Crime reported by police serving areas where the majority of the population is Indigenous, 2018

Levels of crime and victimization in First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities are a concern in Canada. Self-reported data have repeatedly shown high rates of victimization among individuals who identify as First Nations people, Métis or Inuit (Boyce 2016). Similarly, police-reported data consistently shows high rates of homicide among Indigenous peoples compared to the rate for non-Indigenous victims (Roy and Marcellus 2018). The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG) provided an in-depth examination of violence against First Nations, Métis and Inuit women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people and called for action to address the root causes behind Canada’s staggering rates of violence against them (Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls 2019). This report also raised concerns around the treatment of Indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system both as victims and as accused individuals. Information from Canadian correctional services has shown that Indigenous peoples are notably over-represented among offenders in correctional services (Malakieh 2019). Recently, there has also been much public discussion about the relationship between police and Indigenous peoples, with calls to address systemic racism in policing (British Columbia 2020, Canada, Parliament 2020a, Canada, Parliament, 2020b).

In parallel, there has been much discussion of the ongoing impact of colonization on First Nations people, Métis and Inuit in Canada, particularly regarding the effects of socioeconomic marginalization, trauma, and intergenerational violence on life outcomes as well as on substance use, mental health, delinquency and associated criminal behaviour (Aguiar and Halseth 2015, Anderson 2015, Capobianco et al. 2003, Kumar and Nahwegahbow 2016, Oliver et al. 2016, R. v. Gladue 1999, R. v. Ipeelee 2012). Many Indigenous people in Canada face challenging social and economic circumstances which can be a factor in criminal behaviour, and may also have an impact on the ability of both accused and victims to navigate the criminal justice system.

Research on victimization has pointed to risk factors such as child maltreatment, substance use, mental health, homelessness, and neighbourhood disorder. Indigenous people are more likely to self-report each of these key factors (Boyce 2016). These are also factors that have been associated with offending, and recognizing their impact is important in understanding crime among these populations (See Text box 2). The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has drawn attention to the challenges of crime experienced in Indigenous communities and the issue of over-incarceration as part of the legacy of the residential schools (Truth and Reconciliation Commission 2015). This history was also noted in the 1999 Supreme Court decision in the case of R. v. Gladue (the “Gladue decision”), which ruled that judges “must give attention to the unique background and systemic factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular offender before the courts” (R. v. Gladue 1999). In spite of this decision, however, there is still concern about how Indigenous individuals are treated by the criminal justice system. In particular, there has been considerable concern about their continued over-representation in correctional institutions (Office of the Correctional Investigator 2020) as well as a renewed focus on police practices.

Much of the research previously available examines issues facing the Indigenous population in general. Less information has been published, however, on the experience of crime at a community level, within Indigenous communities. Although statistics consistently show that police services serving Indigenous communities report some of the highest rates of crime in Canada (Statistics Canada n.d.a), there has been little detailed analysis to examine the nature of crime in these communities.

Building on previous studies that looked at crime in regions with relatively large Indigenous populations,^Note  this Juristat uses data from the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey (UCR) to examine the nature and extent of crime reported in 2018 by 182 police services or detachments that were identified in this study as serving populations where over half the residents were Indigenous. For most of these police services, 75% or more of the population they served were Indigenous, that is, they identified as First Nations people, Métis or Inuit in the 2016 Census of Population, or lived on reserve. The focus of this article is to identify those offences which account for much of the difference between rates of crime when compared with police serving predominantly non-Indigenous populations. In addition, the article presents information on the socioeconomic conditions of these communities as well as contextual information on other challenges faced by Indigenous peoples in Canada which may help in interpreting the crime experienced in these communities.

It is important to note that the communities identified as Indigenous for this study are not representative of crime experienced by Indigenous populations in general. Rather, they are a small set of communities including villages and reserves that are relatively small, generally rural, and often remote, and they represent only a small proportion of the Indigenous population of Canada (See the Indigenous communities examined in this study section). However, for ease of readability, in this article, the communities served by police services serving majority Indigenous populations are sometimes referred to as “Indigenous communities”.

The term “Indigenous” is used throughout this article when referring to the Indigenous population (First Nations people, Métis or Inuit) served by a police service (estimated from Census data on Aboriginal identity, reserve locations and other administrative data sources).^{Note  Note} 

Indigenous communities examined in this study

Method

The Uniform Crime Reporting Survey collects detailed information on all criminal incidents reported by police services and detachments in Canada. Information about the specific location of incidents (such as on-reserve) or the Indigenous identity of accused and victims is not consistently reported by police.^Note  Therefore, in order to examine crime affecting Indigenous communities, this study identified police services where more than half of the population they served was Indigenous.

To delineate these police services for the purposes of this analysis, information was gathered from the 2016 Census of Population and verified by various administrative sources to identify police services and detachments where over 50% of the population they serve identified as First Nations people, Métis or Inuit in the 2016 Census of Population, or lived on reserve. For a detailed description of this method see the Data sources and concepts section).

This method identified 182 police services or detachments serving majority Indigenous populations. In total, 1,167 police services reported to the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey (UCR) in 2018. For ease of readability, in this article, the communities served by these 182 police services are sometimes referred to as “Indigenous communities”.

Limitations

It should be noted that some police services may serve more than one community or location, including both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. Moreover, it is important to note that the communities served by these 182 police services do not represent all Indigenous communities in Canada. For example, many small Indigenous villages or reserves are served by police in adjacent, primarily non-Indigenous rural centers, and others may be policed by municipal police based in larger non-Indigenous cities, and, as such, were included as part of the “non-Indigenous” communities in this study.

Due to the nature of the police-reported data, this study cannot specifically examine crimes committed on reserve, compared to crimes committed off reserve. While this study was able to identify police services which serve reserves, and can estimate the percentage of the population living on reserve (using 2016 Census of Population data), the UCR does not have sufficient information to identify where crimes occurred (on or off reserve) (See the Data sources and concepts section). In the Provinces, where reserves are located, 130 police services served areas with majority Indigenous populations. Most of these (114 police services) served reserves, and 94 police services served communities where over half of the population lived on reserve. Over half of these 114 police services (64) served populations living both on and off reserve; another 50 of them served only reserve populations. Overall, the police services identified a serving majority Indigenous populations in this study served 70% of the total population living on reserve in Canada.

