Patterns of re-offending among accused persons living in rural areas of the Canadian provinces, 2014 to 2023
by Laura Savage
Highlights
- This Juristat article uses police-reported data to examine re-contact with police among a cohort of 436,915 individuals living in the Canadian provinces who were accused by police of committing a criminal offence in 2014. Individuals were followed for exactly nine years from the initial contact with police in 2014 to examine the prevalence and nature of re-contact.
- Two-thirds (67%) of accused persons living in rural areas of the provinces had at least one re-contact with police during the follow-up period, compared with 57% of accused persons living in urban areas.
- Of those who had at least one re-contact with police during the follow-up period, three in five accused persons living in both rural (61%) and urban (61%) areas had re-contact within one year of the initial contact.
- Of all accused persons living in rural areas of the provinces who had a contact with police in 2014, one in five (20%) had more than ten re-contacts during the follow-up period—a higher proportion than their urban counterparts (14%).
- Of those who had re-contact with police during the reference period, a higher proportion of accused persons living in the northern regions of rural areas had re-contact within the first year compared to those living in the southern regions of rural areas (65% versus 59%).
- One-fifth (20%) of the rural cohort had more than ten re-contacts with police during the follow-up period and were responsible for 68% of all of the rural cohort’s contacts with police.
It is well-documented that a small subset of people—commonly referred to as repeat or “chronic” offenders—are responsible for a disproportionately large share of crime (Brennan & Matarazzo, 2016; Carrington, 2007). There is increasing concern about the significant and lasting consequences that re-offending has on communities, including the increased burden on the criminal justice system, higher crime rates, and the psychological, social and economic strain of crime on victims and community members. A lack of adequate support services and the social stigma associated with past criminal history can increase the likelihood of re-offending (Public Safety Canada, 2023). Effective crime prevention strategies must consider the risk of re-offending, focusing on high-risk and repeat offenders—and prioritize marginalized populations disproportionately impacted by recidivism—when designing policies and programs aimed at reducing overall crime (Braga et al., 2019; Public Safety Canada, 2023).
There are several ways to operationally define and measure the concept of recidivism depending on the context in which it is used. This often includes the analysis of indicators such as re-contact with police, reconviction and repeat incarceration (Department of Justice Canada, 2020a). Not all crimes that come to the attention of the police result in findings of guilt or custodial sentences yet they can still have significant negative impacts on individuals and communities. In 2022, Public Safety Canada announced Canada’s Federal Framework to Reduce Recidivism (the Framework).Note The Framework seeks to create safer communities by supporting the safe and successful reintegration of incarcerated individuals into the community by addressing key areas like housing, employment, education, health and positive support networks. The Framework, which is oriented toward the reintegration of incarcerated offenders, also recognizes the importance of addressing the overrepresentation of marginalized populations in the criminal justice system, underscoring the need for tailored programs and supports that better reflect the needs of specific populations.
It is well-established that, at the national level, police-reported crime rates and crime severity are typically higher in rural areas (Cotter, 2025; Perreault, 2023; Savage et al., 2025). Crime is complex and multifaceted; there are underlying social, economic and environmental factors that are associated with risk of re-offending, including unemployment, low household income, substance use, geographical isolation and a lack of or limited access to community-based social services (Bonta & Andrews, 2023). These risk factors are often amplified in rural communities where infrastructure and resources are scarcer. As such, examining re-contact with police through a rural lens is important for developing effective interventions that address the unique needs of rural populations.
This Juristat article is based on police-reported data from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey and examines offending patterns among accused persons living in rural areas of the provinces by looking at re-contact with police as an accused person for nine years from the date of their initial contact with police in 2014. This analysis examines the key dimensions related to re-contact, including the prevalence of re-contact, frequency of re-contact, time to re-contact and nature of re-contact.
This Juristat article was produced with funding support from Public Safety Canada.
Start of text box 1
Text box 1
Definitions
Contact: In this Juristat article, a contact is defined as an official intervention with police as an accused person in relation to a criminal incident. To be considered in-scope for this analysis and included in the cohort, the initial intervention must have been for a violent, property or other Criminal Code (excluding traffic) offence that was reported between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014. Charges may or may not have been laid or recommended by police. An individual may have had prior police contact before this period.
Re-contact: A re-contact refers to any subsequent contact with police (i.e., an incident resulting in a new charge being laid or recommended, or an incident that was cleared by other meansNote ) for violent, property or other Criminal Code (excluding traffic) offences following the initial police contact in 2014. Individuals were followed for exactly nine years after the cohort incident (i.e., if the initial incident was reported by police on January 1, 2014, any subsequent contacts with police until January 1, 2023, were in-scope for this analysis). An individual may have had additional re-contacts after this period. While the accused person must have resided in the provinces at the time of the initial contact with police in 2014, they may have moved to the territories during the follow-up period and would still be considered in scope.
Criminal incident: Criminal incidents include all Criminal Code offences reported by police services. For this analysis, Criminal Code traffic offences and other federal statute offences, such as drug offences, are excluded. Police-reported statistics may be affected by differences in the way police services deal with offences. In some instances, police or municipalities might choose to deal with some offences using municipal bylaws or provincial provisions rather than Criminal Code provisions. Counts are based on the most serious violation in the incident. One incident may involve multiple violations.
