Annex 1: List of Key and Detailed Recommendations

1. Key Recommendations

Investments in system enhancement are needed to strengthen restorative justice data holdings. For example, some case management systems operate in a centralized format which assists in reporting. Investments in system enhancements will require funding for case management systems to help programs increase automation, reduce the burden on staff, and improve data quality.

Differences in definitions should be noted in the analysis, though most programs follow the Working Group on Restorative Justice definition of restorative justice. For example, rather than present restorative justice caseloads as a global entity, it would be beneficial for restorative justice cases to be categorized into subsets or groupings of cases. Proposed groupings include restorative justice cases involving Indigenous people, restorative justice cases with victims participating, and restorative justice cases without victims participating. These groupings would provide more useful context for researchers and data users.

There is capacity to develop a national survey of restorative justice in Canada, as all programs maintained the statistical information necessary to determine the number of referrals, the number of accepted cases, and some information on participants. To facilitate this development, a logical next step would be to draft a national restorative justice data standards document that addresses differences between definitions and highlights the critical information to be collected.

More investment in research is needed to improve and expand restorative justice programs. Current data collection, with the exception of data on victims, is adequate to move forward with a wide range of statistical projects. The findings of the report highlight the need for the following types of analyses:

Research can help restorative justice programs improve their services, raise awareness and support to increase restorative justice referrals, and provide justifications for funding support.

Promoting findings and developing relationships are key components of establishing a research strategy. When publishing research, leveraging research findings with criminal justice decision makers and the public should be a key component. Establishing dialogues and networks, such as the National Restorative Justice Research Network, will play a key role in advancing awareness about and research on restorative justice.

Detailed Recommendations

Below are a series of detailed recommendations for each section of the report, stemming from discussions with respondents.

1. System Characteristics

1.1 Systems design has a strong foundation for developing statistical analysis at the program level, because microdata are held electronically. However, not all data is centralized at the provincial/territorial level. To improve responsiveness for statistical analysis at a provincial/territorial level, it is recommended that government ministries and supported programs work together to address these concerns and develop systems that centralize microdata where possible.

1.2. Training, funding, and resources need to be considered when transitioning to a new software or case management system. User-friendly case management systems are needed when entering data, as well as systems that are designed to enter data on victims as well.

2. Data collected

2.1 Overall, most programs collect comprehensive data on referrals and accepted cases and demographic information on offenders is adequate. Acquiring demographic information on victims is difficult for restorative justice programs because of the sensitive nature of asking victims for their data after the offence. Restorative justice programs should seek out promising practices to address this and other barriers to collecting data on victims, given that restorative justice is intended to address the needs of those harmed by crime. Programs should concentrate on ensuring that they collect as much data on victim participation. This includes precise data on victims’ involvement in a case, reasons for victims not participating, and type of victim participation. Developing national data standards can help facilitate this by identifying the key information to collect and establishing common definitions.

3. Definitions

3.1 Exploring terminology in data collection should be further explored. Some jurisdictions use the terms “person responsible for causing harm” and “person harmed” in place of “offender” and “victim,” because these terms may better reflect restorative justice principles for their programs. Other programs use the terms “accused,” “offender,” and “victim,” given how the criminal justice system uses of restorative justice.

3.2 Most programs participating in the engagement adhere to the Working Group on Restorative Justice definition of restorative justice. While it is recognized that the concerns about keeping the definitions of restorative justice consistent, programs do conform to a broad definition of restorative justice. Based on the discussions, the Working Group on Restorative Justice’s definition of restorative justice adequately describes the work of all participating programs and is recommended for use for statistical analyses.

3.3 Given the differences in approaches to restorative justice across the country, it is recommended that the breakdowns of restorative justice by the type of programs and clients served are accounted for when analyzing this data. This important context increases the relevance of the statistical reporting, particularly for Indigenous communities and for programs requiring victims’ involvement.

3.4 Definitions of victim participation may not be consistent, particularly with front-line data collection, who may not be provided with comprehensive definitions of different levels of participation. Clear definitions of the various forms of victim participation should be developed. Including various descriptive scenarios to clarify how victim participation should be classified could be very effective.

3.5 Definitions of what a successful completion of restorative justice cases vary considerably across restorative justice programs. Thus, how that success is measured, based on definitions used by individual restorative justice programs, more research should be done to understand the determinants of restorative justice program outcomes.