Characteristics of the communities served by police services in this study

While comparisons are made between police services serving areas with majority Indigenous populations and those serving majority non-Indigenous populations, it should be noted that there are notable differences in the populations and locations of the communities served by these two comparison groups. For example, all of the police services serving majority Indigenous populations were generally small, while those serving non-Indigenous populations included large municipal police services. These and other differences should be considered in the interpretation of the findings.^Note 

Based on information from the 2016 Census of Population, the 182 police services and detachments identified in this analysis as serving Indigenous communities served 21% of the Indigenous population in Canada. Overall, the total population served by the 182 police services accounted for about 1% of the population of Canada. The police services in this study are therefore a very specific and small subset of Indigenous communities and do not represent Indigenous populations in general, particularly the growing majority of Indigenous people who live in urban areas.

Most of the police services serving Indigenous communities in this study were Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) detachments (139 detachments); seven were Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) detachments, and 36 police services were First Nations self-administered police services (See Text box 1).^Note 

Nationally, an estimated 88% of the population served by these 182 police services were Indigenous (identified as First Nations people, Métis or Inuit in the 2016 Census of Population, or lived on reserve). This proportion varied by province and territory, ranging from 71% in British Columbia, 75% in Yukon, and 77% in Alberta to 100% in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec (See the Data sources and concepts section). These proportions show that although this study uses a greater than 50% cut-off to identify police services serving primarily Indigenous populations, most have much higher proportions. For 149 of the police services or detachments identified as serving Indigenous communities, 75% or more of the population was Indigenous.

The populations served by police services serving Indigenous communities are very different from the non-Indigenous communities they are compared to in this study. Of the 182 police services identified as serving majority Indigenous populations, 168 served rural areas, of which 141 were remote.^Note  Most (91%) of the population of the Indigenous communities in this analysis lived in a rural area, and 71% lived in the Provincial North or Territories (134 police services). Over two-thirds (72%) of the population in the Indigenous communities in this study lived in remote areas. In contrast, 85% of the population of the non-Indigenous communities in this analysis lived in urban areas; 5% lived in the North; and 3% lived in remote communities.

Indigenous communities in this study also tended to be much smaller than non-Indigenous communities, with a median population of less than 1,500 inhabitants. Most (160) police services serving Indigenous communities in this study served fewer than 5,000 people. In contrast, the median population served by police services in the comparison group for this study (non-Indigenous communities) was about 9,500.^Note  Almost two-thirds (63%) of the population in these non-Indigenous communities were served by police services serving populations of 100,000 or more.

In spite of these general differences, it is important to note that the Indigenous communities in this study are not homogenous. Some are close to larger urban areas, many are remote. Their populations are also varied, representing the diversity of First Nations people, Métis and Inuit, with a range of cultural differences and historical experiences. Despite these differences, there remain shared factors common to all three groups, namely the historical oppression, discrimination, and socioeconomic marginalization which often play a role in various social and health inequities.

Start of text box 1

End of text box 1

Police-reported crime in Indigenous communities

Rate of police-reported crime six times higher in Indigenous communities than in non-Indigenous communities

In 2018, police serving majority Indigenous populations reported an overall crime rate of 30,333 incidents per 100,000 population, or about 3 criminal incidents reported for every 10 people living in the community. This represented 133,419 criminal incidents, and accounted for 7% of all crime reported in Canada in 2018. By comparison, police serving non-Indigenous communities reported 5,191 incidents per 100,000 population, or about 1 incident for every 20 inhabitants. Crime rates were higher in Indigenous communities across all major crime categories (Table 1, Chart 1).

Chart 1 start

Chart 1 end

Although accounting for a very small portion of the crime committed in Canada, the rates of crime reported by police that serve predominantly Indigenous populations in Canada are notably high. Of the 50 police services in Canada reporting the highest rates of crime in 2018, 47 served majority Indigenous populations. Moreover, over 9 in 10 police services serving majority Indigenous populations (169 police services) reported rates of crime above the national crime rate for Canada (5,488 per 100,000 population), with 147 reporting rates more than double the national rate.

Nationally, rates of almost all offences were higher in Indigenous communities with the exception of theft of $5,000 or under from a motor vehicle, shoplifting ($5,000 or under), and fraud^Note  (Table 2). This is not surprising as most of the Indigenous communities in this study are rural and these offences are much more common in urban areas (Perreault 2019).

Most notably, rates of some of the most serious offences including homicide, major assault (levels 2 and 3),^Note  and violent firearms offences such as pointing or discharging a firearm with intent were particularly high in Indigenous communities. Overall, these more serious offences were relatively infrequent, representing 5% of criminal incidents in Indigenous communities and 3% in non-Indigenous communities.

Crime rates in Indigenous communities varied by province and territory

Crime rates reported by police services serving majority Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities varied by province and territory. The highest rates were reported in Indigenous communities in the Northwest Territories and Saskatchewan, while the provinces with the lowest rates of crime reported in Indigenous communities were British Columbia and Ontario (Chart 2). In all jurisdictions, rates of almost all categories of crime were higher in Indigenous communities. The only exception was British Columbia where rates of property crime were higher in non-Indigenous communities, primarily as a result of much higher rates of theft of $5,000 or under (specifically shoplifting or theft from a motor vehicle). This was the jurisdiction with the smallest difference overall between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities (Table 1).

Chart 2 start

Chart 2 end

It should be noted that high rates in some jurisdictions may reflect differences in legislation or in police practices. For example, police may report some incidents (especially mischief and disturbing the peace) under provincial law or municipal by-laws where these are available, and, as such, are not included in the UCR crime data. In addition, geographic differences by jurisdiction may also play a role, especially in terms of the remoteness of communities and proximity to urban centres.