Crime rate: The crime rate is the sum of all Criminal Code incidents reported by the police divided by the population. The crime rate excludes Criminal Code traffic violations and other federal statute violations, such as drug offences.
Crime Severity Index (CSI): The CSI was developed as a complementary measure to the conventional crime rate and self-reported victimization data and measures both the volume and the relative severity of crime. To calculate the CSI, each violation is assigned a weight that represents its relative severity. To calculate the actual weight for an offence, the incarceration rate for that offence—that is, the percentage of all convictions receiving a jail sentence—is multiplied by the average length of the prison sentence in days (incarceration rates and average prison sentences are calculated at the national level using the previous five years of courts data). Then, the number of police-reported incidents for a given type of crime is multiplied by the crimes weight. The more serious the average sentence, the higher the weight assigned to the offence, meaning that the more serious offences have a greater impact on the index. It is important to note that the CSI is not intended to be used in isolation and is not a universal indicator of community safety. For more information, see Moreau, 2025 and Statistics Canada, 2024.
Census metropolitan area (CMA) and census agglomeration (CA): A CMA or a CA is formed by one or more adjacent municipalities centred 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, adjacent municipalities must have a high degree of integration with the core, as measured by commuting flows derived from census data. A CMA or CA can be served by more than one police service. For more information, see Statistics Canada, 2022a.
Rural areas and urban areas: Accused persons are categorized as living in a rural or urban area based on the location of their residential address (i.e., whether the address is within or outside of a CMA or CA) at the time of their initial contact with police. This means that the location of the incident may not correspond with the accused person’s address. Although it is possible that individuals moved between rural and urban areas during the follow-up period, they are still categorized as rural or urban based on their place of residence at the time of the initial contact in 2014. The definitions of rural and urban in this article may differ from those used in other Juristat products examining rural crime, which are based on the location of the police service reporting the incident.
Provincial North and Provincial South: The Provincial North comprises the northern regions of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador, according to the definition agreed on by the Northern Development Ministers Forum and used by the Conference Board of Canada’s Centre for the North. These northern boundaries generally reflect provincial administrative regions. For more information, see Statistics Canada, 2022b and Allen & Perreault, 2015. Based on this definition, the residential address of the accused at the time of their initial contact with police is used to determine whether they are categorized as living in the North or South region of the provinces. Although it is possible that individuals moved between northern and southern regions during the follow-up period, they are still categorized as living in the North or South based on their place of residence at the time of the initial contact in 2014.
End of text box 1
Characteristics of rural areas in Canada
Although rural areas across Canada are sometimes viewed as a homogenous group for policy and program development, rural communities vary substantially by geography, size and population distribution, and there is no single, uniform experience of rural living. Some rural areas are remote and isolated, with limited access to services, infrastructure and transportation, while others are located in close proximity to large urban centres with access to local resources. Addressing crime and repeat offending in rural areas requires the development of tailored policies and programs that better reflect and address the unique needs of rural populations.
Recent analysis of police-reported data shows that crime rates and crime severity are higher in rural areas than in urban areas (Cotter, 2025; Perreault, 2023; Perreault, 2019; Savage et al., 2025). Rural areas often face unique challenges when it comes to crime. For example, police officers serving rural areas often have much larger geographic distances to cover compared to their urban counterparts, which can impact their ability to respond quickly to incidents. Less frequent patrols and limited police presence may influence levels of crime in rural communities; however, strong community ties and informal social controls can help counterbalance these effects (Ceccato & Abraham, 2022).
While, overall, police-reported data shows that crime rates in Canada are higher in rural areas than in urban areas, not all rural areas experience high levels of crime. In 2023, one-third (32%) of rural residents lived in a location with a relatively low crime rate (less than 3,000 incidents per 100,000 population) (Cotter, 2025). At the aggregate level, gaps in police-reported crime are often more reflective of differences between the northern and southern regions rather than differences between urban and rural areas (Allen & Perreault, 2015; Cotter, 2025; Perreault, 2023; Savage et al., 2025). In general, crime rates in the provincial North—which encompasses the northern regions of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador—are higher than in the provincial South. For example, in 2023, the violent crime rate in the rural provincial North was 5,193 per 100,000 population, three times higher than the rural provincial South rate (1,545) and four times higher than the overall urban rate (1,274) (Cotter, 2025).
Northern communities in rural areas of the provinces typically have a much different socio-economic and ethnocultural profile than rural areas in the South. For instance, Indigenous Peoples represent a relatively large proportion of the population in rural areas and in the provincial North. Self-reported and police-reported data have consistently shown higher rates of victimization and offending among First Nations people, Métis and Inuit (Allen, 2020; Boyce, 2016; Perreault, 2022). This reality cannot be separated from the historical and ongoing impacts of colonization upon Indigenous Peoples that contribute to socioeconomic marginalization, trauma and intergenerational violence (Aguiar & Halseth, 2015; Bombay et al., 2014; Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 2015).
In addition, other socio-economic characteristics like higher levels of unemployment and poverty, low educational attainment, unstable or unsuitable housing, substance use and lack of community infrastructure and support are factors known to influence levels of crime and offending (Allen & Cancino, 2012; Ceccato & Abraham, 2022; Savage et al., 2025; Ukert et al., 2018). In general, these characteristics are more present in rural areas than in urban areas, and in northern regions than in southern regions.
There are several ways to define rural and urban. In general, previous analysis of police-reported rural crime using the UCR Survey has categorized police services as being either rural or urban based on the geographic location of the majority of the population they serve (see Text box 1 for more information). When examining accused characteristics, the postal code information associated with an accused person’s address can be used to increase the accuracy of the rural and urban indicators. In this analysis, an accused person is classified as either rural or urban based on whether they resided inside or outside of a census metropolitan area or census agglomeration (see Text box 1) at the time of their initial contact with police rather than by the police service that recorded the incident.
Start of text box 2
Text box 2
Analyzing re-contact using police-reported data from the Uniform Crime
Reporting Survey
Re-contact data provide valuable insight into the number, or volume, of criminal offences—that come to the attention of police—committed by the same person within a specific reference period. This helps to identify patterns of repeat offending among specific populations, supports the efficient allocation of resources by focusing efforts on high-risk individuals, and helps evaluate the effectiveness of current criminal justice interventions. Together, these factors play a crucial role in responding to crime and contributing to safer communities.
This Juristat article uses police-reported data from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey to examine re-contact with police. The study cohort consists of all individuals living in the provincesNote who had at least one contact with police as an accused person in a criminal incident reported between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014. For accused persons with multiple in-scopeNote police contacts in 2014, the contact with the earliest date was selected. If there were multiple incidents on the same day, the initial contact was chosen based on the violation, crime severity index, and charge status. When address information for the accused person was missing or unknown for the initial contact with police in 2014, the address of the responding police service was used.
A unique person identifier was created for each accused person, and all subsequent contacts that were reported by police during the nine-year follow-up periodNote were included in the data file to determine the extent to which individuals had repeated contact with police as an accused person for violent, property and other Criminal Code (excluding traffic) offences. It is important to note that administrative data like the UCR Survey only capture official interventions with police and therefore underestimate the true prevalence of re-offending as not all crime comes to the attention of police. Moreover, it is possible that an individual had no subsequent contact with police because they were institutionalized, left the country, or died at some point during the reference period. This information is not captured by the UCR Survey.
The data file used for this analysis contains information on contacts with police for all cleared incidents (i.e., incidents where charges were either laid or recommended against an accused person by police or the incident was cleared otherwise) and does not include any information on criminal justice outcomes like court decisions or sentencing. This means that not all accused persons included in this cohort were charged and, of those who were charged, not all were found guilty. Existing research shows that an individual’s likelihood of re-offending may be partially shaped by past experiences with the criminal justice system—particularly for those who were incarcerated for a prior offence (Brennan & Matarazzo, 2016; Department of Justice Canada, 2020a; Ibrahim, 2019; Pedneault et al., 2024). Post-incarceration challenges such as obtaining and maintaining employment and securing suitable housing have been associated with a higher likelihood of re-contact (Flores et al., 2017; Jacobs & Gottlieb, 2020).
End of text box 2
Section 1: Cohort characteristics
This section presents a brief overview of the demographic characteristics of the entire study cohort, along with details of their initial contact with police in 2014. This context is essential for comparing how these characteristics align with, or differ from, those observed in the rural cohort.
There were 436,915 individuals living in the Canadian provinces who had at least one contact with police as an accused person in relation to a violent crime, a property crime or other Criminal Code violation (excluding traffic) from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2014. Of this number, the majority (75%) of accused persons lived in an urban area at the time of the contact, with the remaining 25% of the cohort living in a rural area.Note More specifically, seven in ten (70%) accused lived in the urban South, 16% in the rural South, 9% in the rural North and 5% in the urban North.
Large majority of accused persons who had at least one contact with police in 2014 were men and boys
In line with previous analysis showing that most persons accused of police-reported crime are men and boys, women and girls represented a much smaller proportion of the cohort (27%). This gender divide was similar between rural and urban areas of the provinces, with women and girls accounting for 28% of accused in rural areas and 26% of accused in urban areas (Table 1). Notably, women and girls accounted for a higher proportion of accused persons in the rural North (31%) when compared with other regions of the provinces.Note
Of those accused of a police-reported crime in 2014, the largest proportion were aged 18 to 29 years, accounting for slightly more than one-third (35%) of the cohort. An additional 29% of the cohort were aged 30 to 44 years and 14% were 17 years and younger.Note The median age of accused persons was 30 years in both rural and urban areas.Note
Two in five initial contacts with police were for violent offences
Across the provinces, two in five (40%) accused persons had an initial contact with police for a violent offence (Table 1).Note This proportion was similar in both rural (40%) and urban (39%) areas. Among those living in rural areas who were accused of a violent offence, two-thirds (66%) were accused in an assault or firearm-related offence, a similar proportion to those living in urban areas (65%).
Within the cohort, an additional 36% of accused persons had an initial contact with police for a property offence. This proportion was lower in rural (34%) than in urban areas (37%). Unlike violent crime, many forms of property crime—including fraud, motor vehicle theft, theft under $5,000, and shoplifting—have been shown to be more common in urban areas than rural areas (Cotter, 2025). The remainder of the cohort had contact with police for other Criminal Code offences (24%).
Administration of justice offences are offences committed against the integrity of the criminal justice system, most often involving violations of conditions that were imposed by the courts or by the police. These offences include, for example, breach of probation, failure to appear and failure to comply with conditions of release (e.g., not abstaining from drugs and alcohol, breaking curfew, failure to report a change of address).
