Conclusion

The current study gathered information from Canadian provinces and territories to determine the extent of use and processes of section 19 conferences. Despite the implementation of the YCJA nearly 20 years ago, this is the first study to examine the implementation of conferences across Canada.

Most provinces and territories have implemented section 19 conferences in different ways and for a variety of purposes. Some provinces and territories convene conferences as part of a program or policy. Other jurisdictions convene conferences on an “as needed” (ad hoc) basis. Overall, the survey has revealed that section 19 conferences are used at all stages of the criminal justice process. Furthermore, an array of professionals may be involved in the conferencing process.

Most jurisdictions emphasized many advantages to convening conferences, highlighting their collaborative nature, which allows for the exchange of information between the professionals involved, while also engaging the youth in a dialogue that ultimately affects their future. In addition, the conferencing process was noted to provide opportunities for restorative justice, as well as allow for accommodations to address the diverse and complex needs of youth. Some jurisdictions also suggested that conferences resulted in less re-offending.

However, jurisdictions identified a number of challenges. Some jurisdictions highlighted the lack of support and participation in the conferencing process and noted that conferences are considerably underutilized. Jurisdictions also emphasized a lack of community resources available to support the youth’s case plan. Finally, jurisdictions reported other overarching challenges to convening section 19 conferences, including managing scheduling conflicts between participants, not having a designated coordinator and various logistical issues resulting from limited access to technology.

Despite the widespread use of section 19 conferences across Canada, the current research showed that data on the use and outcomes of section 19 conferences are limited. As emphasized in the evaluation of Alberta’s FASD Justice Support Project, the consistent and comprehensive collection of data would enable a full assessment of the impacts of section 19 conferences (Cooper and Guyn 2016). Efforts to standardize data collection across jurisdictions could be explored.

Going forward, the many benefits of section 19 conferences highlighted in this study provide support for their expanded use across Canada. Given their ability to meet the diverse and complex needs of youth, the use of section 19 conferences provides a potential avenue that could be further explored as a means of reducing the ongoing overrepresentation of Indigenous and racialized youth. This would however first require addressing some of the limitations highlighted in this report.