High rates of mischief, common assault, and disturbing the peace help explain the large differences in crime rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities

A substantial proportion of the difference in the crime rates between police serving majority Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations can be attributed to high rates of mischief, common assault, and disturbing the peace, which are often considered less serious offences. These three offences accounted for a relatively small share of crime in non-Indigenous communities (23%), but accounted for over half of crime (58%) reported in Indigenous communities (Chart 3).

Chart 3 start

Chart 3 end

Over four in ten criminal incidents in Indigenous communities are mischief or disturbing the peace

In 2018, the rate of mischief was 15 times higher in Indigenous communities than in non-Indigenous communities (9,233 versus 597 incidents per 100,000 population) (Table 2). Mischief is a Criminal Code offence that covers a range of criminal behaviour, including various sorts of vandalism, such as graffiti, as well as destructive or obstructive reckless behaviour.^Note  Almost one-third (30%) of all police-reported crimes in Indigenous communities was mischief compared to 11% in non-Indigenous communities. At the national level, the high rate of mischief reported in Indigenous communities accounted for a substantial part of the difference in crime rate between them and non-Indigenous communities.^Note 

The penalty for this type of offence is generally low and differences across police services in how these are handled could be associated with higher police-reported levels in some areas than others. In some jurisdictions these behaviours may be dealt with as a provincial offence or municipal by-law infraction resulting in a ticket. For example, obstructive drunk behaviour may be treated under provincial public intoxication laws or municipal noise by-laws; graffiti is sometimes dealt with under municipal graffiti by-laws. When dealt with through provincial or municipal laws and by-laws, such infractions are not included in the crime rate. Provincial and municipal alternatives may be more readily available to police in non-Indigenous, particularly urban, communities, and this availability may contribute to the differences in rates seen between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities.^Note 

The highest rates of mischief were reported by police serving majority Indigenous populations in the Northwest Territories, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Saskatchewan (Table 3). In contrast, much lower rates of mischief were reported in Indigenous communities in British Columbia, Quebec, and Ontario.

In 2018, 12% of police-reported criminal incidents in Indigenous communities were for disturbing the peace (4% in non-Indigenous communities). Disturbing the peace is a Criminal Code offence that involves causing a disturbance in or near a public place, including fighting, shouting, or using insulting or obscene language, public intoxication, or impeding or molesting other persons.^Note  Like mischief, it may also be dealt with under provincial or territorial laws (e.g. public intoxication) or municipal by-laws. Police serving primarily Indigenous communities in Canada reported 3,754 incidents of disturbing the peace per 100,000 population. This is almost 18 times higher than in non-Indigenous communities (213 per 100,000) (Table 2).

Together, mischief and disturbing the peace accounted for 43% of all criminal incidents reported in Indigenous communities in 2018 compared to 16% of crime in non-Indigenous communities. Notably, the proportion of all incidents that were mischief or disturbing the peace varied considerably by jurisdiction. These offences accounted for lower proportions of criminal incidents for Indigenous communities in Quebec (11%) and Ontario (24%), but comprised the majority of criminal incidents in Indigenous communities in Nunavut (62%), the Northwest Territories (58%), Newfoundland and Labrador (57%), and Yukon (53%). They also accounted for almost half of crime (48%) in Indigenous communities in both Saskatchewan and Alberta.

It is important to recognize that some of the difference in police-reported rates of mischief and disturbing the peace is a reflection of different police practices across jurisdictions. As noted earlier, some police services may be more likely to record incidents (especially of disturbing the peace) under related municipal or reserve by-laws (including violations of alcohol bans on reserve), or provincial or territorial statutes such as laws governing public intoxication or noise, which may result in a ticket. For example, the highest rates of mischief or disturbing the peace were reported by the RCMP whether serving Indigenous or non-Indigenous communities. Relatively lower rates were typically reported by the Ontario Provincial Police, the Sûreté du Québec, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and most municipal police services where there may be a greater tendency to use provincial or municipal alternative violations available in their jurisdictions.

Other factors that might influence the high rates of mischief and disturbing the peace include the small size of communities where incidents such as these may more readily come to the attention of the police. It is also important to note that these specific offences are related to mental health and substance use conditions, which are proportionally more frequent among Indigenous populations (Boyce et al. 2015).

The impact of these two offences on levels of crime reported in Indigenous communities is notable. When just these two offences are excluded from the calculation of the overall crime rate, the difference in rates of crime between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities is still large, but shrinks by almost half (48%) (Chart 4).

Chart 4 start

Chart 4 end

Incidents of mischief and disturbing the peace in Indigenous communities more likely to be solved, but rarely resulted in a charge

It is worth noting that, while rates of mischief and disturbing the peace were particularly high in Indigenous communities, these incidents were also more likely to be cleared (solved, with an accused identified), relative to non-Indigenous communities. Once cleared, however, these incidents were less likely to result in a charge, relative to non-Indigenous communities. In 2018, police serving primarily Indigenous populations were able to identify an accused (clear the incident) in 61% of mischief incidents, but only 4% of these cleared incidents resulted in a charge. In non-Indigenous communities, only 21% of mischief incidents were cleared, but a much higher proportion of these cleared incidents (32%) resulted in a charge.

It may be that this reflects differences in the nature of mischief in these communities, which can vary from graffiti for which an accused is generally not identified, to obstructive and damaging behaviour where the police are called in. In addition, incidents of a nature that might otherwise be dealt with as non-criminal infractions in other jurisdictions (such as bylaws related to noise or public intoxication) might not be considered serious enough to warrant charges. A similar pattern was seen for disturbing the peace (Table 4, Chart 5).

Chart 5 start

Chart 5 end

Administration of justice offences six times higher in Indigenous communities

The rate of violations related to the administration of justice in 2018 were six times higher in Indigenous communities compared to non-Indigenous communities (3,548 versus 577 incidents per 100,000 population). Offences related to the administration of justice result from previous contact with the criminal justice system, and include offences such as failure to comply with an order, breach of probation, and failure to appear. These administrative offences are sometimes seen as the ‘revolving door’ of the justice system, since by definition most of these types of crimes are committed when an individual disobeys a pre-trial condition or sentence imposed for a previous offence, such as probation. In Indigenous communities, the most frequent administration of justice offences were failure to comply with an order (60% of these offences) and breach of probation (25%). These were also the most frequent administration of justice offences in non-Indigenous communities, (55% and 22%, respectively).

They are also considered a contributing factor in re-offending and a factor in the over-representation of Indigenous offenders in the corrections system. Recent reports have drawn attention to ways that unreasonable bail conditions exacerbate the number of administration of justice crimes, particularly with respect to remote communities and Indigenous peoples (Coady 2018; Deshman 2014; R. vs Antic 2017; Barnett et al. 2018).

Much of the difference in rates of these offences can be accounted for by the high proportion of Indigenous communities located in the North where rates of administration of justice offences were notably high in both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. The size and remoteness of many of these Northern communities may be a factor if they affect the ability of an accused to appear in court, report to a probation officer, or access required programming if services and programs are not readily available in their community.

Start of text box 2

End of text box 2

High rates of police-reported violent crime in Indigenous communities, particularly common assault

Violent offences accounted for 3 in 10 crimes (30%) reported by police serving majority Indigenous populations compared to 2 in 10 crimes (20%) in non-Indigenous communities. Police serving primarily Indigenous communities reported 9,220 incidents of violent crime per 100,000 population in 2018, almost nine times higher than those primarily serving non-Indigenous communities (1,047 per 100,000 population). Most of the difference between these rates can be attributed to higher rates of common assault, which was the most frequent violent offence for both community types (Table 2).

Common assault 11 times higher in Indigenous than in non-Indigenous communities

The rate of common assault (level 1) reported by police serving majority Indigenous populations was 11 times higher in Indigenous communities than in non-Indigenous communities (4,481 versus 409 incidents per 100,000 population), and represented half (49%) of violent crime compared with 39% of violent crime in non-Indigenous communities. The rate of major assault (levels 2 and 3) was also much higher (Table 2). Both common assaults and major assaults were more likely to be cleared in Indigenous communities (81% versus 72% for common assault; 83% versus 72% for major assaults), but, when cleared, they were less likely to result in a charge (53% versus 65% of cleared incidents for common assault; 75% versus 84% for major assaults).

Rate of non-spousal police-reported family violence in Indigenous communities was sixteen times higher than in non-Indigenous communities

In both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, the perpetrator in police-reported violent incidents was most often either a friend or acquaintance of the victim or an intimate partner other than a spouse. However, individuals in Indigenous communities were proportionally more likely than those in non-Indigenous communities to be victimized by family members other than a spouse (25% versus 13%), a greater number of victims being victimized by extended family members such as a grandparent, uncle, aunt or cousin. Overall, the rate of non-spousal family violence was 16 times higher in Indigenous communities, with the largest differences for major assault and common assault (Table 6, Table 7). The high rate of violence at the hands of extended family members may be partly related to differences in living arrangements in Indigenous communities. According to the GSS on Victimization, 15% of Indigenous individuals lived with extended family members (other than a child or spouse) compared to 8% in the non-Indigenous population. In addition, individuals in the Indigenous communities in this study were more likely to live in crowded housing.^Note 

The rate of intimate partner violence was 10 times higher in Indigenous communities than in non-Indigenous communities. This includes violence where the perpetrator was a current or former spouse or another intimate partner. In particular, the perpetrator was more likely to be an intimate partner other than a spouse such as a current or former boyfriend or girlfriend in Indigenous communities. The proportion of victims in Indigenous communities victimized by a stranger was smaller (8% versus 26%), which is expected given the realities of small communities where people are more likely to know one another and strangers are few. That said, rates of victimization by a stranger were still over twice as high in Indigenous communities (652 versus 244 per 100,000 population).

Rate of sexual assault in Indigenous communities was six times higher than in non-Indigenous communities

Police serving majority Indigenous populations reported 463 incidents of sexual assault per 100,000 population compared to 73 per 100,000 in non-Indigenous communities. In both cases, sexual assault level 1 accounted for over 97% of these incidents.^Note  It is important to note that the GSS on Victimization showed that only 5%^E of self-reported sexual assaults experienced by Canadians aged 15 years and older in 2014 were brought to the attention of police, which means that figures reported by police are likely an underrepresentation of the true extent of sexual assault in both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities.

In addition to sexual assaults, sexual crimes specific to children such as sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching and sexual exploitation are of particular concern in light of the impact of child physical and sexual abuse on the cycle of intergenerational violence (Truth and Reconciliation Commission 2015).^Note  The overall rate of these child-specific sexual offences (per 100,000 inhabitants) was seven times higher in Indigenous communities than elsewhere.^Note 

Children under age 18 accounted for one-third (33%) of the population in the Indigenous communities in this study compared to 19% in non-Indigenous communities. When controlling for age, then, the rate of these sexual violations against children (per 100,000 children) in Indigenous communities was four times higher than in non-Indigenous communities, with the highest rates for victims aged 12 to 17.^Note  Most incidents of sexual violations against children were for sexual interference, which accounted for 88% of incidents of sexual violations against children in Indigenous communities. In contrast, 68% of sexual violations against children in non-Indigenous communities were sexual interference. In non-Indigenous communities which may have greater access to the Internet, a much higher proportion of these crimes were for luring a child by means of telecommunication (17% versus 4% in Indigenous communities).

Start of text box 3

End of text box 3

Clearance and charging rates

Crimes reported by police serving majority Indigenous populations were more likely to be solved and have an accused identified by police

Crimes reported by police serving majority Indigenous populations were more likely to be cleared (solved) and have an accused identified by police. In 2018, about two-thirds (66%) of criminal incidents were cleared in Indigenous communities compared to just over one-third (37%) in non-Indigenous communities. This was partly the result of the high volume of cleared incidents of mischief in Indigenous communities. Apart from these non-violent crimes, clearance rates were also higher in Indigenous communities for violent crime (79% versus 63%) (Table 4).

One possible reason behind this difference is the relative size of the communities served by police because clearance rates for most crimes tend to be higher in small communities where more crimes and information about those crimes come to the attention of police (Hotton Mahony and Turner 2012). The median population served by police in Indigenous communities was less than 1,500 compared to about 9,500 in non-Indigenous communities.

Accused charged less often in Indigenous communities, often because complainant requested that no further action be taken

Once cleared, however, crimes in Indigenous communities were half as likely overall to result in a charge (35%) than those in non-Indigenous communities (70%) in 2018.^Note  This was the case for most types of crime: violent (58% versus 68%); property (10% versus 59%); and other Criminal Code offences (44% versus 79%). The offences where cleared incidents in Indigenous communities were more likely to result in a charge than in non-Indigenous communities were other federal statutes, Criminal Code traffic offences, and sexual offences.^Note 

The most frequent reason for an incident to be cleared without a criminal charge was that the complainant requested that no further action be taken, which was proportionally over three times more common in Indigenous communities than non-Indigenous communities (35% versus 10%). Among violent crimes, the complainant requested that no further action be taken in 32% of cleared incidents in Indigenous communities compared to 16% in non-Indigenous communities. Over half (53%) of property offences where an accused was identified were cleared in Indigenous communities as a result of the complainant requesting that no further action be taken (compared to 14% in non-Indigenous communities).

For violent offences where information on victims was available, it was more common for the victim to request that no further action be taken in Indigenous communities than in non-Indigenous communities in almost all incidents.^Note  However, it was more often the case when the perpetrator was a family member other than a spouse (child, parent, sibling or extended family member) (46% versus 22% in non-Indigenous communities). When it was a friend or casual acquaintance, many victims still requested no further action (42% and 37%, respectively, compared to 25% and 21% in non-Indigenous communities).^Note  Even when the perpetrator was a stranger, the victim was twice as likely to request that no further action be taken in Indigenous communities (21% versus 12%). In incidents of intimate partner violence, however, where the perpetrator was a spouse or former spouse or other intimate partner, the victim requesting that no further action be taken was less frequent in both types of communities, possibly due to pro-charging policies in domestic violence situations (11% versus 6% in non-Indigenous communities).^Note 

One factor which might explain the high number of complainants who request that no further action be taken in Indigenous communities is that they do not want their family members to get in trouble with the law or they prefer to deal with the matter by themselves or within the community rather than through the criminal justice system (Jerome 2019). In addition, the relative remoteness of these Indigenous communities may also play a role. High proportions of uncharged incidents are cleared in this way in the Territories and in remote communities elsewhere, regardless of whether the community was primarily Indigenous.^Note  Another factor may be that victims do not want to proceed if it means they have to leave their communities to attend court. It may also be the case that there is a greater burden on the victim and their families, both economic and personal, if the perpetrator is charged and has to leave the community for court or incarceration, especially where the accused is a family member, particularly if they are the main provider for their families.

According to the 2014 GSS, among Indigenous victims, when the incident came to the attention of police, only half (49%^E) of victims said that they had reported it themselves. It is therefore possible that some of the victims of police-reported crimes in Indigenous communities who did not report the crime themselves may be less likely to cooperate with police. This is reinforced by the fact that, according to the GSS, Indigenous individuals were more likely than non-Indigenous individuals to have not very much or no confidence in the police (Boyce 2016).

Characteristics of individuals accused of crime in Indigenous communities

High rate of individuals accused of crime among older populations in Indigenous communities particularly for mischief and disturbing the peace

There were notable differences in the age profile of individuals accused of crime in Indigenous communities compared to non-Indigenous communities. Historically, rates of accused in Canada have tended to peak in late adolescence and then decline (Allen 2016). Research shows that this inverse relationship between age and criminal activity has been seen in most countries and time periods, with some variations (Ulmer and Steffensmeier 2014). As a result, age has typically been seen as an important factor in rates of crime, and it has often been assumed that the high rates of crime in Indigenous communities can be somewhat explained by the fact that these populations tend to be much younger. However, this was not found to be the case in this study. Instead, the higher rates of accused in 2018 in the Indigenous communities in this study were driven in part by crimes committed by older individuals, specifically mischief and disturbing the peace offences.^Note 

Although rates of individuals accused of crime reported by police serving majority Indigenous populations were notably higher at all ages than in non-Indigenous communities, they show a notable variation from the age-crime relationship seen elsewhere. While rates of youth accused were 6 times higher in Indigenous than in non-Indigenous communities, rates for adult age groups were over 10 times higher. Moreover, rates of accused in Indigenous communities were still higher even among 45 to 54-year olds than among youth (Table 8, Chart 6).

However, it is worth noting that accused rates among youth were higher in Indigenous communities than in non-Indigenous communities.

Chart 6 start

Chart 6 end

Mischief and disturbing the peace most common crime committed by older accused

Less serious offences explained some of the high crime rates among the older age groups. In particular, the rate of non-violent offences (property and “other Criminal Code offences”) was notably high among 45 to 54 year olds in Indigenous communities primarily as a result of high rates of mischief and disturbing the peace in those age groups.

Rates of mischief and disturbing the peace were notably high among older age groups in Indigenous communities. In fact, while mischief and disturbing the peace accounted for 34% of youth crime in Indigenous communities, this proportion increased with age, representing 57% of crime committed by 45 to 64 year olds. In non-Indigenous communities, these offences accounted for 12% of youth crime, a proportion which changed little by age (15% by age 45 to 64).

These high accused rates among older populations, particularly mischief and disturbing the peace, may be partly explained by differences in risk factors for youth and older Indigenous populations, such as having experienced child maltreatment (including experience in residential schools), which is associated with mental health issues, substance use and increased contact with police (Boyce et al. 2015). Recent studies have noted that while there were large differences in rates of child maltreatment among older Indigenous people relative to their non-Indigenous counterparts—this difference was not present among the younger population. Among younger people between the ages of 15 to 29 years, no statistically significant differences were found between Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals in terms of having suffered physical and/or sexual abuse before the age of 15 (24% and 23%). Instead, differences in the prevalence of child abuse were found only for those aged 30 or above: Indigenous people in this older age group were considerably more likely than their non-Indigenous counterparts to have been victimized as children (48% versus 31%) (Burczycka 2017).

In addition, possibly related to this difference in childhood trauma, health indicators show that First Nations (off-reserve) and Inuit populations were more likely to report heavy drinking than non-Indigenous populations.^Note  However, this was the case only for older drinkers 25 to 44 years old and 45 years and older. There was no significant difference in the rate of heavy drinking for youth and young adults (aged 12 to 24) (Statistics Canada n.d. b). This is notable as alcohol use is associated with criminal behaviour (Pernanen et al. 2002).

Other factors may also explain high accused rates for older populations in these communities. Research suggests that life transitions such as completing education, getting a steady job and starting a family are tied to an “ageing out” of criminal behaviour. However, involvement in the justice system—particularly incarceration and long sentences—has been shown to disrupt these transitions into the adult roles associated with desistence from crime and is associated with repeat offending (Massoglia and Uggen 2010). In addition, incarceration increases contact with a criminalized peer group and can aggravate mental health issues (Holman and Zeidenburg 2013).

Rate of females accused of crime higher in Indigenous communities relative to non-Indigenous communities

Previous research has drawn attention to the over-representation of Indigenous women in correctional services (Malakieh 2019). Similarly, the police-reported data in this analysis showed that females accounted for a greater proportion of those accused of crime in Indigenous communities compared to non-Indigenous communities (31% compared to 25%). As a result, while the accused rate among males was 11 times higher in Indigenous communities than in non-Indigenous communities, it was 16 times higher for females. The rate of females accused was higher in Indigenous communities for all categories of crime. As with accused overall, this was driven by high rates among older individuals as the age-crime curve for females in Indigenous communities was very similar to that of males.

Start of text box 4

End of text box 4

Summary

To build on existing research and shed more light on crime experienced in Indigenous communities, this study examined the nature and extent of crime reported by the relatively small subset of police services and detachments that serve a population where more than 50% of residents were Indigenous. The rates of police-reported crime experienced in these communities in 2018 were typically very high compared to crime in non-Indigenous communities. Much of this difference can be attributed to high rates of mischief and disturbing the peace, offences which may be more likely to come to the attention of police in smaller communities. Rates of these offences may also be affected by differences in police practices with respect to the availability and use of provincial violations and municipal by-laws for this type of behaviour.

Studies have demonstrated that crime and victimization are often associated with mental health issues, alcohol misuse, intergenerational trauma, and adverse socioeconomic conditions, all of which are more frequent among Indigenous populations.

It is worth noting that, unlike non-Indigenous communities where the highest rates of individuals accused of crime are limited to youth and young adults, accused rates in Indigenous communities in this study were higher among adults than youth. This may be related to higher levels of risk factors among the older Indigenous population, including childhood trauma, residential school experiences, and the effects associated with these such as mental health and substance use issues.

The method used in this study to identify police services serving majority Indigenous populations provides a way to broaden statistical understanding of crime experienced among a selected group of predominantly indigenous communities. In the future, other new research methods that link data from multiple sources (such as police, courts, corrections as well as the Census, health data and other sources) could also improve our understanding of crime in these communities as well as the experiences of Indigenous individuals with the criminal justice system.

Detailed data tables

Table 1 Police-reported crime rate, police serving majority Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, by province and territory, 2018

Table 2 Police-reported crime for selected offences, police serving majority Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, 2018

Table 3 Police-reported crime rates for selected offences, police serving majority Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, by province and territory, 2018

Table 4 Police-reported clearance rates for selected offences, police serving majority Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada, 2018

Table 5 Selected characteristics of populations served by police serving majority Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, by province and territory, 2016

Table 6 Characteristics of victims of police-reported violent crime, police serving majority Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada, 2018

Table 7 Rates of non-spousal family violence and intimate partner violence, by selected offence, police serving majority Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, 2018

Table 8 Characteristics of persons accused of crime, police serving majority Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, 2018

Data sources and concepts

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey

The UCR Survey was developed in 1962 with the cooperation and assistance of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. UCR Survey data reflects reported crime that has been substantiated through police investigation from all separate federal, provincial, and municipal police services in Canada. There are currently two versions of the UCR Survey: aggregate and incident-based microdata.

Uniform Crime Reporting (aggregate) Survey

The aggregate UCR Survey includes the total number of offences, by most serious violation, reported by police in the survey year. It also includes a count of offences cleared by charge or cleared otherwise and persons charged (by gender and by adult/youth breakdown) during the survey year. It does not include victim or incident characteristics. Coverage of the UCR Survey in 2018 was at 99.9% of the caseload of all police services in Canada. Data does not reflect revisions to 2018 data published in October 2020.

Incident-based Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR2) Survey

The Incident-based UCR2 Survey captures detailed information on individual criminal incidents reported to police, including characteristics of victims, accused persons and incidents. Coverage of the UCR2 Survey for 2018 represented 99.6% of the population in Canada. Many of the police services not reporting to the UCR2 are First Nations services, many of which are in Quebec. Overall, the data from the UCR2 survey for 2018 covers 90% of the police services identified as serving Indigenous populations and 85% of the population. Data does not reflect revisions to 2018 data published in October 2020.

Homicide Survey

The Homicide Survey collects police-reported data on the characteristics of all homicide incidents, victims and accused persons in Canada. Whenever a homicide becomes known to police, the investigating police service completes the survey questionnaires, which are then sent to Statistics Canada. There are cases where homicides become known to police months or years after they occurred. These incidents are counted in the year in which they become known to police. For incidents involving more than one accused, only the relationship between the victim and the closest accused is recorded.

Indigenous identity is reported by police to the Homicide Survey and is determined through information found with the victim or accused person, such as status cards, or through information supplied by victims' or accused persons' families, the accused persons themselves, community members, or other sources (i.e., such as band records). Forensic evidence such as genetic testing results may also be an acceptable means of determining the Indigenous identity of victims.

Most serious violation: Criminal incidents are categorized by the most serious violation occurring in the police-reported incident. One incident can involve multiple offences. Counts presented in this article are based upon the most serious offence in the incident as determined by a standard classification rule used by all police services.

Provincial North: Provincial North encompasses the northern regions of Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. South refers to the southern regions of these provinces as well as Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

Rural: Rural police services are those where the majority of the population lives outside of a census metropolitan area (CMA) or census agglomeration (CA). Urban police services are those where the majority of the population lives within a CMA or CA. A CMA or a CA is formed by one or more adjacent municipalities centered on a population centre (known as the core). A CMA must have a total population of at least 100,000 of which 50,000 or more must live in the core. A CA must have a core population of at least 10,000. To be included in the CMA or CA, other adjacent municipalities must have a high degree of integration with the core as measured by commuting flows derived from previous census place of work data, where 50% or more of the population commutes into the core. It should be noted that information was not available for all police services to determine whether they were rural or urban.

Remote: Communities are classified as remote based on a remoteness index that takes into account distance and access to larger population centers and selected services such as health services, social assistance, banking and legal services, and retail (Alasia et al. 2017). For this analysis, a police service is considered remote where the majority of the population served lives in a CSD with a remoteness index of 0.4 or greater. It should be noted that information was not available for all police services to determine whether they were remote.

Detailed method for identifying police services serving majority Indigenous populations (“Indigenous communities”)

A police service is identified as serving a majority Indigenous population if over 50% of the current year population (ex. 2018) can be estimated to be Indigenous. The Indigenous population served is based on information on the Census subdivisions (CSDs or portions thereof) served by the police service or detachment. Estimated Indigenous populations for each CSD are calculated as follows and then rolled up to the police service level.

The total Indigenous population referred to here is the estimate of individuals living on reserve (CSD) plus an estimate of the population in non-reserve CSDs (or portion of the CSD served) based on the proportion who identified as First Nations people, Métis or Inuit in the 2016 Census of Population. This approach adjusts for the fact that some reserve populations did not respond to the 2016 Census. Using only information on Aboriginal identity from the 2016 Census, these police services served 20% of the total First Nations people, Métis and Inuit population. It should be noted that this estimate does not take into account any differential population growth over the period between 2016 and 2018 nor does it take into account small non-Indigenous populations living on reserve. However, information was provided by Statistics Canada’s Centre for Indigenous Statistics and Partnerships to identify reserve CSDs where non-Indigenous populations are considerable (such as in the British Columbia Lower Mainland). These were excluded from the reserve-based identification of Indigenous populations.

The sensitivity of the 50% cut-off is small is expected to have only limited impact. Most of the police services in the study served populations with high proportions of Indigenous residents. Only a few police services were close to the 50% cut-off and had small populations: 7 police services served populations that were between 50% and 55% Indigenous, and represented 6% of the total population served by police services serving majority Indigenous populations in this study. Similarly, 9 police services fell just below the cut-off, serving populations that were between 45% and 50% Indigenous. If they had been included above the cut-off they would have accounted for 7% of the total population served by police services serving majority Indigenous populations in this study.

Indigenous population of police services classified as serving majority Indigenous populations (“Indigenous communities”)

Overall, 88% of the population served by police services classified as serving predominantly Indigenous populations identified as First Nations people, Métis or Inuit, or lived on a reserve, according to the 2016 Census of Population. As shown in the table below, the proportion of the population estimated to be Indigenous varies by jurisdiction for both types of police service.

Preliminary analysis carried out in the development of the method for identifying police services serving majority Indigenous populations showed that it was not feasible to carry out analysis distinguishing First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities. There were not enough police services identified as serving majority Métis populations to provide reliable analysis. Moreover, outside of Nunavut, there were also insufficient numbers of police services identified as serving Inuit communities to support analysis.

It is worth noting that all police services in Nunavut serve majority Inuit populations. Data for Nunavut is available in Table 1, Table 3, and Table 5 of this report. Most of the police services identified as serving majority Indigenous populations outside of Nunavut served majority First Nations populations.

The police services in this study are not representative of police serving the majority of the Indigenous population in Canada. Overall, the 182 police services in this study served 21% of the Canadian population that identified as First Nations people, Métis or Inuit, or who lived on reserve, according to the 2016 Census. The vast majority of Indigenous individuals in Canada are served by a “non-Indigenous” police service as defined by this study. Coverage of the Indigenous population by police services varied considerably by jurisdiction.

No information available specific to crimes committed on reserve:

This study does not provide measures of crime committed on reserve as opposed to in off-reserve locations. Although a large proportion of the population living on reserve are included in the Indigenous communities in this analysis, 30% of Canada’s reserve population are served by non-Indigenous police services.^Note 

Because the UCR is collected from police services, it is not able to provide specific measures of crime occurring on reserve. While this study was able to identify police services which serve reserve populations, and can estimate the percentage of the population living on reserve (using 2016 Census of Population data), the UCR does not have sufficient information to identify where crimes occurred (on or off reserve). This is particularly relevant to smaller First Nations communities/villages where the population lives both on and off reserve within the same community boundaries and is served by the same police force.

Overall, 62% of the population served by the 182 police services and detachments identified as serving majority Indigenous populations lived on reserve.

References

Ad Hoc Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group. 2003. Final Report of the Ad Hoc Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group Reviewing Spousal Abuse Policies and Legislation. Report prepared for Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers responsible for Justice.

Aguiar, William and Regine Halseth. 2015. Aboriginal Peoples and Historic Trauma: The Processes of Intergenerational Transmission. National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health. Prince George, BC.

Alasia, Alessandro, Frédéric Bédard, Julie Bélanger, Eric Guimond and Christopher Penney. 2017. Measuring Remoteness and Accessibility – A Set of Indices for Canadian Communities. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 18-001-X.

Allen, Mary. 2016. “Youth crime in Canada, 2014.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Allen, Mary and Samuel Perreault. 2015. “Police-reported crime in Canada’s Provincial North and Territories, 2013.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Anderson, Thomas. 2015. “The social determinants of higher mental distress among Inuit.” Aboriginal People Survey 2012. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89-653-X.

April, Sébastien and Mylène Magrinelli Orsi. 2013. Gladue Practices in the Provinces and Territories. Department of Justice Canada. Ottawa.

