Socioeconomic characteristics of Indigenous adults reconvicted after release from provincial custody, 2016/2017

Introduction

In Canada, Indigenous leaders and advocacy groups have long called for societal change to address the pervasive discrimination and disparity of opportunity faced by Indigenous peoples. A starkly visible result of this racism and inequality is the persistent overrepresentation of First Nations people, Métis and Inuit (Indigenous) in all stages of Canada’s justice system. Indigenous people are disproportionately the victims of crime (Perreault, 2022), those coming into contact with police (Cotter, 2022; David & Mitchell, 2020), those appearing before the courts (Khorrami & Paquin-Marseille, 2025), and those serving custodial sentences in correctional institutions (Robinson et al., 2023). Additionally, recent research has shown that Indigenous people face the highest rates of reconviction after serving a correctional sentence for a previous crime (Pedneault et al., 2024; Statistics Canada, 2026a). Whereas statistics from justice system records make clear the magnitude of the problem, National Indigenous Organizations including the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Assembly of First Nations continue to call for recognition of the social justice underpinnings of criminal justice outcomes (Assembly of First Nations, 2025; Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, 2024).

The impacts of colonialism on Indigenous Peoples in Canada are evident in all areas of social and economic life, including the justice system. Colonialist systems of education, employment, healthcare and housing have inherent barriers to the full participation of Indigenous people, and systemic racism and discrimination exacerbate these obstacles (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). When people are systemically denied equitable access to these institutions, increased interactions with the justice system can result. The Canadian government’s Federal Framework to Reduce Recidivism, for example, identifies housing, education, employment, health, and positive social support networks as key pathways towards reducing reoffending (Public Safety Canada, 2022). Socioeconomic statistics provide information on people’s participation in these spheres, sometimes referred to as the social determinants of justice (Institute for Research on Public Policy, 2018), and offer a glimpse into the disparities within.

Building on these themes, this Juristat article explores socioeconomic characteristics and reconviction patterns after incarceration among Indigenous people leaving provincial custody. Specifically, the analysis considers reconviction patterns among a cohort of adults released from provincial custody in 2016/2017 in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia, alongside the socioeconomic situations they were in prior to their incarceration and after their release. The analysis examines how socioeconomic factors can be linked to specific patterns of reconviction; that is, how education, employment, income, family composition, emergency healthcare usage, and geographic location relate to the type and frequency of reconvictions after release. The analysis focuses on the experiences of Indigenous people within the justice system, with information on their non-Indigenous counterparts included where appropriate.

Section 1: Indigenous over-representation in the justice system

The persistent over-representation of Indigenous people at all stages of the Canadian criminal justice system has been well-documented, and its roots in racism and colonialist systems have been formally acknowledged by the Canadian government (Department of Justice Canada, 2023). Indigenous groups have worked to draw attention to the issue and enact change, and developments including the enacting of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act are largely the result of their work.^Note  Canada has seen numerous public inquiries, Supreme Court decisions, and legislative amendments in response (for a summary, see Department of Justice Canada, 2025). Despite these efforts, over-representation continues to be visible in all aspects of the justice system.

The focus of the present study is Indigenous adults released from provincial custody, and their subsequent patterns of reconviction. For these people, entry into the justice system as a person accused of crime may have taken place months or years earlier, through initial contact with police. Although quantitative data on Indigenous over-representation at the policing stage of the Canadian justice system is relatively limited, qualitative studies have made clear that Indigenous people come into contact with police at disproportionately high rates, and that Indigenous communities are often over-policed (Clark, 2019; Cotter, 2022; David & Mitchell, 2020). At the same time that racism and colonialist practices set the stage for increased police interactions, socioeconomic marginalization creates risk factors for engagement in criminal activity (Clark, 2019). This context is relevant for understanding reconvictions, since reconviction is predicated upon the commission of a crime and its detection by police.

Differences in outcomes are also evident when Indigenous people enter subsequent stages of the justice system. A recent Canadian study showed that Indigenous people were highly over-represented in adult criminal court between 2016/2017 and 2020/2021 (Khorrami & Paquin-Marseille, 2025). Although over-representation persists, the authors suggest some trends in court data show improvements for Indigenous people accused of crime. For instance, the proportion of Indigenous and White people accused who are found guilty has equalized in recent years, and the large proportion of Indigenous people accused who encounter a stay of proceedings may suggest progressive policies of diversion are in place. Others have argued, however, that disproportionate numbers of stays, withdrawals and dismissals could be indicative of initial over-policing and over-charging directed towards some groups (Wortley & Jung, 2020). Additionally, court data show that disparity persists when it came to sentencing: in 2020/2021, the relative rate^Note  of receiving a custodial sentence after a guilty verdict was 46% higher for Indigenous individuals, compared to their White counterparts—even among those with no prior convictions (Khorrami & Paquin-Marseille, 2025).

The disparity in sentences given to Indigenous persons convicted of crime compared to other groups is reflected in data from Canadian correctional services. In 2023/2024, Indigenous adults in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia were incarcerated at a rate that was 10 times higher than non-Indigenous adults,^Note  with approximately 89 Indigenous adults per 10,000 population in custody on an average day in those provinces (Statistics Canada, 2026c). Additionally, 3% of all Indigenous adults in those provinces had served custody in a provincial facility between April 1, 2023 and March 31, 2024.^Note  Incarceration rates were especially high for Indigenous men aged 35 to 44 years, among whom 7% had served custody in those provinces during the two-year period.

Further, other research has shown that people sentenced to custody are more likely than those sentenced to community supervision to be reconvicted after their sentence (Pedneault et al., 2024). Additionally, reconviction rates are especially high for Indigenous persons released from custody, with 79% of those released from provincial custody in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia in 2016/2017 being reconvicted within four years (compared with 65% of non-Indigenous people) (Statistics Canada, 2026b).

In these ways, systemic inequality shaped the justice system trajectories of the Indigenous individuals in the present study, beginning with initial interactions with police, to differential outcomes in the courts, to over-representation in the corrections system, to reconvictions following release. However, Indigenous persons released from custody are not a homogenous group. In addition to the unique cultures and histories of First Nations people, Métis and Inuit, individuals have their own socioeconomic realities both before incarceration and during the time leading up to potential reconviction after release. Do these factors, including education, employment, income, family status, geography and utilization of health services, relate to whether and how they come to be reconvicted of crime after their release? Using data from tax records, hospital admissions and others, the present study seeks to answer this question.

Section 2: Study cohort

In the present study, a cohort of individuals was identified and “followed” for four years after their release from provincial custody, to determine if they were reconvicted of a crime during that time. To create the study cohort which forms the basis of the study, individuals were selected from the Canadian Correctional Services Survey (CCSS) data file if they met the following criteria:

• they had been sentenced to full-time custody in a provincial correctional facility;
• the length of their sentenced custody was greater than one day;
• the most serious offence for which they were sentenced was a Criminal Code or other federal statute offence;
• they were adults at the time of their release;
• their correctional supervision was carried out in the provinces of Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia; and
• they were released from custody during the 2016/2017 fiscal year (i.e., between April 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017).

Once the cohort was selected based on these criteria, court data for the four years following each individual’s release were examined to see if they contained one or more records of convictions.^Note  Data from the ten years which preceded release were also examined.

In total, 21,634 individuals were selected based on these criteria (excluding people who died during the four-year follow-up period). Within this cohort, 7,499 individuals (35%) were Indigenous people, among whom 73% identified as First Nations, 17% as Métis, and 1% as Inuit (Table 1).^{Note  Note}  These proportions reflect the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the corrections system, as Indigenous people made up 4% of the population of Canada in 2016 (Statistics Canada, 2017a).

Geographically, the largest proportion of the study cohort was located in Alberta (32%), followed by Ontario (25%), Saskatchewan (22%), British Columbia (20%), and Nova Scotia (1%). Alberta and Saskatchewan were somewhat overrepresented in terms of the proportions of Indigenous adults released from custody who resided there, compared to their Indigenous populations overall. Alberta was home to 23% of the total Indigenous population of these five provinces (Statistics Canada, 2023) and to 32% of Indigenous adults in the study cohort; similarly, Saskatchewan was home to 15% of the total Indigenous population of the five provinces, along with a larger proportion (22%) of Indigenous adults in the study cohort.

Among Indigenous individuals in the study cohort, 83% were men and 17% were women. The highest proportion of women was noted among Inuit (25%). In terms of age, the largest proportion (42%) of Indigenous adults were aged between 25 and 34 years, while the smallest proportion (12%) were aged 45 years and older (Table 1). The age profile of Inuit in the cohort differed slightly from First Nations people and Métis, in that a larger proportion were aged between 25 and 34 years (53%).

Most Indigenous adults (63%) had served less than three months in custody.^Note  About one in six (18%) had served between three and six months, and 13% had served between 6 months and one year. The smallest proportion (6%) had served the longest sentenced terms possible for those within the study cohort, sentences of one year to two years less a day (Table 1). At least one-third (33%) of Indigenous adults released from custody had a post-release community supervision order, such as a probation order (data not shown).^Note 

When it came to the most serious crime associated with the period of custodial supervision that preceded the release (the “index offence”), 28% of Indigenous adults were serving a sentence for a property crime, 25% for a violent crime, 25% for an administration of justice offence and 21% for a Criminal Code traffic violation, another Criminal Code violation, or a violation of a different federal statute.

Eight in ten Indigenous adults released from custody were reconvicted within four years

In the four years following their release from custody, 8 in 10 (81%) Indigenous persons in the study cohort had at least one reconviction for a crime—that is, they were found guilty of at least one criminal charge following their incarceration (Table 2).^Note  The majority (69%) had a reconviction for an administration of justice offence within those four years. This type of offence represents a violation of a judicial order, such as disobeying an order to follow certain conditions after release. Reconvictions for administration of justice offences could have included breaches of these kinds of orders, as well as orders that were not necessarily related to post-release monitoring (such as no-contact orders). Among those released, failure to comply with conditions (51%) and breach of probation (44%) were the most common types of administration of justice reconvictions. Notably, nearly half (49%) of Indigenous persons released from custody were convicted of an administration of justice offence within the first twelve months of their release.

Administration of justice offences play a key role in reconvictions, for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people released from custody (see Text box 1). However, the ability of people released from custody to abide by conditions imposed by courts is not uniform, and systemic barriers result in Indigenous people receiving conditions which are unrealistic and excessive (Department of Justice Canada, 2021). For example, residing in a rural or remote community can make attending probation hearings difficult or impossible. If an individual does not meet their conditions and faces administration of justice charges in court, they are most often convicted, and those who are found guilty are most often sentenced to custody (Burczycka & Munch, 2015). In this way, administration of justice offences are a “revolving door” for people involved in the criminal justice system and have been identified as an area of systemic discrimination in the Canadian justice system (Department of Justice Canada, 2021).

In addition to administration of justice offences, the first four years following release saw over half (52%) of Indigenous people reconvicted of a property crime. A smaller proportion (45%) were reconvicted of a violent offence, and 43% were reconvicted of Criminal Code traffic offences, other Criminal Code offences or other federal statute offences.

