Evaluation of the Youth Justice Initiative

Executive Summary

Introduction

This report presents the results of an evaluation of the Youth Justice Initiative (YJI). The evaluation covers the period from 2015-16 to 2019-20 and addresses issues related to relevance, effectiveness and efficiency.

Program Description

The YJI was established to support the implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) through funding to maintain programs and services, and respond to new and emerging youth justice issues. The ultimate objective of the YJI is to foster a fairer, more effective youth justice system. There are three YJI funding components that reflect the shared authority between federal and provincial/territorial governments over the youth justice system in Canada, and provide funding to the provinces and territories and other organizations to support the legislative and policy objectives of the YCJA.

Two YJI funding componentsFootnote 1 were the focus of the evaluation:

  • Youth Justice Services Funding Program (YJSFP) - provides funding to provinces and territories to support a range of high priorityFootnote 2 youth justice services and programs that are consistent with the federal policy objectives contained in the YCJA. More specifically, these funding agreements support and promote an appropriate range of programs and services that:
    • encourage accountability measures for unlawful behaviour that are proportionate and timely;
    • encourage effective rehabilitation and reintegration of young persons into their communities;
    • target the formal court process to the most serious offences; and,
    • target custody to the most serious offences.
  • Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision (IRCS) Program - provides funding to provinces and territories to support ongoing capacity to perform assessments and provide intensive and specialized services. These services are associated with IRCS court orders and other exceptional cases involving youth with mental health needs who have been sentenced for an offence in which they caused or attempted to cause serious bodily harm. IRCS has four funding components:
    • Part A (Basic Capacity): provides funding to all provinces and territories for the purposes of establishing and/or maintaining a minimum capacity to provide specialized mental health assessments and treatment plans for violent youth with mental health needs;
    • Part B (Court Orders): provides case specific funding to provinces and territories to provide therapeutic programs and services as required by youth who receive an IRCS sentence under the Act. The sentence option pertains to youth convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault, as well as youth convicted of a third serious violent offence and who are suffering from mental health issues;Footnote 3
    • Part C (Exceptional Cases): provides funding for exceptional cases (i.e., not ordered by the court) of where a youth caused or attempted to cause serious bodily harmFootnote 4 and has been diagnosed with a mental illness or disorder; and
    • Part D (Project Funding): funds special projects on an annual basis that address issues of relevance to youth justice.

The funding scheme described above prioritizes IRCS Parts A and B, and only if there are remaining funds, support is provided to Part C cases and then to special projects under Part D.

Policy Development, Monitoring and Support is provided by the Policy Unit of the YJI which is situated within the Youth and Indigenous Justice Division of the Family Law and Youth Justice Section. The overall objectives of this component of the YJI are to facilitate knowledge and information-sharing amongst the various stakeholders. This component consists of policy development, research, and liaison and outreach.

Total resources for the YJI are approximately $160M annually for the five-year period from 2015-16 to 2019-20, with the vast majority of funds allocated as grants and contributions (Gs&Cs) funding through the three funding components of the YJI. The YJSFP accounts for approximately 90% of YJI Gs&Cs funding.

Findings

Relevance

The evaluation found that the YJI continues to be relevant to share the costs of the youth justice system with provinces and territories in priority areas. The YJI was shown to be flexible in its support to jurisdictions to address an evolving youth justice landscape. Key trends include an overall decrease in youth crime, but continued overrepresentation of Indigenous youth in the justice system and increasing complexity of needs of youth in conflict with the law.

Effectiveness

YJSFP Contribution to the YJI Expected Outcomes: Multiple programs and services are supported by the YJSFP at various stages of the youth justice continuum. These interventions, which almost exclusively reflect the program’s identified high priority programming areas, contribute to provincial and territorial capacity to address federal policy objectives related to the YCJA. National data confirm that fewer youth are being charged and, when charged, are less likely to receive a custody sentence. While attribution to the YJSFP is difficult, the program contributes to this trend by offering alternatives to justice system officials so formal court and custody can be reserved for the most serious offences.

There are some concerns on the part of provinces and territories about capacity given prior funding reductions to YJSFP agreements. As well, the federal funding formula has not been changed in many years which has resulted in variability in the federal contribution to youth justice across provinces and territories. That said, the evaluation found limited evidence of gaps or backlogs in priority programming.

IRCS Contribution to the YJI Expected Outcomes. IRCS funding has supported assessment and treatment of serious violent offenders with mental health issues that, for most youth, would have been available only in part or not at all without IRCS funding. While there is anecdotal evidence of the impact of IRCS on the rehabilitation and reintegration of youth, recent re-contact studies are not available to assess re-offending or other types of impacts.

The IRCS capacity building funding (Part A) and discretionary project funding (Part D) are highly valued, although sustainability of the latter funding component is in doubt as IRCS cases have been increasing. There is a perceived need among many provincial/territorial representatives for funding for youth who have mental health issues, but who have not (yet) committed an offence that meets the ‘serious violent offence’ threshold requirement of Part C.

Other Effectiveness Considerations: The evaluation did not find evidence of systematic barriers to access YJI-funded programs and services, with the exception of access to YJI-funded programs and services in rural and remote locations. It is difficult to determine the effectiveness of YJI-funded programs for diverse youth groups, although many of the programs that were examined in the case studies are using individualised assessments and treatment where possible to tailor interventions to the specific needs of youth. YJI funds have also been used to increase capacity and pilot interventions for culturally responsive and culturally safe programs and services. Still, the overrepresentation of Indigenous and racialized youth in the youth justice system points to more to be done.

While federal-provincial-territorial (FPT) collaboration relating to the Coordinating Committee of Senior Officials - Youth Justice (CCSO – YJ) was previously raised as a concern, more regular engagement has improved satisfaction with the level of collaboration which has created the foundation for networks among the participants. Although progress addressing certain operational issues discussed at FPT meetings has improved, certain priorities are not always achieved in a timely manner.

Efficiency

The evaluation confirmed that the design of the YJSFP, including the identified high priority programming areas, are appropriate, comprehensive and sufficiently flexible to achieve the Department’s policy objectives related to the YCJA and address jurisdictional realities. The design and implementation of IRCS are also sound to provide support to provinces and territories for complex youth justice cases.

Recommendations

  1. The Policy Implementation Directorate, in consultation with its provincial-territorial partners, should explore the merits and consequences of expanding the current Part C (exceptional cases) offence eligibility criterion to include applications for youth who have serious mental health issues but have not met the serious offence criterion.
  2. The Policy Implementation Directorate, in consultation with its provincial/territorial partners, should review the YJSFP high priority funding areas and update them as required in order to support capacity development to deliver culturally responsive and culturally safe programs for Indigenous and other racialized youth as a way to work towards addressing their over-representation in the Canadian Justice System.
  3. The Policy Implementation Directorate with its provincial/territorial partners should further discuss and share innovative practices specific to alleviating program delivery issues and service gaps in rural and remote areas.
  4. The Family Law and Youth Justice Policy Section, in consultation with the Coordinating Committee of Senior Officials – Youth Justice, should continue to foster collaborative efforts and improved responses to emerging issues in a timely manner.
Date modified: