Youth Custody and Community Services in Canada, 2005/2006

View the most recent version.

by Shelly Milligan

Introduction
Youth correctional services, 2005/2006
Youth corrections before and after the YCJA
Average counts of youth in custody and under community supervision
Summary
Data sources and measures
Glossary of terms
Detailed data tables
References
Endnotes

Introduction

Youth correctional services across Canada are the responsibility of the provincial/territorial governments but are subject to the provisions in the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). The YCJA was developed in 1999 and enacted on April 1, 2003 as part of the new strategy for youth justice put forth by Canada’s Department of Justice. This new strategy provides a more inclusive framework which focuses on public awareness, crime prevention, education, child welfare, health, family and the community. This strategy is reflected in the YCJA with its concentration on integrating all areas of young peoples’ lives including their mental health, education and welfare, while placing emphasis on rehabilitation and reintegration as well as the long-term protection of the public (Tustin and Lutes, 2006). A central component of the YCJA, as stated in the Preamble, is the mandate that the youth justice system "reserve its most serious intervention for the most serious crimes". Essentially, the YCJA is "an attempt to find a ... balance on youth justice issues"(Bala, 2003) by including provisions that would ensure that the most serious offenders serve longer sentences, while youth who have committed less serious offences are diverted from youth courts and custodial facilities to community correctional services. The introduction of the YCJA represented a significant change in the way the Canadian criminal justice system processes young persons, and 2005/2006 marked the third year since its implementation.

Providing information on the number and characteristics of youth admitted to and released from youth correctional services allows those creating policy and programming for young offenders to monitor the extent to which the various programs are being used and by whom. In addition, this information allows the public to understand the use of youth correctional services. This Juristat provides such information in three ways. The first part of this Juristat provides a statistical overview of the youth corrections population (i.e., 12- to 17-year-olds) in Canada for 2005/2006, the most recent year of data. The second part presents data on youth corrections over time to examine how correctional services and the characteristics of young offenders in the system may have changed compared to years prior to and since the implementation of the YCJA. The third part of this Juristat provides information on the average counts of youth in custody and community services and includes the rate at which Canada incarcerates young offenders.

Youth correctional services, 2005/2006

Youth correctional services include both custodial and community supervision programs. Custodial supervision is comprised of sentenced custody, which includes both open and secure custody,¹ and remand. Remand is the holding of a young person temporarily in custody while he or she awaits trial or sentencing. Community supervision consists of the following programs: probation and YCJA sentences which encompasses the community portion of a custody and supervision order, and the deferred custody and supervision order.² Community supervision programs often include placing a number of restrictions on the young person. Community supervision orders are sometimes given with other sanctions and, at a minimum, require the young person to keep the peace, be of good behaviour, report to correctional personnel and appear before the court as required.

Number of youth admitted to custody and community supervision programs declined in 2005/2006

The total number of admissions to youth correctional services in the 7 jurisdictions that reported complete data in 2005/2006 declined by 2% (Table 1).³ This is consistent with one of the primary objectives of the YCJA which is to reserve the use of custody for the most serious offenders while diverting the minor offenders. This overall decrease in admissions to youth correctional services also corresponds to a decrease in the number of youth appearing in court.⁴ Decreases occurred in both custodial (-2%) and community supervision (-3%) programs. Admissions to sentenced custody, which includes both secure and open custody, declined by 14% from the previous year.⁵ However, the number of admissions to remand, meaning custody while awaiting trial or sentencing, increased by 2%.⁶ In addition, community supervision programs experienced declines in both probation (-2%) and YCJA sentences (i.e., the community portion of a custody and supervision order and the deferred custody and supervision order) (-4%).

The number of youth admitted to sentenced custody dropped in most jurisdictions

Sentenced custody is the most serious sentence that youth may receive. The YCJA allows a young person to be sentenced to custody only if he or she has committed a serious violent offence; has not complied with non-custodial sentences; has committed an offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for more than two years and has a history that indicates a pattern of findings of guilt; or, in exceptional cases where the young person has committed an indictable offence, the aggravating circumstances of which are such that a non-custodial sentence would be inconsistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing (s.39, YCJA).

In 2005/2006, 3,724 youth were admitted to sentenced custody in 7 reporting jurisdictions, with 1,902 (51%) of these youth being admitted to secure custody and 1,822 (49%) being admitted to open custody. Admissions to secure custody decreased by 11% from the previous year while open custody decreased by 16%. As a result, there was an overall decline of 14% in sentenced custody admissions for 2005/2006 (Table 1).⁷ The number of youth admitted to sentenced custody dropped in most jurisdictions (Table 2).

Vast majority of youth spent less than 6 months in either open or secure custody

The overwhelming majority of young offenders admitted to sentenced custody in 2005/2006 served a period of six months or less (Table 3). In 2005/2006, 44% of youth released from secure custody⁸ had served a term of 1 month or less and the same proportion had spent anywhere from more than 1 month up to 6 months. Thirteen percent had served more than 6 months.⁹

In comparison to secure custody, patterns in 2005/2006 were slightly different for youth released from open custody. A greater proportion of those released had spent anywhere from more than 1 month to 6 months in open custody (52% versus 44% released from secure custody) and lower proportions had spent 1 month or less (41%), or more than 6 months in open custody (7%).

Admissions to remand accounted for over three-quarters of all youth admitted to custody

Admissions to remand include all young persons temporarily in custody while awaiting trial or sentencing. Young persons may be remanded into custody based on the judge’s decision that the young person poses a danger to society, that there may be a risk of failure to appear for court, or where detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. The YCJA states that remand must not be used as a social measure, such as child protection. In general, a youth can only be remanded if he or she has committed an offence for which he or she can be sentenced to custody if found guilty (s.39(1)a-c).¹⁰

In 2005/2006, reporting jurisdictions¹¹ indicated that there were 13,681 admissions to remand, an increase of 2% from the previous year (Table 1). These admissions accounted for over three-quarters (79%) of admissions to custody. Decreases in admissions to remand were reported in Quebec (-36%), British Columbia (-8%) and Newfoundland and Labrador (-4%), while the remaining jurisdictions experienced increases (Table 2).

Over half of all youth held in remand were released within one week

In 2005/2006, 55% of all young persons admitted to remand were released within 1 week and an additional 27% were held for up to 1 month (Table 3).¹² While 17% were held for a period between more than 1 month and 6 months, a very small proportion was held in remand for a period of time greater than 6 months (1%).

In 2005/2006, youth in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut spent considerably longer periods of time in remand than youth in other jurisdictions (Table 3). For instance, 43% of youth in Nunavut and 36% in the Northwest Territories spent anywhere from more than 1 month to 6 months in remand. In comparison, Manitoba, the next highest jurisdiction, reported 27% of youth spending this amount of time in remand. The longer periods of time spent in remand for youth in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut could be related to the accessibility of courts and services in remote northern areas.

Youth convicted of violent and property offences accounted for similar proportions of youth admitted to sentenced custody

According to 10 reporting jurisdictions, youth convicted of either property¹³ (29%) or violent¹⁴ offences (33%) accounted for similar proportions of admissions to sentenced custody in 2005/2006 (Table 4).¹⁵ That year, of the 10 reporting jurisdictions, 5 experienced higher proportions of admissions for property offences than for violent offences, including Newfoundland and Labrador (52% versus 28%), Nova Scotia (39% versus 27%), Alberta (16% versus 14%), Yukon (78% versus 11%) and Nunavut (72% versus 28%).

One-third of admissions to remand were for violent offences

In 2005/2006, 33% of young persons admitted to remand were admitted for violent offences.¹⁶ Meanwhile admissions for other Criminal Code offences accounted for 28% of admissions, property offences for 26%, and other offences for 13%. The largest proportion of remand admissions for violent offences was reported in Manitoba at 60% and the smallest in Alberta at 9% (Table 4).

Admissions to probation declined

Under the Young Offenders Act (YOA) — the legislation governing young offenders prior to the YCJA — probation was sometimes imposed as a measure to reintegrate youth back into the community after a period of sentenced custody. With the introduction of the YCJA, a period of community supervision became a mandatory component of all custody orders. Although the mandatory supervision component of all custody orders may lessen the need to impose a probation order, it is more likely that decreases in the use of probation may be a result of the expanded options for police diversion under the YCJA. The 12,550 admissions to probation¹⁷ in 2005/2006 represented a 2% decrease from the previous year (Table 1).¹⁸

In 2005/2006, among the 7 reporting jurisdictions,¹⁹ there were 13,129 releases from probation. The largest proportion of youth were released after serving 6 months to 1 year (41%) (Table 6).

Property and violent offences accounted for similar proportions of admissions to probation

In 2005/2006, 39% of young persons admitted to probation were admitted as a result of property offences.²⁰ Similarly, violent offences accounted for 37% of admissions. Other Criminal Code offences accounted for 15% of admissions while other offences accounted for 9% (Table 4). It is important to bear in mind that admissions to probation include those where a youth received a combined sentence of custody with probation and has begun his or her term of probation after completing the term of custody.

Use of YCJA community sentences increased from 2003/2004

With the inclusion of the community portion of custody and supervision orders (CPCS) and the new deferred custody and supervision order sentences, there are more community corrections sanctions available under the YCJA. The CPCS is meant to allow the reintegration of the youth from custody into the community.²¹ A CPCS is similar to a federal statutory release where, ordinarily, the final one-third of a custody sentence is served under community supervision. The deferred custody and supervision order sentence is similar to the adult conditional sentence and allows a young person who would otherwise be sentenced to custody to serve their sentence in the community under a number of strict conditions. Any breach of conditions may result in the young person being sent to custody.

In 2005/2006, there were 1,452 admissions to a deferred custody and supervision order,²² representing an increase of 2% from the previous year (Table 7) and a 33% increase since 2003/2004, the first year the YCJA was implemented. With respect to CPCS’s,²³ there were 3,176 admissions in 2005/2006, representing a 9% decrease from the previous year. This number, however, was 17% higher than admissions reported in 2003/2004.

Females accounted for approximately one-fifth of admissions to youth correctional service programs

As with youth who are accused by police and who appear in youth court, a minority of youth in correctional services are female. Among reporting jurisdictions for 2005/2006, female youth accounted for 21% of young persons admitted to remand²⁴ and 17% of young persons admitted to sentenced custody.²⁵ Moreover, in 2005/2006 the representation of females continued to be slightly higher among admissions to probation (23%) than among admissions to custody (Table 8).

Higher representation of Aboriginal youth in correctional services

Aboriginal youth had higher levels of representation in sentenced custody compared to their representation in the Canadian youth population in all provinces and territories. For example, in British Columbia the proportion of youth admitted to sentenced custody who were Aboriginal was five-fold their representation in the youth population.

Among jurisdictions reporting data, Aboriginal youth accounted for 24% of admissions to custody or probation in 2005/2006²⁶ yet approximately 6% of youth in Canada. specifically, Aboriginal youth represented 31% of all admissions to sentenced custody, 23% of all admissions to remand and 22% of all admissions to probation (Table 8). In total, there were 7,516 admissions of Aboriginal youth to custody or probation.

Female Aboriginal youth represent considerable share of all female admissions

While both male and female Aboriginal youth are highly represented in correctional services, this is particularly true for female Aboriginal youth. In 2005/2006, female Aboriginal youth accounted for 35% of females admitted to sentenced custody²⁷ and 27% admitted to remand.²⁸ By comparison, the representation of male Aboriginal youth among admissions of males for these types of custody was lower (31% and 22%, respectively).

Youth corrections before and after the YCJA

In this section of the report, trend analysis will be conducted to compare the landscape of youth correctional services prior to and since the implementation of the YCJA. For comparability, trend analysis completed in this Juristat focuses on five selected years: 1999/2000, 2001/2002, 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006. This approach was taken because several jurisdictions were either missing certain data or missing various years of data, and/or had experienced changes in data capture systems which affected the comparability of data.²⁹ As such, the years chosen for the trend analysis provide the most complete data over time in order to examine youth corrections both prior to and since the implementation of the YCJA on April 1, 2003.

Admissions to sentenced custody continued to decline, but decreases were smaller in the third year of the YCJA

Admissions to sentenced custody in 2005/2006 were substantially lower than prior to the YCJA and the large decreases observed directly after the YCJA’s enactment have begun to stabilize. Based on data from selected jurisdictions,³⁰ admissions to sentenced custody in 2005/2006 were down 63% from 2001/2002, the earliest comparable trend year prior to the implementation of the YCJA, but were just 5% below 2004/2005. More specifically, admissions to secure custody were 62% less than in 2001/2002 and down 5% from 2004/2005. Open custody admissions in 2005/2006 were down 64% from 2001/2002 and decreased 6% from the 2004/2005 (Chart 1).

Chart 1
Decreases in custody admissions since the implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) in April 2003 have tapered off

Notes: Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island and Nunavut. Trend analysis in this report is limited to the selected periods of 1999/2000, 2001/2002, 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006. These years were chosen because they have the most complete data and provide information on youth corrections prior to and since the implementation of the YCJA on April  1, 2003.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Youth Custody and Community Services Survey.

Remand accounting for a larger proportion of admissions to custody

Large decreases in the number of admissions to sentenced custody since the implementation of the YCJA, accompanied by lesser decreases in admissions to remand, have resulted in remand admissions accounting for a greater proportion of custodial admissions. According to data from 10 reporting jurisdictions,³¹ youth admitted to remand accounted for 73% of custodial admissions in 2005/2006, compared to 65% in 2001/2002 (Chart 2).

Chart 2
Since the implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), remand (pre-trial detention) makes up an increasing share of admissions to custody while sentenced custody has decreased

Notes: Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Nunavut and Ontario Phase I (12- to 15-year-olds). A proxy was used to derive Phase II (16- to 17-year-olds) for both remand and sentenced custody in 2004/2005 and 2005/2006. Trend analysis in this report is limited to the selected periods of 1999/2000, 2001/2002, 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006. These years were chosen because they have the most complete data and provide information on youth corrections prior to and since the implementation of the YCJA on April  1, 2003.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Youth Custody and Community Services Survey.

Majority of youth continue to be held in remand for 1 week or less but the proportion has decreased slightly

Under the YCJA, it appears that the proportion of youth spending 1 week or less in remand has decreased slightly. Just over half (52%) of releases in the 6 reporting jurisdictions³² in 2005/2006 occurred within 1 week or less compared to 55% in 2001/2002. The proportion of releases after more than 1 week and up to 1 month in remand remained stable (31% in 2001/2002 to 30% in 2005/2006). However, releases after a period of more than 1 month to 6 months inched upward slightly from 13% in 2001/2002 to 17% in 2005/2006.

