Findings

Extent of use of section 19 conferences

All but two jurisdictions (Quebec and the Yukon) reported use of section 19 conferences (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Use of section 19 conferences by jurisdiction
Figure 1: Use of section 19 conferences by jurisdiction
Figure 1: Use of section 19 conferences by jurisdiction – Text version

This is a map chart of Canada that shows which jurisdictions are using section 19 conferences. There are two categories – the blue represents ‘yes’ and the grey represents ‘no’. The title says “Are section 19 conferences convened in your jurisdiction?”

The first category ‘yes’ represents jurisdictions that use section 19 conferences. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island are all blue indicating that they use section 19 conferences.

The second category ‘no’ represents jurisdictions that do not use section 19 conferences. Quebec and Yukon are grey indicating that they do not use section 19 conferences.

Both Quebec and the Yukon, the two jurisdictions that did not report convening section 19 conferences, indicated that there were no immediate or future plans to implement conferences. Reasons provided for not convening section 19 conferences were centered around already existing mechanisms that fulfil the purpose of section 19 conferences. The Yukon, for example, indicated that “there is a lengthy history of relying on the Youth Justice Panel (YJP), [section] 18 YCJA Committee.” Similarly, Quebec noted that there is already strong collaboration between justice actors who assist youth who are in conflict with the law.Footnote 3

Among the eleven jurisdictions reporting the convening of section 19 conferences, all but one (Nunavut) had developed either rules, policies, guidelines, and/or programs relating to section 19. Seven jurisdictionsFootnote 4 reported having established rules pursuant to section 19(3),Footnote 5 and another seven jurisdictionsFootnote 6 reported having established policies, guidelines, or programs (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Rules, policies, guidelines and programs by jurisdiction
Figure 2: Rules, policies, guidelines and programs by jurisdiction
Figure 2: Rules, policies, guidelines and programs by jurisdiction – Text version

This is a map chart of Canada that shows whether a jurisdiction has established rules pursuant to section 19(3) and/or specific policies/guidelines/programs for the convening and conducting of section 19 conferences.

The title says “Has your jurisdiction established rules pursuant to section 19(3) and/or specific policies/guidelines/programs for the convening and conducting of section 19 conferences?”

There are four categories – the blue represents rules, the grey represents policies, guidelines and programs, the light blue represents both, and the dark blue represents none.

The first category ‘rules’ represents jurisdictions that have developed rules pursuant to section 19(3) of the YCJA. Manitoba, Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island are all blue indicating that they have developed rules.

The second category ‘policies, guidelines and programs’ represents jurisdictions that have established policies, guidelines and/or programs for convening section 19 conferences. British Columbia and Northwest Territories are grey indicating that they have established policies, guidelines and/or programs.

The third category ‘both’ represents jurisdictions who have developed rules pursuant to section 19(3) as well as policies, guidelines and/or programs for conferences. Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia are light blue indicating that they have establish both rules and policies, guidelines and/or programs.

The fourth category ‘none’ represents jurisdictions who have not developed rules or policies, guidelines and/or programs for section 19 conferences. Ontario and Nunavut are dark blue and striped indicating that they do not have any rules or policies, guidelines or programs.

Overview of rules, policies, guidelines and programs

In response to the survey, a number of jurisdictions provided key documents relevant to the rules, policies, guidelines, and/or programs they developed in relation to the use of conferences.Footnote 7 The scope of these documents varied widely between jurisdictions. For example:

Section 19 conferences can also be convened on an as needed (ad hoc) basis, outside of any policy, guideline and/or program mandating their use in specific circumstances. Among jurisdictions reporting convening conferences, all but one (Northwest Territories) indicated convening conferences on an as needed basis. Most jurisdictions reported that these ad hoc conferences occurred regularly, while Newfoundland and Labrador indicated that they did so rarely. Examples of conferences convened on an as needed basis included cases in which youth had complex files or had multidimensional needs, cases that involved two or more departments (such as Public Safety, Social Development, Education, and Health) as well as for youth with mental health issues, addiction issues, and/or trauma. Other ad hoc conferences were also convened in cases wherein compliance issues were a factor (e.g., court-ordered sanctions).

Conferencing purposes and processes

Jurisdictions were asked a series of questions on the purposes and processes for convening conferences. These questions were asked separately for: 1) conferences convened under policies, guidelines or programs that mandate conferences in specific circumstances, and 2) conferences convened generally on an as needed basis. For the purpose of reporting these findings, responses to these questions were collapsed into one response for all types of conferences, as presented below. It should be noted that responses varied within the same jurisdiction depending on the type of conference convened.

When are conferences convened

Most jurisdictions reported convening conferences at the post charge/pre-finding of guilt stage (9), at the post-finding of guilt/pre-sentence stage (8) and at the post-sentencing stage (8). Approximately half of the jurisdictions convened conferences at the pre-charge stage (5). See Table 1 for conferences by CJS stages across jurisdictions.

Table 1: Conferences by CJS stages across jurisdictions

Table 1: Conferences by CJS stages across jurisdictions
Pre-charge Post-charge/pre-finding of guilt Post-finding of guilt/pre-sentence Post-sentencing
Newfoundland   Yes    
Nova Scotia     Yes Yes
Prince Edward Island Yes Yes Yes  
New Brunswick Yes Yes Yes Yes
Ontario   Yes Yes Yes
Manitoba   Yes Yes Yes
Saskatchewan       Yes
Alberta Yes Yes Yes Yes
British Columbia   Yes Yes Yes
Northwest Territories Yes Yes    
Nunavut Yes Yes Yes Yes

Purposes of conferences

Section 19 conferences were reported to serve an array of purposes. All jurisdictions that convened conferences reported doing so to obtain advice on a sentencing plan, or to assist in the process of developing a sentencing plan. Several jurisdictions convened conferences for the purpose of coordinating social services to support the youth (9), determining appropriate extrajudicial sanctions (8), determining conditions for judicial interim release (i.e., bail) (8), and to provide an opportunity for a restorative justice process (8). Roughly half of jurisdictions convened conferences to develop a reintegration plan (7), to provide an opportunity for a healing circle/process (7), or to determine appropriate extrajudicial measures, other than extrajudicial sanctions (5). Only two jurisdictions used conferences to carry out a Gladue or Impact of Race and Culture Assessment. Other noted purposes for 19 conferences included for sentence or custody reviews and to coordinate other supports for the Youth. See Table 2 for purposes of conferences by jurisdiction.

Table 2: Purposes of conferences by jurisdiction

Table 2: Purposes of conferences by jurisdiction
Provide advice on sentencing/ develop sentencing plan Determine appropriate extrajudicial sanctions Determine appropriate extrajudicial measures other than extrajudicial sanctions Determine conditions for interim release Develop a reintegration plan Provide an opportunity for a healing circle Provide an opportunity for restorative justice Coordinate social services support Consider Gladue reports and/or Impact of race and culture assessments
Newfoundland Yes     Yes          
Nova Scotia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  
Prince Edward Island Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
New Brunswick Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  
Ontario Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Manitoba Yes     Yes   Yes Yes Yes  
Saskatchewan Yes Yes     Yes     Yes  
Alberta Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  
British Columbia Yes     Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  
Northwest Territories Yes Yes         Yes    
Nunavut Yes Yes           Yes  

Eligibility criteria

Alberta was the only jurisdiction to report specific eligibility requirements to participate in section 19 conferences. These centered around characteristics of the youth and their offences. For example, to participate in a section 19 conference as part of the FASD Justice Support Program, Alberta requires that the youth possess a diagnosis of FASD or have a suspected diagnosis. Under Alberta’s policy and guidelines on Youth Justice Committees, the youth take responsibility for their offence in order to participate in the conferencing process.

Although other jurisdictions did not specifically report having eligibility criteria, the policy, guideline and program documents they provided identified some criteria, such as circumstances or situations in which a section 19 conference should or should not be considered. In British Columbia for example, a conference may be considered when a youth under supervision or otherwise known to the Ministry has allegedly committed an offence involving serious violence, or is a chronic offender. In a different, but related vein, Prince Edward Island indicated that “caution is to be exercised in convening a conference for a minor offence since it could be an inappropriate use of resources.”

The only jurisdiction in which certain criteria prohibited convening section 19 conferences was the Northwest Territories; as part of their “Diversion Protocol,” conferences are not to be convened in cases involving charges related to child abuse or crimes against children, family/domestic violence, murder and/or attempted murder, hospitalization, or any charge that is an indictable offense.