Barnett, Laura, Maxime Charron-Tousignant, Tanya Dupuis, Julia Nicol, Dominique Valiquet and Julian Walker. May, 7 2018. Legislative Summary of Bill C-75: An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and Other Acts and to Make Consequential Amendments to other Acts. Publication No. 42-1-C75-E. Parliamentary Information and Research Service. Library of Parliament. Ottawa.

Boksa, P., Joober, R., and Kirmayer, L. J. 2015. “Mental wellness in Canada's Aboriginal communities: striving toward reconciliation.”Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience.

Boyce, Jillian. 2016. “Victimization of Aboriginal people in Canada, 2014.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Boyce, Jillian, Cristine Rotenberg and Maisie Karam. 2015. “Mental health and contact with police in Canada, 2012.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

British Columbia, Public Safety and Solicitor General. 2020. BC Gov News. “Ministers statement on police act reform.” June 12, 2020.

Burczycka, Marta. 2017. “Profile of Canadian adults who experienced childhood maltreatment.” In “Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2015.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Canada. Parliament. 2020a. Debates of the Senate, 43^rd Parl, 1^st Sess, Vol. 151, Issue 22. June 16, 2020.

Canada. Parliament. 2020b. Debates of the Senate, 43^rd Parl, 1^st Sess, Vol. 151, Issue 27. June 25, 2020.

Capobianco, Laura and Margaret Shaw. 2003. Crime Prevention and Indigenous Communities: Current International Strategies and Programmes. International Centre for the Prevention of Crime.

Carrière, Gisèle M., Evelyne Bougie and Dafna Kohen. 2018. “Acute care hospitalizations for mental and behaviour disorders among First Nations people.” Health Reports. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 82-003-X.

Charron, Mathieu, Christopher Penney and Sacha Senécal. 2010. “Police-reported crime in Inuit Nunangat.” Crime and Justice Research Paper Series. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-561-M.

Coady, Kyle. 2018. “Assessments and analyses of Canada’s bail system.” Research in Brief. Department of Justice Canada. Ottawa.

Dandurand, Yvon and Annette Vogt. 2017. Documenting the Experience and the Successes of First Nations Courts in British Columbia. International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy & School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of the Fraser Valley.

Deshman, Abigail C. and Nicole Myers. 2014. Set Up To Fail: Bail and the Revolving Door of Pre-Trial Detention. Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Doucet, Melanie and Harrison (Harri Sun) Pratt. 2018. “Breaking the cycle for ‘crossover youth.” Policy Options. IRPP.

Holman, Barry and Jason Ziedenberg. 2006. The Dangers of Detention: The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities. Justice Policy Institute. Washington, DC.

Hotton Mahony, Tina and John Turner. 2012. “Police-reported clearance rates in Canada, 2010.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Jerome, Amanda. 2019. “Indigenous peoples often prefer to deal with conflict resolution within own communities.” The Lawyer’s Daily. January 3, 2019.

Kumar, Mohan B. and Amy Nahwegahbow. 2016. “Past year suicidal thoughts among off-reserve First Nations, Métis and Inuit adults aged 18 to 25: Prevalence and associated characteristics.” Aboriginal Peoples Survey. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89-653-X.

Lithopoulos, Savvas and Rick Ruddell. 2011. “Policing isolated aboriginal communities: Perspectives of Canadian officers.” Policing: An international Journal of Police Strategies & Management. Vol. 34, no. 3.

Malakieh, Jamil. 2019. “Adult and youth correctional statistics in Canada, 2017/2018.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Massoglia, Michael and Christopher Uggen. 2010. “Settling down and aging out: Toward an interactionist theory of desistance and the transition to adulthood.” American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 116, no. 2.

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. 2019. Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

Nelson, S. E., and Wilson, K. 2017. “The mental health of Indigenous peoples in Canada: A critical review of research.”Social Science & Medicine.

Office of the Correctional Investigator. 2020. “Indigenous People in Federal Custody Surpasses 30%: Correctional Investigator Issues Statement and Challenge.” News Release. January 21, 2020.

Oliver, Lisa N., Chris Penney and Paul A. Peters. 2016. “The influence of community well-being on mortality among Registered First Nations people.” Health Reports. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 82-003-X.

Ontario Human Rights Commission. 2018. Interrupted Childhoods: Over-Representation of Indigenous and Black Children in Ontario Child Welfare.

Pernanen, Kai, Marie-Marthe Cousineau, Serge Brochu and Fu Sun. 2002. “Proportions of crimes associated with alcohol and other drugs in Canada.” Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.

Perreault, Samuel. 2019. “Police-reported crime in rural and urban areas.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Perreault, Samuel. 2015. “”Criminal victimization in Canada, 2014.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

R. v. Antic. 2017. SCC 27, [2017] 1 SCR. 509.

R. v. Gladue. 1999. 1 SCR 688.

R. v. Ipeelee. 2012. SCC 13, [2012] 1 SCR 433.

Reavis, James A., Jan Looman, Kristina A. Franco and Briana Rojas. 2013. “Adverse childhood experiences and adult criminality: How long must we live before we possess our own lives?” The Permanente Journal. Vol. 17, no. 2.

Rotenberg, Cristine. 2019. “Police-reported violent crimes against young women and girls in Canada’s Provincial North and Territories, 2017”. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Rotenberg, Cristine. 2012. “Social determinants of health for the off-reserve First Nations population, 15 years of age and older, 2012.” Aboriginal People Survey. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89-653-X.

Roy, Joel and Sharon Marcellus. 2018. “Homicide in Canada, 2018.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Statistics Canada. No date a. Canadian Community Crime Tracker. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 71-604-X.

Statistics Canada. No date b. Table 13-10-0457-01 Health Indicators, by Aboriginal identity, Four-year Period Estimates.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2015. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action. Winnipeg, Man.

Ulmer, Jeffery and Darrell Steffensmeier. 2014. “The age and crime relationship: Social variation, social explanations.” The Nurture Versus Biosocial Debate in Criminology: On the Origins of Criminal Behavior and Criminality. Beaver, Barnes and Brian Boutwell (Eds.). Sage Publications Ltd. London.