A greater proportion of youth seem to be spending longer periods of time in sentenced custody

Data from seven jurisdictions³³ suggest that under the YCJA the proportion of youth spending more than one month in sentenced custody is greater than under the Young Offenders Act (YOA). According to data from the jurisdictions included in the trend analysis, 42% of youth in 2005/2006 were released from secure custody after serving a period greater than 1 month but less than 6 months (Chart 3). This was true for 37% of youth in 2001/2002. Youth who spent 6 months or more in secure custody has fluctuated through the years, but accounted for 13% in 2005/2006 compared to 8% in 2001/2002. This may mean that the reduction in admissions to secure custody under the YCJA could be partially attributable to a reduction in youth who, under the YOA, would have been sentenced to secure custody for a short period of time.

Chart 3
Proportion of secure custody releases within the first month decreased following the implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA)

Notes: Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. Trend analysis in this report is limited to the selected periods of 1999/2000, 2001/2002, 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006. These years were chosen because they have the most complete data and provide information on youth corrections prior to and since the implementation of the YCJA on April 1, 2003.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Youth Custody and Community Services Survey.

Analysis of open custody releases in eight jurisdictions³⁴ suggests that changes in length of time served are similar to the changes witnessed with secure custody releases (Chart 4).

Chart 4
Proportion of open custody releases within the first month decreased following the implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA)

Notes: Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. Trend analysis in this report is limited to the selected periods of 1999/2000, 2001/2002, 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006. These years were chosen because they have the most complete data and provide information on youth corrections prior to and since the implementation of the YCJA on April 1, 2003.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Youth Custody and Community Services Survey.

Decreases in admissions to sentenced custody for property offences after implementation of the YCJA have changed the composition of admissions

Admissions to sentenced custody by the most serious offence designation no longer consist predominantly of those convicted of property offences (Chart 5). According to data from 6 jurisdictions,³⁵ 26% of admissions to sentenced custody in 2005/2006 were for property offences, compared to 36% in 2001/2002. Although admissions to sentenced custody declined overall between these two reference periods and decreases were therefore seen in admissions for all types of offences, the shift in the composition of most serious offence among admissions is driven by larger declines in the number of admissions for property offences.³⁶

Chart 5
Decreases in admissions to sentenced custody for property offences after implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) have changed the composition of admissions

Notes: Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. Trend analysis in this report is limited to the selected periods of 1999/2000, 2001/2002, 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006. These years were chosen because they have the most complete data and provide information on youth corrections prior to and since the implementation of the YCJA on April 1, 2003.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Youth Custody and Community Services Survey.

Compared to under the Young Offenders Act, admissions to probation declined by over half

Under the Young Offenders Act (YOA), probation was sometimes imposed as a measure to reintegrate youth back into the community after a period of sentenced custody. With the introduction of the YCJA, a period of community supervision became a mandatory component of most custody orders, thereby perhaps reducing the need to impose a probation order. Compared to 2001/2002, the earliest comparable trend year prior to the implementation of the YCJA, admissions to probation in 2005/2006 were 53% lower.³⁷ It is also possible that decreases in the use of probation are a result of the expanded options for police diversion under the YCJA. Probation as a proportion of all admissions to correctional services remained stable at 37% in both 2004/2005 and 2005/2006.

Under the YCJA, a greater proportion of youth in sentenced custody were Aboriginal

As the number of youth in sentenced custody has decreased with the implementation of the YCJA in April 2003, their composition with respect to characteristics appears to have changed. An examination of selected comparable years of data for 11 jurisdictions³⁸ reveals that Aboriginal youth as a proportion of admissions to sentenced custody has been increasing since 2001/2002. Aboriginal youth accounted for 22% of youth admitted to sentenced custody in 2001/2002 and 31% in 2005/2006. This, however, may be due to improved reporting of Aboriginal identity.

Youth 16 to 17 year olds account for a greater proportion of those in sentenced custody since the enactment of the YCJA

With the enactment of the YCJA the proportion of 16- to 17-year-olds in sentenced custody grew. In 2001/2002 16- to 17-year-olds accounted for 53% of young persons admitted to sentenced custody compared to 69% in 2005/2006 (Chart 6). This is consistent with research showing that as young offenders get older, they tend to commit more serious types of offences and are more likely to have had previous contact with the criminal justice system, factors which make them more apt to receive a sentence of custody (Thomas, 2008). Conversely, younger youth tend to commit less serious offences and have less contact with the criminal justice system which makes them candidates for some form of diversion, extrajudicial sanction or measure, or community supervision. Given the objective of the YCJA, to reserve the use of custody for the most serious offenders while diverting the minor offenders, it stands to reason that 16- to 17-year-olds are now accounting for a larger percentage of admissions to sentenced custody.