Administration of justice offences are commonly referred to as the “revolving door” of the criminal justice system, resulting in additional criminal charges that perpetuate the continued involvement of many individuals in the criminal justice system (Carrington & Schulenberg, 2003; Department of Justice Canada, 2018). This may be further exacerbated for accused persons living in more remote or isolated rural areas, where long drives and limited access to reliable public transportation can make it difficult to attend court and a lack of social services may hinder efforts to comply with the conditions of their release (Aylwin & Moore, 2015; Department of Justice Canada, 2020b; Benavides et al., 2023).
In 2014, 11% of the cohort who lived in a rural area and 13% of the cohort who lived in an urban area came into contact with police for an administration of justice offence. This indicates that these accused persons had prior involvement with the criminal justice system, and that this initial contact was actually a re-contact. There were no notable differences observed between the northern and southern regions of the provinces.
Accused persons living in rural areas were less likely than their urban counterparts to have charges laid or recommended against them
Once an accused person has been identified in relation to a criminal incident, the police can either lay or recommend charges or decide to not proceed with charges against an accused. When looking at the initial incident, fewer accused persons living in rural areas had charges laid or recommended compared with those living in urban areas (43% versus 59%) and were more commonly cleared otherwise (47%, versus 31% of accused living in urban areas).Note
Much of the difference in clearance status between rural and urban areas can be attributed to the relatively low charge rate among accused persons living in the northern regions of rural areas. While a similar proportion of accused persons living in the rural North (52%) and the rural South (51%) had charges laid or recommended against them for violent offences, a difference became pronounced for property offences (21% versus 35%) and other Criminal Code offences, including administration of justice offences (40% versus 50%).
Further, there were notable differences in the specific types of offences for which accused persons came into contact with police and the severity of these offences may influence the decision to lay or recommend charges. While a larger proportion of accused persons living in rural areas had an initial contact with police for mischief (17%, versus 7% in urban areas), they were much less likely than their urban counterparts to have charges laid or recommended against them (13% and 36%, respectively). Mischief encompasses a broad range of offences, many of which can be more appropriately addressed through the use of municipal by-laws, in urban areas where such by-laws exist, rather than under the Criminal Code (Cotter, 2025; Perreault, 2023). This may partially explain the discrepancy between rural and urban areas; only the most serious mischief offences in urban areas are dealt with by police and are more likely to result in charges.
Section 2: Re-contact with police among persons living in rural areas of the provinces
This section of the Juristat article uses data from the UCR Survey to explore the prevalence and nature of re-contact with police—as an accused person—among the cohort of 436,915 individuals who had contact with police as an accused person in 2014, with a focus on those living in rural areas. Any notable differences between the northern and southern regions for rural and urban areas are also presented.
Three in five accused persons had re-contact with police within reference period
Of the 436,915 accused persons who came into contact with police in 2014, three in five (60%) had at least one subsequent contact (i.e., re-contact) with police during the nine-year follow-up period. Among those who had re-contact, 24% of accused persons had one re-contact with police, 35% had between two and five re-contacts, 16% had between six and ten re-contacts, and 26% had more than ten re-contacts.
The 261,142 individuals who had repeat contact with police accounted for a total of 2,568,883 contacts with police over the nine-year follow-up period. Notably, the 66,649 individuals who had more than ten re-contacts were responsible for 1,702,989 contacts with police during the reference period, translating to an average of 26 contacts per accused person. In all, 15% of the total cohort had more than ten re-contacts during the follow-up period, accounting for 62% of this cohort’s contacts with police.
A higher proportion of accused persons living in rural areas had re-contact with police
Around two-thirds (67%) of accused persons who lived in a rural area had at least one re-contact with police, compared with 57% of accused persons who lived in an urban area (Table 2). Much of the difference between rural and urban areas was driven by a considerably higher proportion of accused persons living in the rural North (77%) having re-contact with police during the follow-up period. The proportion of accused persons living in the rural South (61%) who had re-contact was lower than those living in the urban North (65%).
Almost three in ten (28%) accused persons living in the rural North regions of the provinces had more than ten re-contacts with police—a proportion almost double that of the rural South (15%) (Chart 1).
Chart 1 start
Data table for Chart 1
| Number of re-contacts with police as a person accused of crime Data table for chart 1 Note 2 | Rural North Data table for chart 1 Note 1 | Rural South Data table for chart 1 Note 1 | Urban North Data table for chart 1 Note 1 | Urban South Data table for chart 1 Note 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| percent | ||||
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics, Uniform Crime Reporting Survey. |
||||
| No re-contact | 23 | 39 | 35 | 43 |
| One re-contact | 11 | 15 | 14 | 14 |
| Two to five re-contacts | 23 | 21 | 22 | 20 |
| Six to ten re-contacts | 14 | 10 | 11 | 9 |
| More than ten re-contacts | 28 | 15 | 19 | 13 |
Chart 1 end
Over the nine-year follow-up period, 21,435 accused persons living in rural areas had more than ten re-contacts with police, accounting for 574,060 total contacts from 2014 to 2023. This translates to an average of 27 total contacts (including the initial contact) with police per accused person. Stated otherwise, one-fifth (20%) of the rural cohort were responsible for 68% of all of the rural cohort’s contacts with police. In comparison, those with more than ten re-contacts living in urban areas had an average of 25 total contacts with police per accused person.
Men and boys more likely than women and girls to have re-contact with police, regardless of geography
In both rural and urban areas, women and girls were less likely than men and boys to have re-contact with police during the nine-year follow-up period (Chart 2). In rural areas, 68% of men and boys had re-contact with police compared with 63% of women and girls. The gender gap was larger among those living in urban areas, with 61% of men and boys having at least one re-contact with police compared with half (49%) of women and girls.
Chart 2 start
Data table for Chart 2
| Number of re-contacts with police as a person accused of crime Data table for chart 2 Note 2 | Women and girls | Men and boys |
|---|---|---|
| percent | ||
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics, Uniform Crime Reporting Survey. |
||
| No re-contact | ||
| Rural Data table for chart 2 Note 1 | 37 | 32 |
| Urban Data table for chart 2 Note 1 | 51 | 39 |
| One re-contact | ||
| Rural Data table for chart 2 Note 1 | 14 | 13 |
| Urban Data table for chart 2 Note 1 | 14 | 14 |
| Two to five re-contacts | ||
| Rural Data table for chart 2 Note 1 | 22 | 22 |
| Urban Data table for chart 2 Note 1 | 18 | 21 |
| Six to ten re-contacts | ||
| Rural Data table for chart 2 Note 1 | 11 | 12 |
| Urban Data table for chart 2 Note 1 | 7 | 10 |
| More than ten re-contacts | ||
| Rural Data table for chart 2 Note 1 | 17 | 21 |
| Urban Data table for chart 2 Note 1 | 10 | 15 |
Chart 2 end
When looking at differences between the northern and southern regions of rural areas, the proportion of women and girls who had re-contact with police was much higher among those living in the rural North than among those living in the rural South (74% versus 56%). Notably, more than one in five (22%) women in the rural North had more than ten re-contacts with police—a proportion much higher than their southern counterparts (13%).
This pattern was similar among men and boys living in rural areas. Almost four in five (78%) men and boys living in the rural North had re-contact with police compared with 63% of those living in the rural South. Almost one-third (31%) of men and boys living in the rural North had more than ten re-contacts, compared to 16% of men and boys living in the rural South.
Large majority of persons accused of an administration of justice offence had re-contact with police
Certain types of offences were associated with a lower likelihood of re-contact. Those who had an initial contact with police for theft over $5,000 and sexual offences had lower proportions of re-contact compared with other types of crime (50% and 53%, respectively). In contrast, a high proportion of accused persons who had an initial contact with police for an administration of justice violation had at least one re-contact with police in both rural (80%) and urban (76%) areas (Table 3). As previously mentioned, the initial contact in 2014 being an administration of justice offence indicates that these individuals had prior contact with police for a different criminal offence, meaning that the initial contact with police in this analysis was already re-contact. Notably, almost one-third (31%) of accused persons living in rural areas who were initially accused of an administration of justice offence had more than ten re-contacts with police during the nine-year follow-up period, compared with 24% of accused persons living in urban areas. Since administration of justice violations are directly related to an individual’s involvement in the criminal justice system, failing to meet the conditions imposed for a prior offence can result in new charges, thereby leading to frequent re-contact with police. This may be exacerbated for individuals with unstable housing or limited access to support services who may struggle to comply with court-imposed conditions (Department of Justice Canada, 2020a). Among those whose initial contact was for an administration of justice offence and had at least one re-contact with police during the reference period, 8% of rural accused and 12% of urban accused only had contact with police for an additional administration of justice offence.
Over one-third of the cohort had re-contact with police within one year
Time to re-contact is a metric that measures the elapsed time between an individual’s initial contact with police and their first re-contact. It serves as an indicator of how quickly an individual comes back into contact with police for a new offence and, although not all crime is detected by police, can serve as a baseline to provide insights into the timing and frequency of re-offending.
Across the entire cohort, 37% had re-contact with police within one year of the initial contact, and this proportion was higher for accused persons living in rural (41%) versus urban (35%) areas. A higher proportion of accused persons living in the northern regions of rural areas had re-contact within the first year compared to those living in the southern regions (50% versus 36%).
The proportion of the cohort who had re-contact within one year varied depending on the type of crime for which they initially came into contact with police. Individuals accused of a property offence in 2014 were more likely to have re-contact with police within one year in both rural (43%) and urban (35%) areas compared to those accused of a violent offence (36% and 32%, respectively). This difference may be partially attributed to factors such as a higher likelihood of incarceration among accused persons involved in violent offences, which is beyond the scope of the current analysis.
More than half of accused persons who had re-contact within one year had more than five re-contacts with police
Among those who had re-contact with police within one year of the cohort offence, 12% of accused persons living in rural areas had one re-contact, 29% had between two and five re-contacts, and 59% had more than five re-contacts within one year. Accused persons living in the rural North were much more likely than those living in the rural South to have had more than five re-contacts within one year of their initial contact with police (67% versus 53%). Notably, a higher proportion of accused persons living in the rural North had more than 10 re-contacts with police compared with those who lived in the rural South (48% and 34%, respectively).
This was similar among accused persons living in urban areas: 16% had one re-contact, 33% had between two and five re-contacts, and 51% had more than five re-contacts with police within one year.
Elapsed time between initial contact and first re-contact with police similar for accused persons living in both rural and urban areas
When examining the elapsed time between the initial contact with police in 2014 and the first re-contact for all accused persons who had re-contact with police during the follow-up period, six in ten accused persons living in both rural (61%) and urban (61%) areas had re-contact within one year (Chart 3).
Chart 3 start
Data table for Chart 3
| Elapsed time Data table for chart 3 Note 2 | Rural Data table for chart 3 Note 1 | Urban Data table for chart 3 Note 1 |
|---|---|---|
| percent | ||
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics, Uniform Crime Reporting Survey. |
||
| One week | 6 | 7 |
| One month | 16 | 17 |
| Three months | 32 | 34 |
| Six months | 46 | 47 |
| One year | 61 | 61 |
| More than one year | 100 | 100 |
Chart 3 end
There were no notable differences between accused persons living in rural and urban areas when it came to the elapsed time between the cohort contact and the first re-contact with police (Chart 3; Table 4). Around one-third of accused persons living in rural (32%) and urban (34%) areas had a re-contact within three months of their initial contact with police in 2014, and almost half had a re-contact within six months (46% and 47%, respectively).
Nature of re-contact similar between accused persons living in rural and urban areas
The Crime Severity Index (CSI) is a summary measure of the volume and severity of police-reported crime. The CSI weighs crimes based on their relative severity, which is calculated using incarceration rates and length of custody associated with each offence (see Moreau, 2025 or Statistics Canada, 2024 for more information). The CSI weights assigned to each offence can be used to determine whether there was an increase, decrease, or no change in offence severity between an individual’s initial contact with police and their first re-contact.
Of those who had re-contact, two in five (41%) accused persons had re-contact with police for a less serious offence, 23% were accused of an offence of the same severity, and the remaining 36% were accused of a more serious offence compared to their cohort contact. This mirrors what was seen in rural areas: 40% of accused persons had re-contact with police for a less serious offence than their initial contact, while 37% had contact for a more serious offence.
A large proportion of the cohort accused of a violent crime during the follow-up period
Not only were levels of re-contact generally higher among the rural cohort, but re-contact for a violent offence in particular was also more common. Among those who had re-contact with police during the follow-up period, three-quarters (74%) of accused persons living in rural areas had at least one re-contact related to violent crime. In contrast, this was the case for two-thirds (67%) of urban accused. Of those who had re-contact with police for a violent crime, the majority had between one and five such contacts, regardless of whether they lived in a rural (82%) or urban (87%) area.
Start of text box 3
Text box 3
Re-contact with police among youth accused living in rural areas of the
provinces
Significant efforts have been directed towards addressing and responding to youth crime. The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) (2003) is the federal law that governs Canada’s youth justice system and applies to youth aged 12 to 17 years who have committed, or are alleged to have committed, a criminal offence. It has long been recognized that young people lack the maturity of adults, and so youth accused of committing a crime should be handled differently by the criminal justice system (Howell et al., 2013).
By providing age-appropriate responses to youth crime, the YCJA aims to hold youth accountable in ways that are fair and proportionate to the severity of their offence while promoting early and effective community-based interventions, rehabilitation and reintegration. In Canada, children under the age of 12 years cannot be held criminally responsible.
Slightly more than half of youth came into contact with police for a property offence
Of the 436,915 individuals who came into contact with police as an accused person in 2014, 58,749 were youth aged 12 to 17 years. One in four (24%) of these youth lived in a rural area of the provinces.
Around half of youth accused living in both rural (49%) and urban (53%) had an initial contact with police for a property offence, while an additional one-third were accused of a violent offence (36% in rural areas and 33% in urban areas). The remaining youth came into contact with police for other Criminal Code offences.
The most common types of offences for which youth living in rural areas came into contact with police were assaults and firearm-related offencesNote (22%) and mischief (20%). In comparison, youth living in urban areas most often came into contact with police for shoplifting (24%) and assault and firearm-related offences (19%). The median age of youth who came into contact with police was 15 years in both rural and urban areas of the provinces.
Majority of youth accused were not charged in relation to the initial contact
The YCJA encourages police to exercise their discretion, where appropriate, to divert youth accused of less serious offences away from the formal justice system and instead consider alternative measures to laying or recommending charges (e.g., issuing a verbal warning or written caution or referring the accused to a community-based program) (Department of Justice Canada, 2025). Accordingly, three in ten (31%) youth living in rural areas who came into contact with police in 2014 had charges laid or recommended by police—a similar proportion to their urban counterparts (35%). Aligned with the principles of the YCJA, 26% of rural youth received a verbal warning, 6% were issued a written caution, and an additional 7% were referred to a community program or an extrajudicial sanctions program.Note
While the decision to lay or recommend charges against an accused may be influenced by other factors outside the scope of this analysis, the proportion of accused youth who were charged versus cleared otherwise varied by the type of crime committed. For violent crime, 34% of accused youth in rural areas and 46% of accused youth in urban areas were charged. This was higher than the proportion of accused youth where charges were laid or recommended for a property offence (27% in rural areas and 25% in urban areas) and similar to the proportion of youth charged for another Criminal Code offence (36% in rural areas and 45% in urban areas).
Almost six in ten youth had re-contact with police during the follow-up period
Overall, almost six in ten (59%) youth had a subsequent contact with police during the nine-year follow-up period. Of this proportion, 25% had one re-contact with police, 35% had between two and five re-contacts, 15% had between six and ten re-contacts, and the remaining one-quarter (25%) had more than ten re-contacts. These youth were responsible for a total of 324,520 contacts with police between 2014 and 2023. It is important to note that all youth who had contact with police as an accused person in 2014 would have reached adulthood, and therefore transitioned out of the youth criminal justice system, at some point during the follow-up period.
