Supporting Victims of Crime Participate in Restorative Justice

by Nadine Badets

This article explores how federal, provincial and territorial governments in Canada are working to increase and improve victims’ of crime participation in restorative justice (RJ) processes.

What is Restorative Justice?

RJ addresses the harm that crime causes to people, relationships, and communities. It does this by bringing the victim, the offender, and the community together to talk about the causes, circumstances, and effects of the crime, and to address their needs. There is no standard RJ process; RJ is flexible with multiple options for participation. The goals of RJ processes are to:

  • bring closure to everyone affected by the crime;
  • allow the offender to make amends for their crime; and
  • enable the offender to reintegrate into the community. It also tries to prevent them from causing harm in the future (Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers of Justice and Public Safety 2018).

Victims and survivors of crime often report feeling excluded and isolated by the criminal court process (Justice Canada 2019). Using RJ processes, victims and survivors of crime, as well as their families and communities, can work towards healing. Victims and survivors who have taken part in RJ processes often report feeling empowered because RJ provides an opportunity for them to participate in decision-making (Abramson, Giesbrecht, and Palfreyman 2019). Although victims and survivors are not always satisfied with RJ processes, RJ can provide victims and survivors with support for closure and healing (Bargen, Lyons, and Hartman 2019; Evans, McDonald, and Gill 2018).

There is limited use of RJ in the Canadian criminal justice system (CJS) to address crime. For example, in 2018–19, 28,603 adult and youth cases were accepted into RJ processes (Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on Restorative Justice 2021). In contrast, in 2018–19, adult criminal and youth courts processed and completed 340,104 cases (Statistics Canada, n.d.-a.; Statistics Canada, n.d.-b.).Footnote47

In 2018, the Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT) Ministers responsible for Justice and Public Safety set a goal to increase the use of RJ processes across Canada by at least 5 percent by 2022–23 (FPT Working Group on Restorative Justice 2020; FPT Working Group on Restorative Justice 2021). To accomplish this, we need to better understand how victims and survivors of crime access RJ, so that gaps in services and the systemic and procedural barriers that impede access to RJ can be identified.

This article explains how FPT governments are working to increase and improve victims’ and survivors’ of crime access to RJ processes.

The survey

Between January and February 2022, Justice Canada distributed a survey called Facilitating the Participation of Victims of Crime in Restorative Justice Processes Survey (“the survey”). Justice Canada sent the survey to representatives of FPT governments who work with victims of crime and who support, fund, or implement RJ programs. This includes members of the FPT Working Group on Victims of Crime. The primary goal of this survey was to gather information about activities, policies, research, and partnerships that increased and improved victims’ participation in RJ programs across Canada.

The survey questionnaire was divided into eight themes:

  • raising awareness among victims of crime;
  • raising awareness among CJS professionals;
  • key messages;
  • engagement;
  • partnerships;
  • research;
  • policies, regulations, procedures, and protocols; and
  • tools, documents, and resources.

Questions in each theme asked respondents to report on activities their jurisdiction does to raise awareness on the availability of RJ processes, challenges encountered and lessons learned, as well as suggestions or future plans for improving victims’Footnote48 participation in RJ. Representatives from four federal departments, eight provincial governments, and the three territorial governments completed the survey, for a total of 19 respondents.Footnote49

The following section summarizes survey results by the survey themes. It also identifies several challenges jurisdictions face in improving victims’ access to RJ. The final section provides promising practices and ideas to be considered for the future.

Key activities

This section summarizes the analysis of survey responses into seven subsections based on the survey themes.Footnote50 Each subsection describes the main activities and tools that FPT governments are using to help victims of crime participate in RJ processes.

1. Raising awareness of RJ among victims of crime

Close to 70 percent of respondents reported that their jurisdiction is currently conducting activities to raise victims’ awareness of RJ programs and services. One of the survey’s key findings is that most RJ programs in Canada do not do direct outreach with victims; victim services usually does initial outreach. Victim services play a critical role in communicating about RJ because they are often victims’ main point of contact in the CJS. In the territories, Crown Witness Coordinators provide support to victims in court and provide information on RJ processes.

RJ programs and victim services have close working relationships in many jurisdictions. This is because victim services can relay important information to victims and support them through the referral process and the RJ process. Also, CJS partners, such as Crown prosecutors and police who have a mandate to make referrals to RJ programs, are also frequently in contact with victims about the availability of RJ processes.