Who convenes conferences

Jurisdictions were also asked about who convenes section 19 conferences. Most jurisdictions indicated that multiple types of CJS professionals convened conferences, as presented in Table 3. Most jurisdictions (9) reported that judges convened conferences under section 41 of the YCJA. Other CJS professionals most commonly cited by jurisdictions were provincial directors or delegates (8), probation officers (8), and youth workers (6). Police officers, Crown prosecutors, defence counsels and justices of the peace were noted as conveners in less than half of the jurisdictions.

A number of jurisdictions indicated that other professionals may also convene conferences. These included intervention outreach workers (Prince Edward Island, in the context of community and correctional services for release planning), mental health court workers (Ontario), youth justice committees (Alberta), and community justice coordinators (Northwest Territories).

Table 3: Who convenes conferences by jurisdiction

Table 3: Who convenes conferences by jurisdiction
Judge Provincial director/delegate Probation officer Youth worker Police officer Crown prosecutor Justice of the Peace Defence counsel Other
Newfoundland Yes                
Nova Scotia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes        
Prince Edward Island Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes   Yes
New Brunswick Yes   Yes Yes          
Ontario Yes Yes Yes Yes   Yes   Yes Yes
Manitoba Yes Yes              
Saskatchewan   Yes Yes Yes          
Alberta Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
British Columbia Yes Yes Yes            
Northwest Territories         Yes       Yes
Nunavut Yes Yes Yes     Yes Yes Yes  

Who participates in conferences

Jurisdictions reported that various types of participants participate in the conference process. Broadly, most jurisdictions reported that the young person most often participated in the conferencing process; other frequently noted participants across jurisdictions were probation officers, the family and other support people of the youth, social workers, child welfare representatives, mental health workers, school representatives, as well as Elders or Indigenous representatives. See Table 4 for a breakdown of most commonly cited participants across jurisdictions.

Other less frequently noted types of participants included police officers, the Crown prosecutor, the defence counsel, educators, interpreters, as well as victims and their family and other support people of the victim.

Table 4: Conference participants by jurisdictionFootnote 8

Table 4: Conference participants by jurisdiction
Family Young Person Probation Officer Elder/Indigenous representative Youth/social service worker School representative Child welfare representative Health/Mental Health Professional
Newfoundland   Yes Yes   Yes      
Nova Scotia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Prince Edward Island Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
New Brunswick Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Ontario Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Manitoba Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Saskatchewan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Alberta Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
British Columbia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Northwest Territories Yes Yes   Yes   Yes    
Nunavut Yes Yes Yes Yes       Yes

Dedicated resources

Dedicated resources allocated specifically for section 19 conferences were reported by four jurisdictions (i.e., Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, and Northwest Territories). The level and type of dedicated resources were quite varied. For example, Manitoba employed one Judicial Conferencing Coordinator when convening conferences (full-time). Alberta had one FASD Program Coordinator and a number of Youth Justice Committee Coordinators (both full-time and part-time). British Columbia had dedicated conferencing specialist youth probation officers. Finally, the Northwest Territories indicated that they employed 28 Community Justice Coordinators (approximately four full-time and 24 part-time resources).

Benefits of conferences

Several benefits of conferences were reported. These are summarized into five key themes as presented below.

Increased involvement and buy-in of youth

A number of benefits were reported specifically for the youth involved in the section 19 conference process. Ontario noted that conferences seek to “ensure that the youth has a voice and approves of any plans going forward.” British Columbia noted that this gives the youth a sense of accountability vis-à-vis their personalized case plan. These views were shared by professionals in New Brunswick; a review of section 19 conferences conducted in the province found that compared to formal court processes, conferences involve the youth in the conversation, which gives them the “unique opportunity to share their personal experience and beliefs with the adults who ultimately play a role in their sentencing outcomes.” This results in a non-adversarial environment wherein the youth feels they are listened to and their perspective is represented, thus increasing buy-in.

Help address diverse and complex needs

An added benefit of section 19 conferences is that they can be used to address multi-dimensional and diverse youth needs. It was noted that conferences provide the opportunity to consider and adapt to personal history and culture, language differences, health issues and disabilities as well as the specific needs of circumstances of gender diverse and racialized youth. On this topic, jurisdictions were specifically asked if the conferencing process allowed them to implement culturally appropriate adaptations or other accommodations in recognition of these diversity factors. Most jurisdictions reported that adaptations were made for youth’s specific circumstances. For instance, Prince Edward Island indicated that it has sentencing circles for their Indigenous youth. This was in addition to offering other culturally appropriate accommodations when needed, which may also involve addressing the unique needs of LGBTQIA+ youth. Similarly, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories reported using an interpreter when required, and the latter noted that cultural opening and closing processes are adopted. Further, several jurisdictions reported making accommodations for both physical and mental health challenges, including FASD and addiction issues. A few jurisdictions also allowed support people (e.g., therapists, a community member) to attend a conference alongside the youth.