A higher proportion of youth living in rural areas had re-contact with police, particularly those living in the rural North. Two-thirds (67%) of youth living in rural areas had at least one re-contact with police during the follow-up period, compared with 56% of youth living in urban areas. The difference between rural and urban areas was largely driven by a higher proportion of accused youth living in the rural North having re-contact with police compared to those in the rural South (77% and 62%, respectively).
In rural areas, a small proportion of youth accounted for a disproportionate amount of contact with police. One in five (21%) youth living in rural areas had more than ten re-contacts with police during the follow-up period, accounting for 76,336 total contacts with police between 2014 and 2023 (Chart 4).
Chart 4 start
Data table for Chart 4
| Number of re-contacts with police as a person accused of crime Data table for chart 4 Note 2 | Rural Data table for chart 4 Note 1 | Urban Data table for chart 4 Note 1 |
|---|---|---|
| percent | ||
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics, Uniform Crime Reporting Survey. |
||
| No re-contact | 33 | 44 |
| One re-contact | 14 | 15 |
| Two to five re-contacts | 21 | 20 |
| Six to ten re-contacts | 11 | 8 |
| More than ten re-contacts | 21 | 13 |
Chart 4 end
Across rural and urban areas, the proportion of youth accused who had re-contact with police was higher among those who had been charged in relation to the initial contact. Specifically, 77% of youth living in rural areas who were charged had at least one re-contact with police during the follow-up period, compared with 63% of those who were cleared otherwise. This gap was larger among accused youth living in urban areas: 73% of youth accused who were charged had re-contact with police, compared with 47% of those who were cleared otherwise.
Of those who had re-contact with police, six in ten had re-contact within one year
Of those who had re-contact with police, six in ten youth accused living in rural (59%) and urban (59%) areas had re-contact within one year of their initial contact with police. Of these proportions, around half of accused persons had re-contact within the first three months (52% of youth in rural areas and 53% of youth in urban areas).
Crime severity most often less serious between first and second contact
Among youth accused living in rural areas, 43% who had a re-contact were accused of a less serious offence for the second contact (i.e., first re-contact), 38% were accused of a more serious crime, and 20% committed a crime of the same level of severity. This was similar to youth accused living in urban areas: 41% were accused of a less serious offence, 38% of a more serious offence, and 21% of an offence of the same severity.
End of text box 3
Summary
This Juristat article analyzed re-contact with police with a focus on accused persons living in rural areas of the provinces. Using a cohort of 436,915 individuals who came into contact with the police between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, three in five (60%) accused persons had at least one re-contact with police during the nine-year follow-up period. Notably, these individuals (i.e., those who had at least one re-contact with police) were responsible for a total of 2,568,883 contacts with police over the nine-year follow-up period.
A larger proportion of accused persons living in rural areas of the provinces had re-contact with police during the follow-up period compared with their urban counterparts (67% versus 57%). Among those who had re-contact during this period, one in five (20%) accused persons living in rural areas had more than ten repeat contacts with police—a higher proportion than those living in urban areas (14%). This was largely driven by the number of accused persons in the rural North—28% of accused persons were accused of more than ten separate incidents during the follow-up period. Notably, 21,435 accused persons living in rural areas had more than ten re-contacts with police, accounting for 574,060 total contacts from 2014 to 2023. This translates to an average of 27 total contacts (including the initial contact) with police per accused person. Stated otherwise, one-fifth (20%) of the rural cohort were responsible for 68% of all of the rural cohort’s contacts with police. In comparison, those with more than ten re-contacts living in urban areas had an average of 25 total contacts with police per accused person.
Across the provinces, more than one-third (37%) of the total cohort had re-contact with police within one year of the initial contact in 2014, and this proportion was higher for accused persons living in rural (41%) than in urban (35%) areas. More specifically, a higher proportion of accused persons in the northern regions of rural areas had re-contact within the first year compared to those in the southern regions (50% versus 36%).
Not only were levels of re-contact generally higher among the rural cohort, but re-contact for a violent offence in particular was also more common. Among those who had re-contact with police during the follow-up period, three-quarters (74%) of accused persons living in rural areas had at least one re-contact related to violent crime. In contrast, this was the case for two-thirds (67%) of urban accused. Of those who had re-contact with police for a violent crime, the majority had between one and five such contacts, regardless of whether they lived in a rural (82%) or urban (87%) area.
It is important to note that the data file used in this analysis does not account for social, economic or environmental characteristics that are known to influence levels of crime and offending, nor does the data file include information on court, sentencing and correctional outcomes. As such, it is only possible to know whether an accused person had charges laid or recommended against them by police and not whether their case progressed through the criminal justice system.
Detailed data tables
Survey description
Uniform Crime Reporting Survey
The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey was established in 1962 with the co-operation and assistance of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. The UCR Survey measures criminal incidents that have been reported to federal, provincial and municipal police services in Canada.
One incident can involve multiple offences. To ensure comparability, counts presented in this article are based on the most serious offence in the incident as determined by a standard classification rule used by all police services.
The option for police to code victims and accused persons as “non-binary” in the UCR Survey was implemented in 2018. In the context of the UCR Survey, the term “non-binary” refers to a person who publicly expresses themselves as neither exclusively male nor exclusively female. Given that small counts of non-binary victims and accused persons may exist, the UCR Survey data available to the public have been recoded with these victims and accused persons distributed in the “men and boys” or “women and girls” categories based on the regional distribution of victims’ and accused persons’ gender. This recoding ensures the protection of the confidentiality and privacy of victims and accused persons.
References
Aguiar, W. & Halseth, R. (2015). Aboriginal peoples and historic trauma: The processes of intergenerational transmission. National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health.
Allen, J. & Cancino, J. M. (2012). Social disorganization, Latinos and juvenile crime in the Texas borderlands. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(2), 152-163.
Allen, M. (2020). Crime reported by police serving areas where the majority of the population is Indigenous, 2018. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.
Allen, M. & Perreault, S. (2015). Police-reported crime in Canada’s Provincial North and Territories, 2013. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.
Aylwin, N. & Moore, L. (2015). Rural and remote access to justice: A literature review. Canadian Forum on Civil Justice, 51.
Benavides, A., Nodeland, B., Donnell Carey, C. & Tu, W-M. (2023). Justice system involvement, employment, and homelessness in rural areas. International Journal of Rural Criminology, 8(1).
Bombay, A., Matheson, K. & Anisman, H. (2014). The intergenerational effects of Indian Residential Schools: implications for the concept of historical trauma. Transcult Psychiatry, 51(3), 320-338.
Bonta, J. & Andrews, D. A. (2023). The psychology of criminal conduct (7th ed.). Routledge.
Boyce, J. (2016). Victimization of Aboriginal people in Canada, 2014. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.
Braga, A. A., Weisburd, D. & Turchan, B. (2019). Focused deterrence strategies effects on crime: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15(3).
Brennan, S. & Matarazzo, A. (2016). Re-contact with the Saskatchewan justice system. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.
Carrington, P. J. (2007). “The development of police-reported delinquency among Canadian youth born in 1987 and 1990.” Crime and Justice Research Paper Series. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-561-MIE.
Carrington, P. J. & Schulenberg, J. L. (2003). Police discretion with young offenders. Department of Justice Canada.
Ceccato, V. & Abraham, J. (2022). Crime and safety in the rural: Lessons from research. Springer.
Cotter, A. (2025). Characteristics of police-reported crime in rural areas in the Canadian provinces, 2023. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.
Department of Justice Canada. (2025). Exploring the Use of Extrajudicial Measures for Youth Who Come in Contact with the Police. Research and Statistics Division.
Department of Justice Canada. (2020a). Recidivism in the criminal justice system. JustFacts.
Department of Justice Canada. (2020b). 2020 state of the criminal justice system report: Focus on women.
Department of Justice Canada. (2018). Administration of justice offences. Research at a Glance.
Flores, A. W., Holsinger, A. M., Lowenkamp, C. T. & Cohen, T. H. (2017). Time-free effects in predicting recidivism using both fixed and variable follow-up periods: Do different methods produce different results. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(1), 121-137.
Howell, J., Feld, B., Mears, D., Farrington, D., Loeber, R. & Petechuk D. (2013). Young offenders and an effective justice system response: What should happen, and what we need to know: Criminal careers, justice policy, and prevention. Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime: Criminal Careers, Justice Policy and Prevention. Loeber, Rolf and David Farrington (eds.). New York, NY. Oxford University Press.
Ibrahim, D. (2019). Youth re-contact with the Nova Scotia justice system, 2012/2013 to 2014/2015. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.
Jacobs, L. A. & Gottlieb, A. (2020). The effect of housing circumstances on recidivism: Evidence from a sample of people on probation in San Francisco. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 47(9), 1097-1115.
Moreau, G. (2025). Understanding and using the police-reported Crime Severity Index. Juristat Bulletin—Quick Fact. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-005-X.
Pedneault, C., Lee, S. C. & Jones, N. J. (2024). Reconvictions among adults sentenced to custody or community supervision across five provincial correctional programs, 2015/2016 to 2018/2019. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.
Perreault, S. (2023). Police-reported crime in rural and urban areas in the Canadian provinces, 2021. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.
Perreault, S. (2022). Victimization of First Nations people, Métis and Inuit in Canada. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.
Perreault, S. (2019). Police-reported crime in rural and urban areas in the Canadian provinces, 2017. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.
Public Safety Canada. (2023). Federal Framework to Reduce Recidivism Implementation Plan 2023-2025.
Savage, L., Maxwell, A., Burczycka, M., Heidinger, L. & Mansour, M. (2025). Characteristics of police-reported crime in rural areas, 2023: Provincial fact sheets. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.
Statistics Canada. (2024). Infosheet: Understanding and using the Crime Severity Index. Juristat Bulletin – Quick Fact. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-005-X.
Statistics Canada. (2022a). Census metropolitan area (CMA) and census agglomeration (CA). Illustrated Glossary. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-195-X.
Statistics Canada. (2022b). Definitions, data sources and methods — Statistical Classifications: North and South — Variant of Standard Geographical Classification (SGC) 2021.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action. Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Ukert, B., Wiebe, D. J. & Humphreys, D. K. (2018). Regional differences in the impact of the “Stand Your Ground” law in Florida. Preventive Medicine, 115, 68-75.
- Date modified: