, and spent fewer days in custody on average than in the six months prior to starting ISSP, but these differences were not statistically significant”. The study did not have a control group and therefore further analyses were not possible.^{Footnote 28}

Minimizing the Use of Formal Court Processes

The enactment of the YCJA introduced significant reforms to the youth justice system and addressed concerns regarding the overuse of the courts under the previous legislation. According to the literature, the positive benefits of extrajudicial measures/diversion from formal court processes include decreased levels of youth incarceration and reduced recidivism. Restorative justice programs have also been found to be more effective compared to traditional youth court proceedings.^{Footnote 29}

National data confirms that current youth justice system practices are aligned with the direction of the YCJA. The national rate of youth charged by police decreased by 21% between 2013 and 2017 and over the last five years, more youth are consistently not charged than charged (Figure 3).

According to provincial/territorial annual reports on programs and services funded by the YJSFP, the majority of jurisdictions support programs promoting a response other than the formal court system including: Youth Justice Committees^{Footnote 30} (in nine provinces and territories), victim-offender reconciliation (in 10 provinces and territories) and mediation programs (in eight provinces and territories). It should be noted that while jurisdictions are responsible for diversion/EJM, youth are referred to these programs at the discretion of police and/or Crown Counsel.

One author has recommended that programs and services intervening early in the youth justice continuum have a role to play in addressing the overrepresentation of Indigenous youth in the youth justice system.^{Footnote 31} The author suggests that Indigenous and other racialized youth may not be diverted to EJM to the same extent as non-Indigenous and non-racialized youth, or that the programs that racialized youth are participating in are not culturally relevant or appropriate.

Minimizing the Use of Detention Custody

Similar to the use of formal court processes, national data indicate a continued decline in the use of custody. Over the last five years of available data, of the (decreasing) number of youth who are sentenced in the court, fewer are receiving a sentence involving custody (Figure 4). In 2017-18, 13% of youth who were guilty of an offence received a custodial sentence compared to over 25% in the years preceding the enactment of the YCJA. Incarceration data reflect this trend: in 2017-18, there were four youth in custody per 10,000 population, a 12% decrease from the previous year and a 29% decrease from 2013-14.^{Footnote 32} In 2017-18, the highest youth incarceration rates were seen in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories and Nunavut.^{Footnote 33}

Pre-trial detention involves holding a young person temporarily in custody, while awaiting trial or sentencing.^{Footnote 38} While the introduction of the YCJA spurred a steep decline in the rate of youth in sentenced custody, changes in pre-trial detention have not been as significant (Figure 5). In 2012, the YCJA was amended in order to simplify decision making regarding pre-trial detention and ensure that youth be managed in the community where possible. Pre-trial detention rates have decreased since the 2012 amendment, from 3.1 per 10,000 population in 2011-12 to 2.0 in 2017-18.

The apparent over-use of pre-trial detention was a focus of the 2016 evaluation of the YJI conducted by Justice Canada and it was recommended that further research regarding the causes of the over-use of pre-trial detention and the provision of meaningful responses be undertaken.^{Footnote 39} However, in terms of programs and services, only seven of 13 jurisdictions indicated in their YJSFP annual report that they funded bail supervision programs.

With respect to pre-trial detention, note that in 2019, the YCJA was amended to limit the imposition of conditions on young persons to those that are reasonable in the circumstances and required for criminal justice purposes.^{Footnote 40} The Act also emphasizes EJM for administration of justice offences instead of new breach charges. This may have a further impact on the use of pre-trial detention in the future.

4.2.2 IRCS Contribution to the YJI Expected Outcomes

Impacts of IRCS on Provincial and Territorial Capacity

For provinces and territories that have IRCS Part B or Part C cases, IRCS case specific funding is very important to support their capacity to deliver the intensive assessment and treatment supports for youth with complex needs. According to the IRCS case records:

• For 57% of IRCS cases, IRCS-funded custodial programs or services would have been available only in part in the absence of Part B or Part C funding (e.g., would not have been as tailored, intensive, individualized) and 34% indicate the custodial programs or services would not have been available at all.
• For 67% of cases, IRCS-funded community-based programs and services would have been available only in part and in about a third of cases (30%), the programs or services would not have been available at all in the absence of Part B or Part C funding.

Based on the IRCS records, both custodial and community-based setting programs and services would be less likely to be fully available for Part C cases than Part B. For instance, for community services and programs, Part C-funded cases were far more likely to be available only in part (83%) in the absence of IRCS funding compared to Part B-funded cases (54%).

To date, all IRCS Part B court orders and Part C approved applications have received funding under the program. For jurisdictions that have IRCS cases and have completed the case records, it was indicated that the IRCS funding contributes to a portion, but not all of the costs of the full spectrum of programs and services for these youth. Notably, while the per case funding for Part C has increased (from $140 to $200 per eligible day in 2018), the funding for Part B cases has remained static. In most cases, IRCS youth participated in other custodial services and programs provided in addition to those specifically supported by IRCS. For instance, in addition to IRCS-funded programs, most youth also participated in non-IRCS funded vocational training (89%), cognitive-behaviour therapy (87%), substance abuse related (75%) or family therapy (68%).

All provinces and territories, regardless of whether they have IRCS Part B or Part C cases, receive funding under Part A of IRCS ($300K for each jurisdiction) for capacity building. This funding was viewed as very helpful by provincial/territorial representatives to build capacity of all jurisdictions to address increasingly complex cases within the youth justice system (whether IRCS or not). The allocation was noted to be particularly useful for small or Northern jurisdictions where capacity is low and programs and services are expensive to deliver. At the same time, it was noted by a few respondents that the equivalent allocation across jurisdictions does not reflect population size, nor the highly uneven distribution of IRCS cases across provinces and territories.

Some provincial/territorial interviewees further maintained that there is a gap in funding for justice-involved youth with serious mental health issues. During the interviews, about half of the representatives maintained that the serious offence criterion of Part C is overly restrictive and excludes youth who have complex mental health issues, but who have not (yet) committed a serious offence, from accessing beneficial programs and services.

In addition to Parts A-C funding, all provinces and territories may also apply for Part D funding for special projects related to: youth violence and mental health; specialized staff training; research and evaluation; or other related topics in line with identified federal youth justice policy objectives. The IRCS Part D component is highly valued by provinces and territories. In 2018-19, 10 of 13 jurisdictions received funding under Part D to conduct projects related to youth justice. These projects included specialized training, pilot projects, evaluation work, conferences and research. Provincial/territorial representatives confirmed that the funding has been very useful to spur innovation. There were examples in the case studies where IRCS Part D gave a funding lift to YJSFP-funded organizations to train staff and implement novel, evidence-based therapeutic interventions leading directly to enhancements in the way provinces and territories work with young offenders.

Due to increases in the number of Part B and Part C cases and the increase in the Part C per case funding allocation, funding devoted to Part B and Part C has increased over time and the amount of residual funding available for Part D projects has been decreasing. As a proportion of the total IRCS funding envelope, Part D funding decreased from 17% to 10% (estimated) between 2015-16 and 2018-19. Further increases in cases and expanded eligibility for case specific funding would reduce the sustainability of this small but highly valued component of the program.

Impacts of IRCS on Youth

The evaluation was not able to fully determine the impact of IRCS on the rehabilitation and reintegration of youth who participate under Part B or Part C of the program due to data limitations as mentioned above. Case records that were examined provide some indications of the benefits of the program based on professional assessments. All interviewees agreed that the program has enhanced diagnoses and treatment of youth with complex mental health issues.

The case reports that were reviewed for the evaluation indicate that in 49% of cases where information is available (n=69), the youth’s mental health was reported at the completion of the sentence to have improved. In 4% of cases, it was indicated that their mental health had deteriorated. The remaining half of files either indicated that the youth’s mental health had remained stable or that the mental health situation of the youth is complex, with noticeable improvements in some areas, but deterioration in others, or over time.

In terms of rehabilitation and reintegration, 92% of reports indicate that IRCS has had some benefits in reducing the likelihood of an incident of violence in the future. Given the complexity of these cases, an ongoing risk of re-offending remains for many youth although these determinations are often subjective and jurisdictions use different instruments to measure this risk.

Across many of the case reports, ongoing access to supports was consistently noted as important in reducing the future risk of re-offending among youth who complete an IRCS sentence.

4.2.3 Barriers to Access Programs and Services

Finally, the evaluation found some evidence of access barriers to YJI-funded programs and services based on the nature of the offence. An example of this is provincial/territorial representatives’ views about the IRCS Part C serious offence criterion currently limiting eligibility for funding for youth with mental health issues charged with less serious offences (discussed above).

Relatedly, a few key informants noted that programs and services that focus on youth who have been charged under the YCJA have been limited in offering interventions to at-risk youth at the earlier stages of the youth justice continuum (diversion/EJM and EJS Programs, pre-trial), which was moreover illustrated in the case studies. This is aligned with the philosophy of the Act to ensure that the youth justice response is proportionate. However, with the trend to continue to minimize the use of formal court processes and sentencing, fewer youth are eligible for these programs and services, which was perceived by some to leave youth under-served, particularly if health and social service systems are overburdened.

4.2.4 Effectiveness of YJI-funded Programs and Services for Youth Sub-groups

Through the document review, interviews and case studies, the evaluation found many examples of YJI-funded programs and services that were designed and implemented to consider the needs of diverse youth in conflict with the law. For many of these youth, particularly those who have committed a serious offence, treatment and interventions are highly individualized. IRCS Part B- and Part C-funded youth participate in a customized selection of programs and services that are based on a comprehensive assessment and diagnosis. The case study of the YFPS illustrated an individualized approach to youth with mental health issues (both with IRCS sentences and not) that addressed identified criminogenic risk factors.

Other examples included policy, training (e.g., trauma-informed counselling and cultural agility) and tailored programming funded by the YJSFP for racialized youth, girls and transgender youth who are in conflict with the law. As mentioned above, IRCS Part D funding also supports the development or scaling of innovative/tailored approaches (e.g., for youth with FASD) through training or pilot projects.

With the overrepresentation of Indigenous youth in the youth justice system, it was widely acknowledged that there is more work to do to build capacity to provide culturally responsive and culturally safe programming for Indigenous youth.

To contribute to this work, recent calls for proposals under the YJF have focused on funding for piloting new approaches targeted to Indigenous youth who are in conflict with the law. The programs and services examined in the case studies also illustrated examples of efforts to be inclusive and responsive to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action^{Footnote 41} in intervention approaches and to actively engage and listen to Indigenous stakeholders in service design.

4.2.5 FPT Collaboration

There are two forums for FPT collaboration regarding youth justice: the FPT WG on Youth Justice Cost-Sharing and Programs (composed of program representatives) and the Coordinating Committee of Senior Officials – Youth Justice (CCSO-YJ) (composed of Crown and provincial/territorial counsels responsible for youth justice policy/legislation). Both committees are co-chaired by a federal and provincial/territorial representative.

Based on documentation and interviews, the evaluation found a high degree of FPT collaboration around youth justice. The FPT WG and CCSO-YJ meetings are regular and well-attended, and further benefit from an annual in-person meeting. There is some provincial/territorial cross-membership on the two committees and Justice Canada policy and program representatives attend both meetings to facilitate policy-program exchanges.

Reports that FPT collaboration, particularly at the CCSO-YJ, had been weakening was examined in the evaluation. Federal and provincial/territorial representatives agreed that a recommitment to regular meetings and collaborative interactions has addressed this issue for the most part and provincial/territorial representatives reported being largely satisfied with the level of collaboration overall.

The mandate of the FPT WG, which is focused on information sharing, is being met. There are regular quarterly jurisdictional updates, as well as other initiative updates that may impact youth justice. Provincial/territorial representatives were appreciative of these exchanges and the opportunity to learn and build their network of colleagues in other jurisdictions.

During the CCSO-YJ meetings, there was ample evidence of discussion regarding relevant legislation and inter-jurisdictional youth justice policies, emerging trends and issues (e.g., the over-representation of Indigenous youth in the justice system is a standing agenda item) and working groups and steering committees have been created to handle specific youth justice issues. Youth who are transitioning out of the youth justice system and research on conferencing provisions are examples of other topic areas that have gained traction with the Committee. Progress on specific issues can be dependent on having a champion or champions at the CCSO-YJ table.

A few FPT respondents observed that the CCSO-YJ has not yet made significant progress to address a number of operational issues related to the YCJA that have been identified by provinces and territories. The Terms of Reference of the CCSO-YJ are also somewhat nebulous in terms of this action role and it was also acknowledged by interviewees that, when required, legislative changes are complex to undertake and can be a protracted process.

There were some suggestions for improvement to the committees, largely of an administrative nature. These suggestions included, for instance, greater participation by provincial/territorial representatives in agenda setting, more frequent refresh of provincial/territorial co-chairs/more than two co-chairs, and greater engagement or leveraging of Justice Canada staff for the policy or research needs of committees.

4.3 Efficiency

Allocation of YJSFP to Priority Programming

Under the YJSFP, five-year funding agreements with provinces and territories outline the programming priorities that YJSFP funding is intended to support and a target total provincial/territorial investment toward these priorities. Justice Canada covers 75% of eligible expenditures for high priority programs, and a smaller proportion of medium and low priorities (35% and 20% respectively) up to a maximum total transfer.^{Footnote 42}

Based on the most recent financial data available during the period under study (2016-17), almost all YJSFP funding (97%) was used by provinces and territories for high priority programming.^{Footnote 43} Only one used a small portion of YJSFP funding for medium or low priority programming because their high priority programming expenditures did not reach the maximum federal contribution. Also in 2016-17, 12 of 13 jurisdictions met or exceeded their total investment target for high priority programming.^{Footnote 44}

The YJSFP high priorities for programming are generally viewed by provincial/territorial representatives as flexible and relevant. The broad priorities provide provinces and territories with latitude to implement programs that are suited to their jurisdictions and complementary to programming in the jurisdiction. Given the high utilization of funding for high priorities, an argument could be made to streamline the YJSFP agreements to a single high priority basket. However, this would also have the potential to reduce funding flexibility for smaller provinces and territories, and potentially limit innovation in residential facilities (e.g., the introduction of restorative principles in a custodial facility that was profiled in the evaluation case studies which would not be considered within the high priority basket).

Efficiency of the IRCS Case Specific Funding Model

As of March 2020, there have been 207 Part B (court ordered) and 154 Part C (exceptional) IRCS cases. Since the YCJA was enacted, IRCS Part B orders and Part C exceptional cases applications have increased, with peaks in cases during the period under study: in 2016-17, 2017-18 for Part B and in 2019-20 for Part C (Figure 6). During this period, almost all provinces and territories had at least one IRCS case; however, there is a high degree of variability across jurisdictions in the use of IRCS. Since 2003, 84% of all IRCS cases have originated from five jurisdictions: Ontario, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba.

The majority of youth for whom IRCS cases are funded are male and over half of those who received an IRCS sentence are Indigenous (56% of Part B cases and 57% of Part C cases). Youth who are funded under IRCS have highly complex needs. Profile data indicate that, at the time of their assessment, Part B and Part C youth had received multiple mental health/behavioural diagnosis such as conduct disorder, substance abuse, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.

IRCS sentences typically involve custodial and community sentencing components and during this time youth receive interventions addressing their specific needs. For instance, according to the case records, youth participate in, on average, seven different therapeutic or training interventions during the custodial portion of their sentence and five interventions, on average, during the community portion of their sentence. These most commonly include vocational/life skill training, psychological services, recreation therapy or activities, education assistance and addiction support and counselling.

Most provincial/territorial representatives were satisfied with the IRCS funding and more broadly with the IRCS approach which provides for the individualized diagnosis, treatment and wraparound supports for youth with complex mental health and behavioural issues. Interactions with Justice Canada around the fund are described as positive and constructive.

A significant portion of IRCS funding is committed to Part B and Part C components which are case specific. The funding model can be time consuming to manage by Justice Canada as case specific expenses are claimed individually by provinces and territories. Use of the funds is also somewhat unpredictable, as the number of IRCS cases and duration of the sentence are subject to the courts (Part B) or applications by provinces and territories (Part C). Nevertheless, regular communications between provinces and territories and Justice Canada have mitigated the potential for funding lapses and maximized the use of funds through Part D projects to which residual funding is allocated. During the study period, a very small proportion of funds were lapsed. (Table 2)

The program financial data indicate that some provinces and territories are significantly delayed in submitting claims for IRCS funding. As of mid-2020, over 50% of IRCS funds committed in 2018-19 had not yet been claimed or paid by the Department.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

Date modified:

2021-08-13