Further, conferences can help identify solutions to address the needs of the most complex and vulnerable cases, notably youth who have cognitive impairments, mental health and addictions issues, or recidivism challenges. Nova Scotia shared that conferences were beneficial to youth under Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision (IRCS) orders,Footnote 9 noting that all parties usually attend for these youth. Ontario noted that for youth with intellectual disabilities, section 19 conferences “slow down” the criminal justice process and provide more time for thorough discussion with the youth to ensure they “understand what is going on, what is expected of them while on bail or probation.” In the same vein, Ontario further shared that conferences have been successful in meeting the needs of crossover youth (i.e., youth who are under the jurisdictions of both child welfare services and the CJS). These youth often fall through service provider gaps due to a lack of mechanisms for the two systems to coordinate their approach to the at-risk youth. Section 19 conferences can serve to bridge this gap and better coordinate services and supports for these complex cases.

Increased collaboration between justice actors and between social systems for better case planning

Several jurisdictions affirmed the collaborative nature of conferences, indicating that they allow for many social systems to converge for the benefit of the youth, which is not the norm outside of the implementation of section 19. These conferences encourage expert multi-disciplinary contributions from an array of professionals, where everyone shares their knowledge of the youth and gains insight into the circumstances that lead to youth coming into contact with the system. Manitoba noted that conferences were “the most productive and efficient way of getting all of the resources and supports for a youth together to do case planning.” As Ontario put it, the process enables key stakeholders to assess “what resources exist to assist [the youth’s] re-integration into the community. It is just as important to know what has been attempted and unsuccessful in the past, as what may be succeeding, for these youth.” New Brunswick stated that section 19 conferences facilitate the implementation of services to address the youth’s risk and needs. A recent review of conferences conducted in that province found similar results. Professionals surveyed as part of the review described that the process resulted in more creative plans (Ronis, Kabbash, Gryshchuk, and Campbell 2020). Further, British Columbia reported that the multidisciplinary strategizing and planning between stakeholders delivered a “wrap-around community response,” which can increase the viability of case plans.

Provide an opportunity for restorative justice

A few jurisdictions highlighted that conferences provide an opportunity to consider the needs of the victim(s). The Northwest Territories found that conferences enable victims to have a voice and to obtain additional support. As described by Alberta, conferences provide an opportunity for restorative justice where “young persons, families, victims, and communities benefit from a process that brings all parties together in the aftermath of a crime to determine together how to move forward to address the harm.” The topic of conferences was recently discussed at a provincial conference of judges in Newfoundland and Labrador and it was recognized as a positive conflict resolution process. This in turn, as noted by British Columbia, ultimately improves victims’ experiences with the CJS.

Reduced charges and recidivism

It was noted that participation in section 19 conferences may help prevent recidivism. Alberta indicated that “[s]ection 19 conferencing is effective in preventing crime because conferences are able to put in place stronger supports for young persons to help them be safe and to move their lives forward in positive ways.” These views were empirically supported by the results of an evaluation of Alberta’s FASD Justice Support Project; the study found that section 19 conferences convened for young offenders with FASD resulted in considerably fewer serious criminal offences (e.g., involving violence) following a conference, relative to the time before the conference and also relative to a control group (see section on Evaluations and impact assessments for further information).

Similarly, Ontario highlighted that the collaborative case planning approach provides greater stability for the youth, which anecdotally aids in reducing recidivism. An example given noted that conferences enable parties to work together to find suitable housing that the youth approves; this in turn decreases the odds the youth running away or violating bail and probation conditions, thus reducing incidents of recidivism. These views reflected findings from the review of section 19 conferences conducted in New Brunswick; although interview participants noted that is it difficult to assess the impact of conferences on re-offending, most found that “conferences resulted in concrete plans for services from which the youth would benefit as a means of reducing their criminal risk.” (Ronis, Kabbash, Gryshchuk, and Campbell 2020)

Challenges of conferences

Despite the benefits of conferences, jurisdictions reported noteworthy challenges. These challenges are summarized into four key themes and are presented below.

Scheduling, time requirements, and logistics

A significant challenge of conferences stems from scheduling and organizational issues. Jurisdictions indicated that it was difficult to accommodate the different schedules of the various participants. Prince Edward Island generally acknowledged the issue of getting each service provider to the table. Ontario similarly noted the challenges that can be involved with judicial schedules and the need to accommodate 30-60 minute conferences. Nova Scotia found that this was further complicated by some parents’ inability to attend in person. However, it was noted that increased virtual communication capabilities could assist in allowing more participants to attend. This challenge may have diminished since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced many to adopt new technologies to communicate and stay in touch. With that said, on-going challenges due to technological issues are to be expected, as some youth and their families are without smart phones or Internet access.

Further, the lack of designated case conference coordinators to organize conferences posed significant challenges. Many jurisdictions do not designate an official conference coordinator. As Ontario noted, this places the burden of organizing conferences on various justice professionals (e.g., probation services, local mental health workers, and Crown or defense counsels) who have already very busy schedules. In Ontario, this was flagged as potentially problematic for Legal Aid lawyers who do not receive funding for time spent organizing conferences. This also poses specific challenges for crossover youth due to the overlap of their file between child welfare agencies and the CJS. In these cases, Ontario noted that not having a defined coordinator can be problematic when there are no mechanisms in place for the two systems to speak to one other. Ontario also noted that in instances when there was a designated coordinator in place, there was an increase in conferences held.

Finally, the timing of conferences was also noted as a logistical challenge. For example, Saskatchewan indicated that it was difficult to get the key participants on a pre-charge basis to ensure police can make decisions quickly. Further, a review of section 19 conferences conducted in New Brunswick highlighted that many stakeholders found the imposition of a restricted timeline to conduct the conference (e.g., two to three months) constituted a barrier to executing high-quality conferences (Ronis, Kabbash, Gryshchuk, and Campbell 2020).

Difficulties getting people to support and participate in the process

Challenges also stemmed from getting participants to support and participate in section 19 conferences. British Columbia noted that obtaining buy-in from legal and justice system professionals can be difficult and that this is as a result of the broader justice system not being designed for collaborative problem solving. Alberta shared its struggles with getting participants to buy into restorative justice practices, which are commonly used during conferences led by Youth Justice Committees. It was also mentioned that getting the youth’s family involved in the process posed challenges. Ontario noted that this was particularly the case with youth dealing with mental health issues and those involved with child welfare services: “If the family is not supportive or if the family lacks insight into the young person’s underlying issues, the benefits of conferencing may be lost.” Finally, the Northwest Territories experienced challenges with victim participation, noting that it was fairly low in that jurisdiction.

Limited availability of community programs, resources and supports

Another common challenge emphasized was difficulty finding resources to support the youth’s case plan. Manitoba and Alberta noted that finding appropriate placements for youth in care was an obstacle, partly due to the lack of responsiveness of child welfare services. Finding treatment options for youth with serious and chronic addiction issues was also problematic as there are limited options for residential treatment. Alberta stressed that many services are often at capacity, making it difficult to find high-level support in areas such as “income, housing, personal (e.g., supervision in daily living, financial guardianship), counselling, school or employment, substance abuse, and health care.” Moreover, it was noted that rural communities often lack resources to provide the high level of care necessary for some youth. These challenges were also found in a review of section 19 conferences conducted in New Brunswick where professionals voiced their “common frustration [with] the general lack of resources and programming options, making it a challenge to fulfill the ultimate purpose of Section 19 conferences (e.g., developing alternative recommendations for custody and rehabilitation planning).” (Ronis, Kabbash, Gryshchuk, and Campbell 2020)

Lack of awareness and knowledge

Although the issue of awareness and knowledge of section 19 conferences did not specifically emerge from survey findings, some jurisdictions underscored that the conferencing process is substantially underutilized and that opportunities to enhance its use could be explored. It is possible that this underutilization could be the result, at least in part, of a general lack of awareness and knowledge of the purposes, processes and possibilities of section 19 conferences. A review of section 19 conferences conducted in New Brunswick highlighted the need for additional training related to section 19 conferences (Ronis, Kabbash, Gryshchuk, and Campbell 2020). The study pointed to conference participants feeling unprepared to attend conferences and generally confused on how conferences are conducted. Training on the guidelines and procedural aspects of how to convene and facilitate a section 19 conference were specifically requested. Providing regular training sessions was suggested as a way to possibly increase participation and buy-in as well as standardize the quality and consistency of conferences. The option of conducting training across jurisdictions was also noted to increase national consistency and enable the sharing of best practices and lessons learned.

Data collection, evaluations and impact assessments

Data collection

Six jurisdictions reported collecting some form of administrative data on section 19 conferences, namely New Brunswick, Ontario,Footnote 10 Manitoba, Alberta, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories.Footnote 11 The type of information collected includes:

New Brunswick was the only jurisdiction to collect data on the cost of conferences, but indicated that this occurred “rarely.” The frequency of data collection varied across jurisdictions, with some variables being collected more consistently (i.e., “always” or “most of the time”) and others less consistently (i.e., “some of the time” or “rarely”). See Table 5 for information on data collection specific to jurisdictions.

Table 5: Data collection by jurisdiction

Table 5: Data collection by jurisdiction
Number of conferences convened Characteristics of youth Who convened conferences Who attended conferences Purpose of conferences Outcome of conferences Cost of conference
Newfoundland Never Never Never Never Never Never Never
Nova Scotia Don’t know Don’t know Don’t know Don’t know Don’t know Don’t know Don’t know
Prince Edward Island No answer No answer No answer No answer No answer No answer No answer
New Brunswick Always Always Always Always Always Always Rarely
Ontario Some of the time Never Some of the time Some of the time Some of the time Some of the time Never
Manitoba Always Never Always Never Always Never Never
Saskatchewan Don’t know Don’t know Don’t know Don’t know Don’t know Don’t know Don’t know
Alberta Some of the time Some of the time Some of the time Some of the time Some of the time Some of the time Never
British Columbia Never Never Never Never Never Never Never
Northwest Territories Always Most of the time Always Most of the time Always Always Never
Nunavut Most of the time Don’t know Some of time Some of the time Some of the time Always Never

Evaluations and impact assessments

Three jurisdictions—New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, and Alberta—reported having conducted some form of evaluation or impact assessment of section 19 conferences (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Evaluations and impact assessments
Figure 3: Evaluations and impact assessments
Figure 3: Evaluations and impact assessments – Text version

This is a map chart of Canada that shows whether or not a jurisdiction has completed any evaluations or other impact assessments examining the effectiveness of section 19 conferences.

The title says “Have any evaluations or other impact assessments been completed to examine the effectiveness of section 19 conferences?”

There are three categories – the blue represents ‘yes’, the grey represents ‘no’, and the light blue represents ‘don’t know’.

The first category ‘yes’ represents jurisdictions that have completed an evaluation or other impact assessment examining the effectiveness of section 19 conferences. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick are blue indicating that they have completed some form of evaluation or impact assessment.

The second category ‘no’ represents jurisdictions that have not completed an evaluation or other impact assessment of section 19 conferences. British Columbia, Northwest Territories, Ontario, Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia are grey with white polka dots indicating that they have not completed any evaluations or impact assessments.

The third category ‘don’t know’ represents jurisdictions in which the information was unavailable. Manitoba, Nunavut, and Prince Edward Island are light blue indicating that the information regarding impact assessments was unavailable.

New Brunswick and Alberta shared these evaluation and assessment reports as part of the survey.Footnote 13 Generally, positive impacts have been found for section 19 conferences. However, a number of challenges were identified with the conferencing process itself. Findings from these reports are briefly summarized below.

a. Youth Justice Conferences: Process and Use of Section 19 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act in New Brunswick

A review of the implementation of section 19 conferences in the province of New Brunswick was conducted in 2020 (Ronis, Kabbash, Gryshchuk, and Campbell 2020). The examination focused on the use of these conferences in the province, particularly those conducted by the New Brunswick Department of Public Safety,Footnote 14 as well as on the strengths and possible improvements to conferencing processes. The examination entailed a review of policies and guidelines and administrative data, qualitative interviews with 40 professionals with explicit conference experience as well as an online survey completed by 27 different professionals with knowledge of conferences (only 11 of whom had direct experience with section 19 conferences, however). Findings from this review have been reported throughout this report. A brief overview of results is provided below.

Findings highlighted both benefits and challenges encountered by various professionals during section 19 conferences. Overall, the assessment showed that most professionals who participated in conferences in New Brunswick were encouraged by their collaborative nature. The process was described as valuable since it enabled the sharing of insight and collaboration on best alternatives to custody for the youth. Conferences were praised for providing the young person with the opportunity to be engaged and involved in their own case. Finally, the review found that current practices require that cultural considerations and adaptations be integrated into these conferences and subsequent case planning when relevant.

The review underscored various challenges surrounding section 19 conferences. For example, the objectives and process of conferences were not always clear to participants reinforcing the need for further guidelines and training. It was also noted that the victim’s perspective could be integrated to a greater extent into the conferencing process. Other significant challenges noted were the lack of available community resources to support youth case planning. Finally, the need to provide greater administrative support for conference organization was highlighted, along with the need for a more standardised/regionalized approach to overseeing the conference process.

b. Evaluation of an Intervention to Prevent Recidivism Among Young Offenders with Alberta’s Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD): FASD Justice Project

In 2016, the province of Alberta commissioned an impact assessment of its FASD Justice Support ProjectFootnote 15 to ascertain how the project, through the convening of section 19 conferences, impacts the life course and recidivism rates of young offenders with FASD (Cooper and Guyn 2016). Findings from the evaluation indicated that the FASD Justice Support Project resulted in a reduction in recidivism among other benefits. More specifically, section 19 conferences convened for young offenders with FASD resulted in considerably fewer serious criminal offences (involving violence, for example) following a conference, relative to the time before the conference and also relative to a control group.Footnote 16 Notably, after controlling for “failure to comply with an order” and “failure to appear,” and other similar charges, the control group’s serious charges increased instead of decreased. It was also noted that participation in conferences improved the youth’s behaviour and attitude (improvement in anti-social demeanor), resulted in less substance abuse and criminality, and that the youth had better peer involvements. These factors contributed to a statistically significant drop in the overall score for “risk of offending” of youth who participated in a conference. No associations were found between improved risk scores and decreases in charges involving failure to appear (FTA) and failure to comply (FTC), total charges including FTA/FTCs, nor drug or alcohol charges.

A key limitation of Alberta’s evaluation was that there was insufficient data to specifically pinpoint which part of a section 19 conference resulted in reducing recidivism risk factors. Additionally, the available data were insufficient to gage associations between overall or specific support systems and changes in criminality. Recommendations from the evaluation suggested that better recordkeeping be implemented. The evaluation also concluded that pending suggested modifications, the project should be replicated across the province.

c. FASD Justice Support Program Expansion; Findings from Consultations with the Alberta FASD Service Networks

In August 2017, the province of Alberta conducted a consultation with FASD Service NetworksFootnote 17 in the province to inform the FASD Justice Support Program Expansion (Guyn Cooper Research Associates Ltd. 2017). The consultations aimed to assess local capacity to convene, support, and monitor the outcomes of Section 19 conferences. Ten of the 12 Networks responded to the consultation.

The consultation involved five questions, one of which asked respondents about how section 19 conferences are convened in their area, and how people are selected to serve on conference committees. Respondents were also asked for their opinions and general feedback on conferences.

Results from these consultations showed variation among the Networks’ interest in and support of section 19 conferences. Several Networks were enthusiastic about conferences (notably, Central Alberta, Prairie Central, and the Lakeland Networks), noting that they felt prepared to conduct conferences immediately, but would require some additional supports, such as increased access to assistance on reserves, to become more aware of front-line services, and to have access to increased funding where necessary. In addition, the Northwest, Northwest Central, Mackenzie, and Southeast Networks demonstrated keenness to participate in conferencing, but expressed realistic qualms regarding a high volume of referrals, capacity to keep up with assessments, and a lack of resources on reserves and First Nations communities, further complicated by the remoteness of some of these communities.

Some networks expressed concerns over possible conference delays due to long assessment wait times. All Networks were concerned about financial implications and wondered who would finance court-ordered assessments. One respondent from the Calgary Network noted that the FASD Justice Support Program and conferences should not expand into rural areas until the completion of feasibility testing of the program, which would include supportive services for those affected by FASD. Additionally, the Southwest Networks expressed that section 19 conferences are a replication of similar conferences already occurring with police and probation officers.