Start of text box 1

End of text box 1

Section 3: Reconviction patterns among Indigenous adults released from custody

Individuals who commit crimes are not a homogenous group. Beyond the complex individual and societal factors involved in criminality, people involved in the justice system are different in terms of the types of crimes they commit and the frequency with which they reoffend over time. Specialized statistical analyses can be used to detect subtle patterns in offending within a group of individuals, and create categories based on these patterns (for a summary, see Jennings & Reingle, 2012). Looking at these patterns can help reveal underlying risk factors for reoffending and reconvictions.

In this study, latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify distinct reconviction patterns within the cohort. LCA is a statistical method that groups individuals into "classes" based on shared observed characteristics—in this case, the frequency of reconvictions for violent, property, administration of justice, and other offence types (i.e., Criminal Code traffic offences, other Criminal Code offences and other federal statute violations). More information on this methodology is available in the Data sources and methodology section.

Four groups were identified among Indigenous members of the study cohort, based on their patterns of reconvictions (Chart 1):

• a low reconvictions group, comprised of individuals with few or no reconvictions;
• a primarily violent and administration of justice offence group, whose reconvictions tended towards those crime types with relatively low to medium frequencies of reconvictions;
• a primarily property and administration of justice offence group, whose reconvictions tended towards those crime types with relatively medium to high frequencies of reconvictions; and
• a high persistent reconviction group, characterized by individuals with many reconvictions across all types of crime.

Chart 1 start

Chart 1 end

Three in ten Indigenous adults released from custody have low reconvictions

The largest proportion (30%, or 2,273 individuals) of Indigenous members of the study cohort were classified as low reconviction, meaning that as a group, they had few if any reconvictions during the study period (Chart 1). Most Indigenous adults in this group (66%) had no reconvictions during the four years following their release, and 25% had a single reconviction (Table 2).

The gap in time between release from custody and reconviction was longest for the low reconviction group. Of the people in this group who were reconvicted, the majority (56%) did not record their first reconviction until their first year of release or later. In contrast, the majority of individuals in other groups were reconvicted within six months (Table 3).

Aside from those who had no reconvictions during the four-year follow-up period, the most common outcome for people in the low reconviction group was a single reconviction for an administration of justice offence (12%) (Table 2). Smaller proportions of people in the low reconviction group had single reconvictions for violent crime (6%), property crime (4%), and other Criminal Code offences (including traffic) and other federal statute offences (9%).

Multiple reconvictions were very rare among the low reconviction group. Relatively few individuals in this group (8%) had more than one reconviction during the study period, and none had more than four (Table 2). The low reconviction group was the only one among the four who had any members with less than two reconvictions during the study period.

Members of the low reconviction group had substantially more convictions in the four years prior to incarceration than in the four years following release. This could be related to age: individuals in this group were generally older (see Section 4), and their involvement in criminality may have peaked in the years prior to incarceration. More than eight in ten (84%) had two or more previous convictions, with 57% recording five or more (Table 4). Although reconvictions for administration of justice offences were most common, nearly one-third (29%) of Indigenous adults in the low reconviction group had been convicted of two or more violent offences in the four years prior to incarceration. Notably, violent crime was a common index offence for this group (28%; Chart 2).

This trajectory—a significant criminal history with a notable presence of violent crime, followed by an almost complete drop-off in convictions after release—distinctly sets the low reconviction group apart from the other groups in the study.

Chart 2 start

Chart 2 end

One in six Indigenous adults released from custody have a primarily violent reconviction pattern

Representing 18% of the cohort (1,383 individuals), the primarily violent reconvictions group was the smallest of the four reconviction pattern groups. This group included individuals whose reconvictions were primarily for violent crime but occurred at lower frequencies than most other groups (Table 2). Whereas almost all (93%) members of this group had at least one reconviction for a violent crime, the number of these reconvictions was relatively low, with most having either one (42%) or two to four (45%) violent reconvictions during the study period.  A minority (6%) recorded five or more reconvictions for violent crime.

A large proportion (83%) of the primarily violent group had reconvictions for administration of justice crimes, though this proportion was smaller than in other groups (except the low reconvictions group). Notably, most members of the primarily violent group had no reconvictions for property offences (68%). Overall, individuals in this group had a median of 5 reconvictions during the four years following release.

Nearly four in ten (37%) Indigenous adults in the primarily violent reconviction group had their first reconviction within 3 months of their release, a lower rate than what was seen with the higher-volume reconviction groups (Table 3).

In the four years prior to their incarceration, nearly all (97%) Indigenous adults in the primarily violent group had two or more criminal convictions, with 80% recording five or more (Table 4). Eight in ten (80%) had a previous conviction for a violent crime, a lower proportion than had violent convictions after release (93%, Table 2). However, the frequency of violent convictions decreased substantially after incarceration: prior to custody, 14% of individuals in the primarily violent group had five or more violent convictions, compared to 6% after release.

Notably, 35% of the primarily violent reconvictions group had a violent crime as their index offence (Chart 2). Although this was the most common index offence type for this group, it also highlights that the majority of Indigenous adults were incarcerated for non-violent offences. This discrepancy underscores the importance of broader criminal histories and administrative violations in the justice process, suggesting that for many individuals, sentencing outcomes could be driven more by the weight of a criminal record than by the nature of the index offence. For Indigenous adults, this may reflect a pattern of cumulative disadvantage (see Franklin & Henry, 2020; Kutateladze et al., 2014), where systemic barriers and institutional biases throughout the criminal justice system compound over time and lead to increasingly severe legal outcomes regardless of the nature of the immediate offence.

Primarily property reconviction pattern noted for almost one-quarter of Indigenous adults released from custody

Just under a quarter (22%, or 1,642 individuals) of the Indigenous members of the study cohort were classified into the primarily property reconviction group (Table 2). This group was characterized by a relatively high volume and frequency of reconvictions, which were primarily limited to property crimes and administration of justice offences. Nearly three-quarters of this group (74%) had at least one property-related reconviction, and 19% had five or more. Overall, this group had a median of 6 reconvictions over the four-year follow-up period.

Generally, individuals in the primarily property group were reconvicted soon after their release, with about four in ten (41%) recording their first reconviction within 3 months. By the two-year mark, 92% had been reconvicted (Table 3).

Reconvictions for administration of justice offences were nearly universal in this group, with 96% of members recording at least one such reconviction during the study period. Just over three-quarters (76%) of individuals had two to four reconvictions for administration of justice offences, but none had more than four (Table 2). 

Conviction patterns for the primarily property reconvictions group remained stable from pre- to post-incarceration, with 76% of individuals having recorded at least one property conviction prior to custody (Table 4).  Although the prevalence was similar, the frequency of convictions was somewhat smaller after incarceration, with the proportion who had five or more convictions for property crimes decreasing from 28% pre-incarceration to 19% after release. The largest proportion (38%) of primarily property reconviction group members had a property crime as their index offence (Chart 2).

Three in ten Indigenous adults released from custody show a high persistent reconviction pattern

Just under three in ten (29%, or 2,201 individuals) Indigenous members of the study cohort fell into the high persistent reconviction group, making it the second largest of the four groups. Individuals in this group typically had high numbers of reconvictions across all offence types. Compared to any other group, higher proportions of individuals had 5 or more reconvictions for violent crime, and the same was noted for property crime and administration of justice reconvictions (Table 2).

The high persistent group recorded the shortest time interval between release and reconviction: almost two-thirds (65%) had their first reconviction within 3 months of release from custody, and nearly all (94%) had a reconviction within the first year (Table 3).

All (100%) members of the high persistent reconvictions group had five or more reconvictions during the four-year study period (Table 2). Almost all (94%) had five or more reconvictions for administration of justice offences. More than 9 in 10 (94%) members of this group had a reconviction for a property offence, and 70% had a reconviction for a violent crime; for both of these crime types, the majority of the high persistent group had two or more reconvictions (81% and 51%, respectively). The high persistent group also recorded the highest median number of reconvictions (18) of all groups.

The high persistent group accounted for a disproportionate share of total reconvictions, with 68% of all reconvictions recorded during the study period while representing 29% of Indigenous adults in the study cohort. This was consistent across all offence types: they were responsible for 60% of all violent reconvictions, 72% of all property reconvictions, 70% of all administration of justice reconvictions, and 62% of all other Criminal Code, Criminal Code traffic and other federal statute reconvictions (Chart 3).

Chart 3 start

Chart 3 end

The pre-incarceration history of high persistent group members was also characterized by a high frequency of convictions across all offence types, with 92% recording five or more prior convictions (Table 4). Notably, a comparison of the four years before and after incarceration reveals an increase in the frequency of violent reconvictions for this group, with the proportion of individuals recording five or more such reconvictions rising from 13% pre-custody to 20% after release. Smaller proportions recorded one violent reconviction (18% after release, versus 22% before) or two to four (31% versus 35%). Although convictions for violent crimes figured prominently in their pre-incarceration history, property violations remained the most common index offence (38%) for the high persistent group, highlighting a consistent pattern of high-frequency contact driven by both violent and non-violent offences (Chart 2).

Reconviction patterns vary among First Nations people, Métis and Inuit

Whereas First Nations people comprised 73% of Indigenous people in the study cohort, they were slightly overrepresented in the low reconviction (75%) and primarily violent reconviction (78%) pattern groups and slightly underrepresented in the primarily property (69%) and high persistent groups (71%) (Table 6). In contrast, Métis showed the opposite pattern: while representing 17% of the Indigenous cohort, they were underrepresented in the low reconviction (15%) and primarily violent (13%) groups and overrepresented in the primarily property (21%) and high persistent (20%) groups. The largest proportion of Inuit were represented in the high persistent and low reconviction groups (1% for each), which is in line with their representation in the Indigenous cohort (1%).

Start of text box 2

End of text box 2

Section 4: Socioeconomic characteristics associated with reconviction patterns

Indigenous groups have long worked to draw attention to the disparities in socioeconomic opportunities facing their communities. Meanwhile, researchers have consistently identified the socioeconomic factors that can either increase or decrease a person’s risk of criminal involvement, including during the critical period following release from incarceration. Building on the post-release reconviction patterns for Indigenous adults that were identified in Section 3—the low reconviction, primarily violent, primarily property and high persistent groups—Section 4 will analyze the various socioeconomic characteristics of these groups, in order to identify any factors that may be associated with higher or lower frequencies of reconvictions and which may therefore serve as barriers against, or protective factors supporting, positive post-release outcomes.

To understand the role socioeconomic factors might have in the type and frequency of post-release convictions among Indigenous adults, data from various sources were linked to the main Canadian Correctional Services Survey (CCSS) and Integrated Criminal Court Survey (ICCS) linked file. These data sources include income tax records, information from the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS), the Canadian Vital Statistics Death database and postal code files. It is important to note that not all individuals in the CCSS/ICCS linked file matched to records in these supplementary data sources; therefore, coverage is not 100%. The resulting final linkages may contain inherent biases based on which individuals appear in these administrative systems. For more information, see Data sources and methodology.

Indigenous women, older people represented in low reconviction group

Age and gender have long been considered among the main correlates of criminality, and Canadian data show that men and younger adults are consistently overrepresented as those accused of and convicted of crime (Statistics Canada, 2026d). This pattern was clearly reflected across all groups of Indigenous adults in the study cohort.

Of the four groups, the high persistent reconviction group had the lowest mean age (29 years) at the time of release (Table 6), whereas the low reconviction group had the highest (36 years). The primarily property and primarily violent groups had the same mean age (33), situated between the other two groups.

The high persistent reconviction group had the largest proportion of individuals in the 18 to 24 (30%) and 25 to 34 (48%) age groups. In contrast, the low reconviction group had the highest proportion of members in the 35 to 44 (27%) and 45 and older (21%) groups, with the percentage who were 45 and older being particularly large compared to the other reconviction pattern groups (Chart 5). These findings align with other research, showing that older age is a crucial factor in the desistance from high-frequency re-offending.

Chart 5 start

Chart 5 end

Gender remains a strong correlate of justice system involvement, and this study also reflects the long-standing trend of men being overrepresented in custodial populations. Among the four groups, the low reconviction group had the highest proportion of women (20%) (Table 6). In contrast, women were least represented in the primarily violent group (13%), reinforcing research which shows men are more frequently accused of violent crime. The high persistent group and the primarily property group each had a relatively low proportion of women (15% and 17%, respectively).

High reconviction group less likely to have a high school diploma or higher

Canadian and international research has suggested that involvement in formal education can be a protective factor against involvement in crime (Public Safety Canada, 2022). At the same time, Indigenous people in Canada continue to face barriers to participation in formal education, including financial obstacles, geographic location, a lack of culturally relevant programs, and the persistent impacts of racism and discrimination. Despite these obstacles, some recent data indicate that educational attainment among Indigenous persons in Canada is increasing (Melvin, 2023).

Across all four reconviction pattern groups, the largest proportions of individuals had an education below the level of high school, ranging between 54% among the high persistent group to 47% among the low reconviction group (Table 6).^Note  The second-largest proportions had a high school diploma, with little variation between groups (ranging from 17% to 15%).

A relatively small proportion of Indigenous adults released from custody in 2016/2017 possessed education beyond high school, with rates ranging from 3% to 4%. This is in sharp contrast to the general population: in comparison, in 2016, 40% of all Indigenous adults aged 25 to 64 had attained some form of post-secondary education (Statistics Canada, 2017b).^Note  Lower educational attainment among justice-involved people is not unique to Indigenous adults: in 2015/2016, 46% of all adult custody admissions^Note  to provincial correctional facilities in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia had an education level lower than a high school diploma.

These findings suggest that while formal education levels among Indigenous adults released from custody are lower than those among Indigenous adults in general, they do not appear to vary greatly across specific types of reconviction patterns. One possible interpretation of these findings is that while lower educational attainment may be a risk factor for initial entry into the justice system, it can have less impact on individuals’ subsequent trajectories through it. 

Lower employment, income levels noted among high reconviction group

In both public policy and academic research, employment is often tagged as a protective factor from crime in general and from recidivism specifically (Public Safety Canada, 2022; Uggen & Wakefield, 2008). By providing a stable and legal source of income, it directly addresses the economic pressures that can drive certain types of offending—particularly property and subsistence-related crimes. Beyond these financial benefits, employment offers significant prosocial advantages, by giving individuals a structured routine and the opportunity to build a network of social interactions and peer support outside of the criminal sphere. These connections are vital for fostering a sense of belonging and professional identity, which are key components of desistance—the process by which individuals transition away from a life of crime.

Although employment is a proven protective factor against recidivism, discrimination against people with criminal records represents a serious barrier for formerly incarcerated persons (Babchishin et al., 2021; John Howard Society of Ontario, 2024). For Indigenous individuals released from custody, this discrimination is exacerbated by other structural barriers, including racism and prejudices in hiring practices (Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2022).

Among those Indigenous adults in the study cohort who filed a tax return in the three years prior to custody, the majority did not claim any income from employment.^{Note  Note}  Instead, most claimed government transfers as their main source of income, including social assistance, employment insurance, and transfers specific to Indigenous people, such as treaty annuity payments and payments from legal settlements with the government. Furthermore, most Indigenous adults released from custody qualified for Statistics Canada’s definition of low income in the three years preceding their sentence.^Note   

Although this was the case among all four reconviction pattern groups, the low reconviction group fared better on these indicators than the other groups, whereas the high persistent group fared worse. For instance, 44% of those in the low reconviction group claimed some income from employment during the tax year closest to the start of their custody, compared with 32% of those in the high reconviction group (Table 7). Similarly, while six in ten (62%) individuals in the low reconviction group reported that government transfers were their main income source, the proportion was 71% among the high persistent group.

Another key difference between reconviction groups was the gap in low-income rates. Whereas 71% of those in the low reconviction group were in low-income, this figure was substantially higher (80%) for the high persistent group. This difference suggests that individuals who face the highest frequency of system recontact are often those with the fewest financial resources, likely compounding the structural barriers they face upon release.

An association between property crime and income was also reflected. Individuals in both the high persistent and primarily property groups had higher frequencies of reconvictions for property crimes, and these groups had fewer people who reported employment income and more who relied on government transfers and were in low-income (Table 7). Conversely, the low reconvictions and primarily violent groups, whose members had lower frequencies of reconvictions for property crime, more often reported income from employment, had fewer members who relied on government transfers and lower low-income rates.

It is important to note that findings based on tax data should be interpreted with caution, as relevant differences often exist between tax-filers and non-filers within the justice-involved population. For example, a study of individuals in Saskatchewan with police contact in 2009/2010 showed that those who did not file taxes in 2008 came into contact with the justice system more frequently, and for more serious offences (Boyce et al., 2018). Therefore, the current analysis may actually understate the degree of economic hardship among individuals with the most frequent reconvictions.