Respondents indicated that most jurisdictions are focused on building their relationships with organizations that serve victims, both inside and outside the CJS, as well as with CJS professionals, to improve victims’ access to RJ. One respondent noted that their jurisdiction promotes the use of RJ by having their RJ program staff work with victim services staff to identify potential cases for RJ. Many respondents reported that they often use presentations, training, and committees to develop policies and guidelines for RJ. This work helps to ensure that CJS professionals know when to make RJ referrals and when to contact victims about RJ processes.

Government websites and social media accounts frequently provide public education and outreach on RJ. RJ program staff work with community-based organizations, leaders in the community, and Indigenous governments to help to raise awareness of RJ programs among community members and victims of crime. RJ program staff also work with communities, Indigenous governments, and non-government organizations to develop RJ programs that are culturally appropriate.

2. Raising awareness among CJS professionals

All survey respondents reported that they are working with other CJS professionals in their jurisdiction to raise awareness of RJ processes. Most identified three key CJS partners for RJ programs: Crown prosecutors, police, and victim services. Police and Crown prosecutors play an important role in improving access to RJ for victims because they can make referrals to RJ in certain jurisdictions. Other CJS professionals mentioned by respondents include correctional services staff and the judiciary.

Survey respondents emphasized how important it is to build relationships between RJ programs and CJS professionals because that is critical for increasing the number of referrals made to RJ processes. Many RJ programs provide training on RJ to CJS professionals and share information on RJ processes through committees, working groups, and meetings. Training can take various forms, from classroom learning to internal training manuals. One respondent’s jurisdiction published prosecution directives online for Crown prosecutors and the public, and to also inform victims that RJ is available to them.

Training is also important. It ensures that police, Crown prosecutors, the judiciary, and victim services get current and accurate information on the principles of RJ, as well as the availability of local RJ services and how RJ processes function.

CJS professionals in some jurisdictions, such as police in northern and remote areas, have a high turnover rate. Without consistent and regular training, knowledge of RJ programs is lost. This has been found to negatively impact the number of referrals to RJ processes.

In some jurisdictions, the decision to refer someone to a RJ process is up to individual Crown prosecutors and police officers. These professionals will be more likely to make referrals to RJ if they have experience with RJ programs. Referrals to RJ processes will also depend on the culture of an organization. One respondent noted that many Crown prosecutors fear they will be blamed if an offender who is diverted to RJ re-offends. The respondent reported that it is important to ensure that CJS partners who are able to divert cases to RJ understand the RJ programs in their jurisdiction (such as principles, benefits, limitations, and services), which will increase their confidence in using RJ and address concerns such as re-offending.

Another jurisdiction noted that some CJS partners push back on the use of RJ for particular crimes, such as victim services advising against the use of RJ processes for sexual offences.

Many respondents noted that sharing information and training between RJ programs, CJS partners, victim services, community-based organizations, and Indigenous groups are other important activities for raising awareness among CJS professionals.

3. Key messages

The majority (63 percent) of survey respondents provided a few examples of the key messages their jurisdiction shares with victims of crime about RJ programs and processes. Most jurisdictions’ key messages emphasize that RJ processes are voluntary as well as flexible, in that victims have many different options for how to participate because there is no standard RJ process. For example, victims can send a surrogate to attend the RJ process on their behalf, and/or they can submit written or verbal feedback to the RJ facilitators.

Many RJ programs focus on educating the public and victims about RJ. This includes the restorative principles on which RJ is based, for example:

  • empowerment;
  • healing;
  • respect;
  • empathy;
  • non-judgment; and
  • self-determination.

Other examples of key messages emphasize the use of a trauma-informed approach in RJ processes. This approach takes into account the physical, social, and emotional effect of trauma on the victim. Another example of a key message is that RJ provides victims of crime with opportunities to have a voice in the justice process and the opportunity to learn more about the crime and the offender.

4. Engagement and partnerships

Almost 90 percent of those who responded to the survey said that they are engaging and working with partners to help victims have better access to RJ processes.Footnote51 The main activities listed for engagement were organizing committees and working groups about RJ within their jurisdiction’s CJS. RJ programs also spend a lot of time developing training for CJS professionals, and presentations for community outreach.

Training on RJ is delivered to CJS professionals primarily to equip them with the knowledge and resources they need to refer victims for RJ, which in turn promotes access to justice for victims and promotes victims’ rights.