4. Data Quality Assessment

4.1 Based on the discussions, recommendations to improve data accuracy include multi-step review processes (as some restorative justice programs have implemented), and training staff to conduct data validation processes and data cleaning.

4.2 Although data are processed and entered quickly, some respondents suggested that a streamlined approach is needed, from referral forms to accepted cases, to further increase efficiency. To improve efficiency in data collection, it is recommended that electronic referral forms are developed as well as making certain fields mandatory.

4.3 Many programs indicated that they would benefit from funding to develop and enhance systems, or to provide common software. To improve data quality, it is recommended that funding is made available to restorative justice programs to increase the use of automation.

5. Standard National Indicators

5.1 To ensure that the appropriate information is accessible and consistently defined, restorative justice programs would benefit from developing national data standards. These would highlight the key data points to collect and the ideal definitions to use. The Working Group on Restorative Justice should identify a core set of indicators for the upcoming 2024–25 jurisdictional scan. The data collected from the jurisdictional scan can pave the way for a national project on restorative justice.

5.2 National data collection should include information from as many restorative justice programs as possible, extending beyond programs funded directly by government. If it is challenging to fully report all restorative justice programs, researchers should evaluate the possibility of using estimation methods.

5.3 Funding will be required to support the development of national data standards and definitions, as well as collecting, processing, and analyzing this information.

6. Disaggregated Data

6.1 Disaggregating data analysis of restorative justice participants based on age, gender, Indigenous identity, and racialized identity should be done where possible to identify underserved communities and to better understand the effects of restorative justice processes on different populations. This work can yield valuable information to improve restorative justice services for different communities.

6.2 Disaggregated data analysis is hindered by its lower quality of data, particularly for Indigenous identity and racialized identity for both restorative justice programs and other criminal justice programs with which restorative justice is compared. Improving disaggregated data collection should be supported and encouraged, where possible.

7. Outcome Studies

7.1 Broad support for developing recontact studies, desistance studies, and comparisons with other justice programs is recommended. Most restorative justice programs have underlying data that can facilitate this work. Researchers should work with restorative justice programs to address data sharing and privacy concerns about integrating data.

7.2 Outcome studies should not be the sole focus of research into the effectiveness of restorative justice. Where possible, this work should be integrated with other research (return on investment, qualitative research, etc.).

7.3 Developing outcome studies for victims is of interest, with a particular focus on health, educational, and socio-economic outcomes. Researchers interested in victim issues should work together to develop a project design for consideration.

7.4 Return on Investment and Social Return on Investment studies are effective tools for communicating the “value for money” of restorative justice to make the case for more funding to increase the capacity of the restorative justice services. Return on investment studies are complex research and will require funding support. In addition, data integration between restorative justice and other datasets is required to build return on investment formulas. The privacy and data sharing considerations of restorative justice programs will also need to be addressed.

8. Qualitative Data

8.1 Qualitative analysis is greatly valued by the restorative justice community. To maximize data collection and leverage findings, funding will be required to work with experts (e.g., academics, practitioners, consultants, policy and research analysts, etc.) and staff working in restorative justice who are interested in examining and advancing restorative justice.

8.2 To better define research requirements and provide guidance, it would be appropriate to have researchers work with restorative justice programs, Indigenous community-based justice programs, persons with lived experiences, victim-serving organizations, and other stakeholders to identify the most appropriate research questions to address.

9. Use of Restorative Justice for Serious Offences

9.1 Most programs can identify cases in their programs involving serious offences. Offences of interest should be identified and communicated to programs by developing national data requirements, to ensure that they can be tracked and to make it easier to identify them when compiling internal data.

9.2 Detailed analysis, as a subset of any outcome study, comparative study, return on investment study, qualitative data study, or as a stand-alone research project, should be done for cases involving serious offences to better understand the effectiveness of restorative justice in resolving these specific cases.

10. Promoting Research and Relationship Building

10.1: Working with partners, understanding operational needs, and promoting restorative justice research should be emphasized and built into the design, implementation, and dissemination of research projects.

10.2: Establishing a National Restorative Justice Research Network should be supported to develop data, ensure the research is relevant, promote findings, and maximize the impact of the research.