Conclusion

Restorative justice continues to be an important approach to justice and interest in its use has grown, particularly with more serious offences. More research and resources are thus needed to support using restorative justice effectively in the criminal justice system. This is reinforced by the Deputy Ministers’ target of a 5 percent increase in restorative justice referrals and accepted cases. While the annual jurisdictional scan offers some analyses on restorative justice indicators and progress in the 5 percent target, the findings from the engagement of this restorative justice data project reveal that more research is needed to better understand the potential and the outcomes of restorative justice. This report explores the current data holdings in Canada, analyzes restorative justice data and the limitations of the data, and recommend ways to improve the use and practice of restorative justice in Canada. The restorative justice data project also explored the research needs of restorative justice programs across Canada. From the discussions with the restorative justice program representatives across Canada, Statistics Canada developed 26 different detailed recommendations to strengthen data collection and research on restorative justice in Canada (see Appendix A).

The findings on restorative justice data holdings reveal that a number of data elements about restorative justice are collected by restorative justice case management systems. However, more discussions are needed to address incomplete data and information on victims. Nonetheless, almost all programs collect core restorative justice indicators (such as the number of referrals and accepted cases). This lends support to the potential for a larger national project of collecting standard national indicators. The findings from the discussions show that the majority of programs follow the general Working Group on Restorative Justice definition of restorative justice. However, more analysis is needed to address the diversity of the programs under the restorative justice umbrella, particularly to include Indigenous Justice Programs and non-affiliated programs associated with the Working Group on Restorative Justice. It is important to expand the inclusion of restorative justice programs for research, especially programs that focus more on offender accountability, and differentiate between cases with and without victim participation.

The report also extensively covers the need for more disaggregated data, qualitative research, and outcome and return on investment studies to fully understand the use, value, and efficacy of restorative justice. Some suggested promoting more research in these areas. This could be achieved by building relationships and collaborating with other programs, academics, and researchers.

Overall, Statistics Canada received an exceptional response from the restorative justice community to this engagement. Many respondents were keen to express their thoughts, criticisms, and experiences of restorative justice. The response rate of 45 percent is considered fairly high. As one respondent put it:

Sometimes it can be difficult to get people to care about data, but when it comes to restorative justice that is not a problem. Those who work in restorative justice or with restorative justice data are very motivated individuals, and very driven to collect data to speak on the restorative justice piece to showcase how important it is. Statistics Canada and Justice Canada should continue to support the current work by building the foundation, and work on filling the gaps mentioned by expanding use of restorative justice data.