In the years following release (i.e., during the time when reconvictions may have occurred), government transfers remained the most common primary source of income for the majority of Indigenous adults for whom tax data were available.^{Note  Note}  Although economic hardship appeared prevalent across all reconviction groups, people in the low reconviction group consistently fared better than others, especially when compared to the high persistent group (Table 8). Reliance on government transfers as the primary source of income was lower for the low reconviction group (69%, versus 89% of the high persistent group), the presence of any income from employment was much higher (40% versus 15%), and fewer members were in low-income (72% versus 87%). As in the pre-custody period, economic outcomes for those in the primarily violent reconviction group closely aligned with those recorded by the low reconviction group, while the primarily property reconviction group remained similar to the high persistent group.

When examining how economic situations changed from before to after incarceration, a comparison of individuals’ tax data across these periods shows consistent trends: decreases in employment, increases in reliance on government transfers and a greater movement into low-income.^Note  Notably, the magnitude of these changes varies between the reconviction pattern groups. For instance, the contrast in retention of income from employment is particularly pronounced. For individuals in the high persistent group, 31% had reported income from employment in the three years preceding their incarceration; however, in the three years following their release, this proportion dropped to 16%—a total decrease of 15 percentage points (Chart 6). In contrast, the low reconviction group showed more resilience, with a decrease of two percentage points in individuals reporting employment income (from 43% prior to incarceration to 41% after).

Notably, the length of time spent in custody was not a major factor behind the differences in employment outcomes seen between groups. Length of custody showed little variation among the four reconviction pattern groups in the larger Indigenous cohort. For instance, 63% of those in the low reconvictions group had served less than three months in custody, along with 64% of those in the high persistent reconvictions group;  proportions who had served one year to two years less a day were also similar (6% of the low reconvictions group and 5% of the high persistent reconvictions group; Table 6).

Chart 6 start

Chart 6 end

The contrast in the pre- and post-custody economic situations between the high persistent and the low reconvictions group was evident across the other economic indicators as well. Reliance on government transfers as a primary income source grew substantially for both of these groups, but the high persistent group saw a slightly larger increase (from 73% to 88%) compared to the low reconviction group (from 63% to 69%). Additionally, the high persistent group experienced an increase in the proportion of members who were in low-income, rising from 79% pre-custody to 85% post-release. The low reconviction group, in contrast, saw no change in this indicator from the pre- to post-custody periods (71%, respectively).

The disparate consequences that incarceration appears to have for the economic well-being of the high persistent reconviction and low reconviction groups specifically hint at broader differences in social and structural resources available to individuals in these groups. Relatedly, employment can be affected by other factors, including age, family relationships, mental health, and geographical location. These factors likely influence both job-seeking behaviour and employment opportunities as well as individuals’ propensity towards reoffending and reconviction. Ultimately, whereas a clear connection exists between employment and reconviction patterns, the complexity of this relationship—and the uncertain directionality of this association— suggests that economic outcomes both impact and are impacted by an individual’s trajectory through the justice system.

Spouses, children at home more common for Indigenous people with low reconvictions

Research into crime and re-offending has suggested that the presence of family networks can impact recidivism among individuals re-entering communities after incarceration (Berg & Huebner, 2011; Laub et al., 1998). Embracing a positive familial role—parenting, supporting a spouse or aging relatives—can be a protective factor for incarcerated individuals, affecting how they see themselves and imagine their lives post-release. Strong relationships with others can also facilitate access to material and informational resources for successful re-integration, such as access to housing and employment.

Family ties are central to Indigenous communities and culture, and include relational and kinship traditions that shape individual and shared responsibilities as well as broader systems of knowledge and governance (Borrows, 2010; Simpson, 2011). However, the integrity of these familial networks has been profoundly impacted by Canada’s history of forced displacement of Indigenous peoples, manifested through the residential school system, the Sixties Scoop and the continuing displacement of Indigenous children away from their families and into foster care (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). The systemic and purposeful destruction of Indigenous families impacts the familial networks available to Indigenous individuals leaving custody and represents another way in which Indigenous persons are disadvantaged in their trajectories through the justice system.

While family networks are generally protective, they are not universally beneficial; for some, family can be a negative influence on well-being and abstinence from crime. There is also evidence that the impact of family and spousal relationships on individuals’ recidivism is gendered: for example, while the presence of a spouse has been strongly linked to desistance from crime among men, it can act as a gateway to criminality for some women, particularly when an intimate partner is also involved in the justice system (Cobbina et al., 2012).

Tax records help provide a window into the family structures of individuals in the study cohort—specifically, the presence of married or common-law partners, children or grandchildren within the household.^Note  It should be noted that this information is inherently limited, as it primarily captures nuclear family units and fails to account for the extended kinship networks that are paramount for many Indigenous people. Furthermore, the definitions of "family" used in tax reporting reflect a specific Western worldview that may not align with Indigenous concepts of kinship and relationality.

Among Indigenous people released from custody in 2016/2017, the low reconviction group had the highest proportion of members with married or common-law partners (25%) or children (29%) within their home prior to their incarceration.^Note  In contrast, the high persistent group had the lowest proportions of these family ties (17% with married or common-law partners and 22% with children) (Table 7).^Note  Proportions among the primarily violent and primarily property groups fell in-between these groups. Within the primarily violent reconviction group, 24% lived with a married or common-law partner before incarceration, and 26% had a child in the home. Within the primarily property reconviction group, 20% had a married or common-law partner in the home and 26% lived with children.