Chart 6
Youth aged 16 to 17 years old are making up an increasingly larger portion of sentenced custody admissions

Notes: Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Nunavut. Trend analysis in this report is limited to the selected periods of 1999/2000, 2001/2002, 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006. These years were chosen because they have the most complete data and provide information on youth corrections prior to and since the implementation of the YCJA on April 1, 2003.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Youth Custody and Community Services Survey.

Little change in the proportion of female youth admitted to sentenced custody

Compared to under the YOA, females as a proportion of admissions to sentenced custody have remained relatively stable.³⁹

In 2001/2002 female youth accounted for 19% of admission to sentenced custody and 17% in 2005/2006, with little difference in the other trend analysis years.

Average counts of youth in custody and under community supervision⁴⁰

While admissions data provide an overview of the caseload flowing through the various correctional services programs, data on average counts provide a snapshot of the number of youth in custody on any given day and the number of youth in community supervision at the end of any given month. Average counts are important to managers in correctional services as they are used as key operational measures for the utilization of services.

Youth incarceration rate almost 60% lower than in 1996/1997

The incarceration rate is the average daily number of young persons in sentenced custody and remand per 10,000 youth aged 12 to17 in the population. This number describes the level of incarceration in relation to the number of young persons in the population and permits comparisons over time by taking into account changes in the size of the Canada’s youth population. The overall youth incarceration rate has been on the decline over the last decade. In 2005/2006, 7.5 of every 10,000 youth were incarcerated (Table 9), a 9% decrease from the previous year. The 2005/2006 rate was 40% lower than in 2002/2003 and 58% lower than in 1996/1997.⁴¹

Sentenced custody counts continued to decline

In 2005/2006, an average of 1,152 young persons were in sentenced custody on any given day in Canada, a decline of 12% from 2004/2005, and an overall decline of 26% since the first year of the implementation of the YCJA in 2003/2004. Among the young persons in sentenced custody in 2005/2006, there were, on average, 590 young persons in secure custody and 562 in open custody. These represent decreases of 16% and 7%, respectively, from 2004/2005 (Table 10).

In 2005/2006, jurisdictions varied substantially in the rate of young persons in sentenced custody, ranging from 2.4 per 10,000 youth in British Columbia to 39.6 per 10,000 youth in the Northwest Territories (Table 11). Since 2003/2004, all jurisdictions but Nunavut experienced declines in their rates of sentenced custody. In particular, from 2003/2004 to 2005/2006, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario and the Yukon experienced declines of more than 30% (Table 11).

Remand counts increased as a proportion of total custodial services

On any given day in 2005/2006, there were 859 youth in remand, 7% fewer than the previous year, yet 1% more than in the first year of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Table 12). Due to large declines in sentenced custody, youth in remand account for a greater proportion of youth in custody. For instance, in 2005/2006, they accounted for 42% compared to 35% in 2003/2004. In 2005/2006, jurisdictions varied in the rate of young persons held on remand, ranging from 0.8 per 10,000 youth population in Prince Edward Island to 13.2 in Nunavut (Table 11).

Average number of youth on probation declines

The average month end count of young offenders on probation in 2005/2006 was 18,619, down 12% from the previous year and 33% from 2003/2004 (Table 13). While the probation rate has declined steadily from 2001/2002, rates continue to vary from one jurisdiction to another (Table 14).

Little change in average number of youth on new YCJA community supervision provisions

With a deferred custody and supervision order, the court may allow a young person who would otherwise be sentenced to custody, to defer the custodial portion of the sentence and to serve a sentence in the community under a number of strict conditions. In 2005/2006, there were, on average, 595 young persons on deferred custody which is relatively unchanged compared to 2004/2005 (Table 15). Similarly, the community portion of a custody and supervision order has also remained relatively stable at 404 in 2004/2005 and 408 in 2005/2006.

Summary

The implementation of the YCJA on April 1, 2003 has brought many changes to the landscape of youth correctional services. In general, the youth correctional system has witnessed substantial decreases in admissions to correctional programs, in average daily counts of youth in custody and in average monthly counts of youth under community supervision. The largest changes were observed in the two years following the implementation of the YCJA, with decreases slowing in 2005/2006. That year, the number of youth admitted to correctional services declined 2% from the previous year to 33,894 admissions. With the exception of remand and the deferred custody and supervision order sentence, decreases were evident in all other youth correctional service programs, both custody and community. Further, trend analysis of selected years has revealed that the composition of admissions to sentenced custody has changed in line with the principles of the YCJA and its objective of reserving its most serious intervention for the most serious crimes. For instance, 16- to 17-year-olds as a proportion of admissions to sentenced custody grew with the implementation of the YCJA. Property offences no longer account for the greatest proportion of admissions as they did under the YOA. And, shorter stays in sentenced custody are accounting for a smaller proportion of releases. With respect to Aboriginal youth, however, representation in sentenced custody continues to be high.

Data sources and measures

The information presented in this Juristat comes from data collected on youth correctional services in Canada through three surveys: the Youth Custody and Community Services (YCCS) survey, the Integrated Correctional Services Survey (ICSS) which is currently being implemented and is intended to eventually replace the YCCS, and the Key Indicator Report (KIR) for youth. All three surveys are conducted by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (CCJS). The data are provided by the various provincial and territorial ministries and agencies that administer correctional services across the country. The surveys are conducted annually, on a fiscal-year basis. As a result of consistent counting practices within jurisdictions over time, statements may be made about the trends within each jurisdiction.

Given that most of the data are reported in aggregate form, there are limits to the types of analyses or cross-tabulations that can be performed. For example, data such as median age of offenders and median sentence length for each province cannot be combined to calculate a national median for all offenders.

The Youth Custody and Community Services (YCCS) Survey

The YCCS survey collects the aggregate number of annual admissions to, and releases from, correctional facilities and community supervision programs. Admissions data are collected when an individual enters an institution or community supervision program, and describe and measure the case flow in correctional agencies over time. While aggregate admissions include all persons passing through the correctional system, they do not indicate the number of unique individuals in the correctional system. The same person can be included several times in the admission counts where the individual moves from one type of correctional service to another (e.g., from remand to sentenced custody) or re-enters the system in the same year.

The following example provides an illustration of how admissions for one young offender are tabulated by the YCCS survey. Where a youth has been denied judicial interim release and is held in remand until he or she is sentenced to serve a term of secure custody, followed by a term of open custody and probation, the YCCS counts:
e.g. remand + secure + open + probation (all served consecutively)

Admissions:

1 admission to remand

1 admission to secure custody

1 admission to open custody

1 admission to probation

Youth transferred from one facility to another while still under the same level of supervision are not counted as new admissions. New admission counts also exclude young offenders placed in secure custody as transfers from open custody facilities. These "administrative" transfers are for a short period of time, not to exceed 15 days, and are authorized by a senior correctional official. In addition, youth returning from a period of temporary absence are not included as new admissions.

Although the YCCS survey attempts to standardize the way in which status changes are counted, limitations due to differences among jurisdictional operational systems may restrict uniform application of the survey definitions in some situations. For this reason, interjurisdictional comparisons of the number of admissions should be made with caution. Nevertheless, as a result of consistent counting practices within jurisdictions over time, statements can be made about the trends within each jurisdiction.

The Integrated Correctional Services Survey (ICSS)

The ICSS collects person-level descriptive data and characteristics information on young persons and was developed to eventually replace the YCCS. Data from 2005/2006 include the following jurisdictions: Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Ontario and Alberta. The jurisdictions not yet reporting to the ICSS continue to participate in the YCCS.

The Key Indicator Report (KIR) for youth

The KIR collects data on both the average daily counts for youth in custody (i.e., remand, secure and open) and average monthly counts of youth supervised in the community (i.e., probation, community portion of custody sentence and deferred custody and supervision order). Average counts include all young persons on remand and temporary detention, sentenced offenders and other young offenders who are legally required to be at a youth correctional facility and who are present at the time the count is taken by correctional facility officials. Average counts for young persons on community supervision are taken at the end of the month.

Average counts provide a snapshot of the daily correctional population and are used to calculate an annual average count. Managers in correctional services use average counts as a key operational measure for the utilization of services, such as bed space in institutions. Typically, correctional officials perform daily counts in their facilities and monthly counts of offenders under community supervision. Average count statistics, collected through the KIR, are more representative of longer term inmates and offenders serving longer term community supervision orders. They are also the count used to calculate incarceration rates.

Glossary of terms

Aboriginal identity: Indicates whether the youth is an Aboriginal person. Aboriginal identity includes North American, Métis and Inuit registered under the Indian Act and those who are non-registered. Please note that this variable is self-reported and data availability varies among jurisdictions.

Admission: Refers to the youth’s commencement of an uninterrupted period of supervision by the Provincial/Territorial Director within a specific status (i.e., remand, secure and open custody, probation, the community portion of a custody and supervision order, intensive support and supervision, and deferred custody and supervision order). For the YCCS survey, a new admission is counted each time an offender changes status.

Age: Refers to the age of the offender at the time of admission into a youth facility or community program.

Community portion of a custody and community supervision order: Under the YCJA most custody sentences have a community supervision component attached. The community supervision portion can be up to half as long as the custodial period, and the periods combined must not exceed the maximum sentence length specified in the YCJA.

Custody: A status that requires the young offender to spend time in a designated correctional facility, either in secure custody, open custody or remand as ordered by the youth court.

Deferred custody and supervision order: A deferred custody and supervision order allows a young person, who would otherwise be sentenced to custody, to serve his/her sentence in the community. A deferred custody and supervision order is similar to a conditional sentence of imprisonment for adults.

Intensive support and supervision program (ISSP): Similar to probation, the intensive support and supervision order is served in the community under conditions, but an ISSP provides closer monitoring and support than probation.

Month-end probation count: An indication of the current monthly caseload of young offenders on supervised probation.

Most serious offence (Youth Custody and Community Services Survey): The YCCS survey categorizes the "most serious offence" (MSO) according to the offence classification scheme currently being used by the Youth Court Survey. The MSO categories include the following:

1. Violent offences: Include Criminal Code offences such as murder, attempted murder, sexual assault, aggravated assault, common assault, robbery, kidnapping, and extortion. violent offences involve the use or threatened use of violence against a person. Robbery is considered a violent offence because unlike other theft offences, it involves the use or threat of violence.
2. Property offences: Include Criminal Code offences such as break and enter, theft, arson, motor vehicle theft, fraud, possession of stolen property, and mischief. Property offences involve unlawful acts to gain property, but do not involve the use or threat of violence against the person.
3. Other Criminal Code offences: Include Criminal Code offences such as prostitution, impaired operation of a motor vehicle, escaped custody, failure to appear, disorderly conduct, soliciting, and other offences against the administration of justice.
4. Drug related offences: Include offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act such as importing/exporting narcotics, trafficking in narcotics, possession of narcotics, cultivation, trafficking in drugs, and possession of drugs. In this Juristat, this category is rolled into other offences.
5. YOA/YCJA offences: Include offences such as failure to comply with a court ordered disposition, and contempt against youth court. In this Juristat, this category is rolled into other offences.
6. Provincial/territorial, municipal and other federal offences: Include offences such as provincial liquor offences, provincial/territorial traffic violations, violations of municipal by-laws, and violations of other federal statutes such as offences under the Income Tax Act and Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In this Juristat, this category is rolled into other offences.

Open custody: In accordance with section 85(1) and 88 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), all provinces/territories have maintained the definition of open custody provided under section 24.1 of the YOA as follows:

• a community residential centre, group home, child care institution, or forest wilderness camp, or
• any other like place or facility designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of a province or his delegate as a place of open custody for the purposes of this Act, and includes a place or facility within a class of such places or facilities so designated.

Probation: A common type of community-based sentence, where the offender is placed under the supervision of a probation officer or other designated person. This includes only supervised probation.

Release: Refers to the completion of an uninterrupted period of supervision by the Provincial/Territorial Director within a specific status (i.e., remand, secure and open custody and probation). For the YCCS survey, a new release is counted each time an offender changes type of correctional supervision.

Remand: To hold a young person temporarily in custody, pursuant to a Remand Warrant, while awaiting trial or sentencing, or prior to commencement of a custodial disposition.

Secure custody: In accordance with section 85(1) and 88 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), all provinces/territories have maintained the definition of secure custody provided under section 24.1 of the YOA as follows:

Secure custody means custody in a place or facility designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of a province for secure containment or restraint of young persons, and includes a place or facility within a class of such places or facilities so designated.

Sentenced custody: Refers to both secure and open custody

Sentence length: This refers to the aggregate sentence or total amount of days a young person is ordered to serve under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The specific number of days must be for an uninterrupted period of time during which the youth is under the authority of the Provincial/Territorial Director. For multiple custodial sentences (i.e., secure and open custody), if sentences are concurrent then the sentence length is the longest sentence; if the sentences are consecutive then the sentence length is the sum of all custodial sentences; and if sentences are both concurrent and consecutive then the aggregate sentence is the sum of both types as calculated above.

Time served: Refers to the aggregate time served or total number of days a young person spent in custody upon completion of an uninterrupted period of time during which time the youth was under the authority of the Provincial/Territorial Director.

Young person: A person who is twelve years of age or older, but less than eighteen years of age, at the time of committing an offence.

Detailed data tables

Table 1 Number of admissions to youth correctional services, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006

Table 2 Admissions of young persons to custody, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006

Table 3 Releases from remand, secure, and open custody, by time served, 2005/2006

Table 4 Distribution of young persons admitted to remand, sentenced custody and probation, by most serious offence, 2005/2006

Table 5 Admissions of young persons to probation, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006

Table 6 Releases from probation, by time served, 2005/2006

Table 7 Admissions of young persons to the community portion of custody and supervision orders and to deferred custody and supervision orders, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006

Table 8 Characteristics of young persons admitted to correctional services, 2005/2006

Table 9 Incarceration rates of young persons per 10,000 youth population, 1996/1997 to 2005/2006

Table 10 Average daily count of young offenders in sentenced custody, 2003/2004 to 2005/2006

Table 11 Average daily counts of young persons in remand and sentenced custody per 10,000 youth population, by jurisdiction, 2003/2004 to 2005/2006

Table 12 Average daily count of young persons in remand, 2003/2004 to 2005/2006

Table 13 Average month-end count of young offenders on probation, 2003/2004 to 2005/2006

Table 14 Probation rate per 10,000 youth population, 2001/2002 to 2005/2006

Table 15 Average month-end count of young persons on the community portion of a custody and supervision order or on a deferred custody and supervision order, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006

References

Bala, N. 2003. Youth Criminal Justice Law. Irwin Law. Toronto, ON.

Calverley, D. 2006. "Youth custody and community services in Canada, 2003/2004." Juristat. Vol. 26, no. 2. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-XIE, Ottawa.

Chartrand, L. 2005. "Aboriginal youth and the Criminal Justice System." In Campbell, K. (ed) Understanding Youth Justice in Canada, 2005. Pearson Pretence Hall. Toronto, ON.

Department of Justice Canada. 2001. The Youth Criminal Justice Act: Summary and Background. Ottawa.

Department of Justice Canada. 2005. YCJA Explained. Ottawa.

Johnson, S. 2003. "Custodial remand in Canada, 1986/1987 to 2000/2001." Juristat. Vol. 23, no. 7. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-XPE. Ottawa.

Thomas, J. 2008. "Youth court statistics, 2006/2007." Juristat. Vol. 28, no. 4. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-XIE. Ottawa.

Tustin, L. and R. Lutes. 2006. A Guide to the Youth Criminal Justice Act — 2006 Edition. Lexis Nexis Canada Inc. Markham, ON.

Endnotes

1. The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) makes provision for open and secure custody through section 85(1) which requires that there must be at least two levels of custody for young persons distinguished by the degree of restraint of the young persons in them. Further, all provinces/territories, through section 88, have opted to maintain the definitions of open and secure custody provided under section 24.1 of the Young Offenders Act (YOA). For definitions of open and secure custody refer to the glossary section of this Juristat.
2. Refer to the glossary section of this Juristat for definitions of probation, the community portion of a custody and supervision order, and the deferred custody and supervision order. The responsibility of youth who receive a conditional discharge by the courts also falls under youth corrections. However, these cases fall outside the scope of the Youth Custody and Community Services (YCCS) Survey.
3. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
4. For further statistics on youth court activity, see Thomas, 2008.
5. See endnote 4.
6. Admissions to remand are admissions to pre-trial detention only and do not include provincial director remand which is captured separately by the Youth Custody and Community Services (YCCS) Survey. However, some jurisdictions are unable to separate the number of admissions to provincial director remand from admissions to pre-trial detention.
7. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
8. See endnote 2 for the distinction between open and secure custody.
9. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories.
10. The only exception to this is where the youth has committed an offence for which they could be sentenced to custody according to s. 39(1)(d) (i.e., exceptional circumstances). In these cases, s.29(2) dictates that they cannot be remanded for the protection of safety of the public.
11. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
12. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Saskatchewan.
13. Property offences include offences such as break and enter, theft, arson, motor theft, fraud, possession of stolen property, and mischief.
14. Violent offences include offences such as murder, attempted murder, sexual assault, aggravated assault, common assault, robbery, kidnapping, and extortion.
15. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Saskatchewan. The remaining categories include other Criminal Code offences which include offences such as failure to appear and disorderly conduct (20% of sentenced custody admissions) as well as other offences which include drug-related offences, YOA/YCJA and other federal offences, and provincial/territorial/municipal offences (19% of sentenced custody admissions).
16. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Saskatchewan.
17. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
18. For data by jurisdiction see Table 5.
19. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
20. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Nunavut.
21. See Department of Justice Canada, YCJA Explained.
22. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, British Columbia and Nunavut.
23. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, Quebec and British Columbia.
24. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Saskatchewan.
25. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island and Quebec.
26. Ibid.
27. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island and Quebec.
28. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Saskatchewan.
29. System changes in two jurisdictions were key determinants in selecting these five specific reference periods for trend analysis. First, British Columbia changed its administrative data capture systems in 1998/1999. As such, the trend analysis for this Juristat begins in 1999/2000 to enable the inclusion of British Columbia. Second, the two Ministries responsible for youth corrections in Ontario amalgamated in 2003/2004 and, as a result, Ontario did not report data for 12- to 15-year-olds for 2002/2003.
30. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island and Nunavut.
31. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, Ontario Phase II (12- to 15-year-olds), Saskatchewan and Nunavut.
32. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nunavut.
33. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
34. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
35. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.
36. Specifically, from 2001/2002 to 2005/2006, the number of admissions for property offences decreased 72%, violent offences decreased 60%, other offences (includes drug-related offences and other federal/provincial offences) decreased 59% and other Criminal Code offences (which is primarily offences against the administration of justice) decreased by 39%.
37. Due to missing data, the analysis excludes Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
38. Excludes Prince Edward Island, and Quebec.
39. Excludes Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec and Nunavut.
40. Data on average counts for youth in 2005/2006 were originally released on November 21, 2007.
41. For more information on the incarceration rate, see Statistics Canada. The Daily. "Adult and youth correctional services: Key indicators" released Wednesday, November 21, 2007.