As mentioned earlier, some of the key CJS partners that RJ program staff often work with include victim services, police, prosecution, and corrections. Important relationships outside the CJS for RJ programs include community leadership, such as Indigenous governments and immigrant community leaders, crime prevention programs, and non-profit organizations that serve victims of various types of crime.

5. Research

The questions on research had the lowest response rate in the survey: only 42 percent of respondents reported that their jurisdiction is working on research related to victims of crime and participation in RJ processes. Federal departments conducted most of the research that survey respondents presented. One respondent noted that although their jurisdiction collects extensive quantitative data, their capacity to analyse and publish data is limited.

In 2017–18, data were collected from FPT governments who fund, support, or implement RJ processes to create baseline data on the RJ processes these governments support (FPT Working Group on Restorative Justice 2020). The results showed that in 2018–19, 30,658 cases were referred to RJ processes, of which 93 percent (28,603 cases) were accepted (FPT Working Group on Restorative Justice 2021). These reports also present data on the number of offenders and victims who participated in RJ processes, and recommended a few ways to increase the number of victims participating in RJ processes.

Other research has focused on the experiences and perceptions of victims who have participated in RJ processes, to better understand their perspectives and their needs when engaging with RJ (Bargen, Lyons, and Hartman 2019; Ha 2019).

Some other examples of studies include a 2021 study that explored the use of RJ in gender-based violence cases (Ending Violence Association of BC and Just Outcomes 2021). A 2018 study on victims’ experiences in RJ processes looked at community-based justice programs supported by the Indigenous Justice Program (Evans, McDonald, and Gill 2018).

6. Policies, regulations, procedures, and protocols

About three-quarters (74 percent) of respondents reported their jurisdiction has policies, regulations, procedures, or protocols to support victims’ participation in RJ. The responses for this theme varied a great deal: they referred to national resources such as the Canadian Victims Bill of RightsFootnote52 and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada’s Deskbook,Footnote53 to jurisdictions’ internal resources.

One respondent noted that their jurisdiction has developed a set of RJ guidelines to decide who is eligible for RJ. These guidelines set out the types of crimes and offenders that are considered eligible for RJ processes, for example, offences that are considered “minor”Footnote54 and first-time offenders. The guidelines also emphasize using RJ, and diverting cases more generally, for youth accused of crime. Another respondent noted that their jurisdiction is considering changing the eligibility criteria for RJ processes to include a wider array of offences. Another respondent reported that their jurisdiction has specific policies for using alternative measures and extra-judicial sanctions, which include provisions for victims’ participation in RJ processes.

7. Tools, documents, and resources

Close to 60 percent of survey respondents provided an example of a tool, document, and/or resource they use to promote and help victims’ access to RJ processes in their jurisdiction. Respondents noted several internal resources within their jurisdictions’ CJS, and external resources for victims and the public. Internal resources were often described as training materials, such as manuals on how to make referrals to RJ programs, or manuals to guide RJ facilitators in dialogue with victims at the different stages of a RJ process.

The external resources listed by survey respondents were usually governments’ public-facing websites and social media accounts, as some jurisdictions have webpages and brochures about RJ. They also have documents targeted directly to victims of crime. One respondent noted their jurisdiction has an online form victims can use to ask for information on RJ.

Challenges and lessons learned

For many jurisdictions across Canada, the use of RJ still depends on the accused’s or the offender’s participation. Often it is only after the accused or offender has accepted that they are responsible for the harm caused by the crime and have agreed to participate in a RJ process that the victim is made aware of the possibility to participate in a RJ process. Some jurisdictions have developed criteria to determine if offenders (such as first-time offenders) and offence types (such as “minor” offences) are eligible for RJ. In a few jurisdictions, victims may request a RJ process.

It can be challenging to provide information about RJ processes to victims. Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in significant barriers to public and community outreach. Physical distancing and lockdown restrictions have made it harder for RJ program staff, victim services, and local communities to meet in person with each other, with victims, and with community members. The shift to virtual meetings was particularly difficult for communities and individuals with limited access to the internet. Respondents also noted that some communities face a number of emergencies, including natural disasters, such as flooding and fires, and other types of crises, such as the opioid crisis. These factors make it more difficult to reach these communities.

Providing information on RJ processes to CJS professionals can also be challenging. For example, privacy regulations limit the police’s ability to share details with victim services. If victim services staff have very little or no information about the crime, they are more likely to err on the side of caution and not recommend that those cases be referred to RJ.

One respondent noted that professionals who have deep-seated negative stereotypes about certain groups, such as Indigenous peoples, may be less likely to make referrals to RJ processes. This internalized stigma is harmful because it limits access to RJ for certain victims, accused/offenders, and limits their access to justice. This respondent’s jurisdiction co-developed mandatory training with the local Indigenous communities to address these stereotypes, and to ensure the training was culturally accurate and respectful. This course taught CJS professionals about Indigenous peoples and the history of Canada, and provided participants with a better understanding of Indigenous RJ programs. The course was considered to be successful, and by the end of the course, even participants who had initially resisted the mandatory training reported a change in their perspectives.

Other challenges noted throughout survey responses include a lack of resources, high staff turnover and burn-out among staff in RJ programs and among CJS partners. These issues have an impact on the number of RJ referrals being made, as the loss of knowledge often results in less referrals. One key lesson learned is that when CJS partners are provided with regular training on RJ programs, they can ensure the knowledge is not lost when staff leave. This is particularly true for regions with high staff turnover, such as police services in northern, rural, and remote areas.

Future plans and concluding thoughts

Survey respondents noted several promising ideas and practices. One respondent suggested that jurisdictions should have a “RJ Champion.” This would be an important role to promote RJ processes, as well as advocate to ensure that RJ is more visible within the jurisdiction. Another respondent reported that their jurisdiction is working on a RJ Action Plan to develop a vision and future for RJ including victims’ participation in RJ. One jurisdiction conducted an ecosystem mapping exercise to better understand the roles of all RJ stakeholders, especially those in contact with victims, and to identify barriers to victims being referred to RJ processes.

The survey responses shared rich information about how FPT governments are working to increase and improve victims’ of crime participation in RJ processes across Canada. However, several areas still need to be explored in more detail. These include a more in-depth review of policies that support victims’ participation in RJ processes, and best practices for supporting victims during and after RJ processes. Another iteration of this survey could provide updates to the information in this report, while the periodic administration of this survey could identify trends and changes over time, as well as gaps.

References

Abramson, Alana, Allison Giesbrecht, and Jenelle Palfreyman. 2019. Educating for Change: Honouring the Voices of Restorative Justice Participants in BC, Final Report. Kwantlen Polytechnic University.

Bargen, Catherine, Aaron Lyons, and Matthew Hartman. 2019. Crime Victims’ Experiences of Restorative Justice: A Listening Project. Ottawa: Department of Justice. Accessed at: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/cverj-vvpcj/index.html

Ending Violence Association of BC and Just Outcomes. 2021. Restorative Justice and Gender-Based Violence: Revisiting the Conversation in British Columbia. Accessed at: Restorative Justice and Gender-Based Violence: Revisiting the Conversation in British Columbia – Victims of Crime Research Digest No. 14

Evans, Jane, Susan McDonald, and Richard Gill. 2018. Restorative Justice: The Experiences of Victims and Survivors. Victims of Crime Research Digest 11, 27-33. Accessed at: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rd11-rr11/p5.html

Federal Provincial Territorial Ministers of Justice and Public Safety. 2018. Principles and Guidelines for Restorative Justice Practice in Criminal Matters. Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat. Principles and Guidelines for Restorative Justice Practice in Criminal Matters (2018) – CICS / SCIC (scics.ca)

Federal Provincial Territorial Working Group on Restorative Justice. 2020. Increasing the Use of Restorative Justice in Criminal Matters in Canada: Baseline Report. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada. Increasing the Use of Restorative Justice in Criminal Matters in Canada - Baseline Report (publicsafety.gc.ca)

Federal Provincial Territorial Working Group on Restorative Justice. 2021. Increasing the Use of Restorative Justice in Criminal Matters in Canada: Findings from a 2018-2019 Jurisdictional Scan. Federal Provincial Territorial Working Group on Restorative Justice.

Ha, Lisa. 2020. Crime Victims’ Experiences of Restorative Justice: A Listening Project. Victims of Crime Research Digest 13, 39-42. Accessed at: Crime Victims’ Experiences of Restorative Justice: A Listening Project

Justice Canada. 2019. Final report on the review of the Canadian criminal justice system. Ottawa: Department of Justice. Accessed at: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/tcjs-tsjp/fr-rf/index.html

Statistics Canada. n.d.-a. Table 35-10-0027-01 Adult criminal courts, number of cases and charges by type of decision.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.25318/3510002701-eng

Statistics Canada. n.d.-b. Table 35-10-0038-01 Youth courts, number of cases and charges by type of decision.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.25318/3510003801-eng