It is important to note that the presence of spouses and children in the home is closely related to individuals’ age and gender. In the wider population, these family markers are more prevalent among those older than 24,^Note  and the presence of children (specifically when it comes to lone parenthood) is higher among women (Statistics Canada, 2022a; Statistics Canada, 2022b). These demographic trends help to further contextualize the differences between the study cohorts: the low reconviction group was characterized by a higher proportion of older members and women, who are more likely to have established the family ties identified in the tax data. In contrast, the high persistent group consisted of higher proportions of younger individuals and men, demographics that typically report lower rates of household stability and legal marriage or common-law partnerships.

In the years following release, the presence of spouses and children in the home remained consistent with pre-custody patterns, further solidifying the link between household composition and reconviction patterns. The low reconviction group again had the highest proportions of individuals residing with a married or common-law partner (24%) or with children (24%; Table 8).^Note  Conversely, the high persistent reconviction group had the lowest proportions of members with a married or common-law partner (12%) or child (14%) at home. Again, proportions among the primarily violent and primarily property groups fell in-between these groups. Following their release, about one in five (20%) people in the primarily violent reconviction group had a married or common-law partner in the home, and 17% lived with a child. Smaller proportions of the primarily property reconviction group had a married or common-law partner (16%) or child (17%) in the home after their release.

Family situations for many Indigenous adults shifted significantly between the pre-custody and post-release periods, with the magnitude of these changes varying by reconviction pattern group. Based on the subset of individuals with tax data available for both periods, the most substantial decline was in the presence of children under 18 in the home (Chart 7). The primarily violent reconviction group experienced the largest change here, with a 27% decrease in members reporting children in the home post-release. Similar decreases were noted among the primarily property reconviction group (-26%) and the high persistent reconviction group (-24%). In contrast, the low reconviction group recorded the smallest post-incarceration decreases in both the presence of children (-10%) and married or common-law partners (-4%) in the home.

Chart 7 start

Chart 7 end

Overall, these data show that family ties—as approximated by the presence of a spouse or children in the home—were consistently more common for the low reconviction group, both before incarceration and after release. Additionally, the degree to which family status changed over the incarceration period was smallest for this group. The degree of change in an individual's family situation during and after custody can be influenced by many factors. Whereas personal choices and the strength of pre-existing bonds play a role, external factors are also significant. For instance, court-mandated changes—such as no contact orders in cases involving family violence—can impact a household's composition. These findings may suggest that the low reconviction group’s trajectory is defined not only by their initial social resources but also by a reduced risk of the legal and personal disruptions that can negatively impact family units.

Highest frequency of emergency department visits noted for Indigenous people with high reconvictions

Health is one of the most important social determinants of justice, linked to an individuals’ chances of entry into the justice system and their trajectory through it (Institute for Research on Public Policy, 2018). Research has consistently shown that incarcerated people experience disproportionately higher rates of chronic disease, mental illness and substance use disorders, and that in Canada, these rates are especially high among Indigenous persons in custody (Wilper et al., 2009; Kouyoumdjian et al., 2016; Fazel & Seewald, 2018; Gendron et al., 2025).  Additionally, the presence of psychiatric disorders specifically has been linked to a higher risk of re-offending among individuals sentenced to custody (Fazel & Yu, 2009).

Overall, the large majority of Indigenous adults released from custody in these provinces accessed emergency departments at least once during the five years prior to their custody sentence (72%) (Table 9).^Note  This was consistent among the four reconviction groups, with about seven in ten members of each group recording at least one visit. However, notable differences were seen with respect to the frequency of visits over the five-year period. The high persistent reconviction group demonstrated the highest utilization of emergency departments, with almost half (49%) of its members recording five or more visits, followed closely by the primarily property reconvictions group (48%). In contrast, the low reconviction group had the smallest proportion of members with five or more visits to an emergency department (41%). Among those in the primarily violent reconviction group, 45% reported five or more emergency department visits.

Mental health concerns were often present in the emergency department visits of Indigenous adults prior to their custody sentence. These were noted most often for the high persistent group (44%), and least often for the low reconvictions group (33%). Close to four in ten members of both the primarily violent (39%) and primarily property (38%) reconviction groups had an emergency department visit that included a mental health concern in the five years prior to the start of their custody sentence.

The frequency of mental health-related concerns prior to custody follows the same pattern, with 16% of the high persistent group recording five or more emergency department visits involving mental health concerns, compared to 8% of the low reconviction group. Visits where a drug overdose was among the concerns also followed this pattern, with 14% of the high persistent group and 9% of the low reconviction group recording at least one such visit. These findings appear to indicate that particularly for the high persistent cohort, justice system involvement can be intertwined with a cycle of substance misuse and chronic mental health concerns.

In the five years leading up to their incarceration, the majority of mental health-related emergency department visits among Indigenous adults involved substance use (Chart 8). The highest proportions of substance use-related concerns were noted among the low and primarily property reconvictions groups (79% respectively), followed by the primarily violent (76%) and high persistent (74%) groups.

Chart 8 start

Chart 8 end

Utilization of emergency departments among Indigenous adults remained high in the five years following their release, with almost eight in ten (78%) recording an emergency department visit (Table 10). The patterns observed in the post-release period closely matched what was seen among reconviction groups in the pre-incarceration period. The frequency of visits was again highest among the high persistent group, with 60% of its members recording five or more visits over the five years following their release. This group also recorded the highest frequency of emergency department visits which included mental health concerns (24% with five or more such visits), and a larger overall proportion with visits that included an overdose (31%).

In contrast, the low reconviction group recorded the lowest utilization of emergency departments during the post-incarceration period. Although 44% did record five or more visits to an emergency department, this proportion was considerably smaller than among the high persistent group (60%). Furthermore, the proportion with five or more visits that included mental health concerns specifically was less than half (10%) the rate recorded by the high persistent group (24%).

As noted, emergency department visits can occur during arrest or detention, and for this reason alone may be more frequent among individuals who have more contact with the justice system. Regardless, the high levels of emergency departments utilization among Indigenous adults both before and after incarceration make clear that this population encounters frequent and serious physical and mental health concerns, with the latter being especially frequent among individuals with a high persistent reconviction pattern.   

Homelessness rates highest among those with high reconvictions

In Canada, Indigenous persons are overrepresented among the homeless population, a situation rooted in the country’s history of forced displacement, colonialism and systemic discrimination (Rumboldt, 2022; Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, 2025). The concept of Indigenous homelessness was developed by Indigenous people across Canada and describes twelve specific ways in which Indigenous people experience homelessness—including, for example, displacement from home lands and escaping or evading dangerous situations (Thistle, 2017). In developing the twelve dimensions of Indigenous homelessness, Indigenous contributors identified the that the foundation of modern housing instability lies in historical and ongoing colonialist harms.

Although homelessness itself is not criminal, it can influence an individual’s interactions with the justice system. For unsheltered people, the lack of private space often leads to increased visibility in public areas, resulting in more frequent contact with police and increased potential for justice system involvement. Homelessness can be present alongside mental health concerns and substance misuse, and unsheltered individuals are themselves at increased risk of being the victims of crime (Perreault, 2022). Furthermore, the absence of secure housing often leads to "survival crimes"—such as shoplifting or break and enters—where individuals commit such offences as a means of securing basic necessities.

For the present study, information on homelessness was collected from people during their visits to a hospital emergency department and reflects the definition used by the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (i.e., the person seeking care reported no fixed address).^{Note  Note}  For this reason, the data underestimate the actual proportion of persons who experienced homelessness, as about three in ten individuals in the study cohort had not visited an emergency department in the five years prior to their release from custody.

Among Indigenous persons released from custody, about one in ten (11%) were homeless at the time of their visit during the five years prior to release, according to hospital records (Table 9). This indicator of well-being follows the same pattern seen in health, economic and family data: the prevalence was highest within the high persistent reconviction group, and lowest within the low reconviction group. Specifically, hospital records for one in seven (14%) members of the high persistent group show that they had been homeless at the time of their visit during the five years prior to release, which was double the rate among their low reconviction counterparts (7%). Again, proportions among the primarily violent (11%) and primarily property (12%) groups were similar and fell in-between.

In the five years after release, hospital records indicated one in ten (10%) Indigenous adults had experienced homelessness (Table 10). This was a similar proportion to what was seen prior to release. The distribution across groups remained consistent with what was noted in the pre-release period. Those in the low reconviction group again demonstrated the highest level of housing stability, with 5% experiencing homelessness post-release. In contrast, those in the high persistent group continued to face the greatest level of instability, with 14% experiencing homelessness. Rates among people in the primarily violent (9%) and primarily property (11%) groups remained in-between.

It is important to note that homelessness has been shown to correlate with economic disadvantage as well as with mental and physical illness (Richards & Kuhn, 2023), and all three of these realities—poverty, chronic health concerns, and housing instability—converge most acutely within the high persistent reconviction group. The data suggest that beyond being a pattern of criminal behaviour, the high persistent reconviction trajectory is a reflection of a population facing the highest concentration of unmet needs.

More Indigenous people with high reconvictions live in urban and southern communities

In Canada, the geographic area in which a person resides can influence what opportunities and supports are available to them, including those that are of particular importance for people leaving correctional custody. Canada is a vast country with both centralized urban cores and rural and remote locations, which differ in their residents’ proximity to services (Alasia et al., 2017). Access to services and supports—for instance, legal assistance, employment opportunities and healthcare—is often related to geography, and differences in access may impact whether individuals leaving custody avoid returning to justice system involvement. Geography is also relevant in terms of patterns of crime, and many recent analyses have looked at how the volume and type of crime differs between rural and urban areas of Canada, and between communities in the North and South of the country (Savage, 2025; Perreault, 2026).

Following their release from custody in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, under half (44%) of Indigenous adults lived in a census metropolitan area (CMA). Many reported addresses within CMAs in the Prairies and western provinces, including Edmonton (21%) Vancouver (16%), Saskatoon (10%), Calgary (8%), and Regina (7%) (Map 1). These patterns were similar to patterns among the Indigenous population as a whole: according to the 2021 Census, 44% of Indigenous people lived in a CMA, and Western and Prairie CMAs were home to relatively large proportions of Indigenous residents (Statistics Canada, 2022).

Map 1 start

Map 1 end

In addition to census metropolitan areas, many Indigenous adults lived in less densely populated urban areas following release from custody. Statistics Canada conceptualizes urban areas as “population centres”, a category which includes census metropolitan areas and other, less densely-populated areas (see Statistics Canada, 2016).^Note  Using this broader categorization, the majority (58%) of Indigenous adults resided in an urban area following their release from custody (Table 11). Those in the high-volume reconviction groups more often resided in urban areas, including two-thirds of both the high persistent group (66%) and primarily property group (66%). Meanwhile, smaller proportions of the lower-volume reconviction groups lived in urban areas and were split fairly evenly between rural and urban locations.

Whereas most population centres in Canada are situated in the Southern part of the country,^Note  many Indigenous people released from custody reported addresses in Northern areas. In particular, many resided in northern Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia after their release. Overall, one-third (33%) of individuals resided in a Northern area following their release (Table 11). Notably, larger proportions of people with fewer reconvictions reported addresses in the North: about four in ten members of both the low reconviction (38%) and primarily violent (40%) groups reported addresses in the North following their release, compared to smaller proportions of those in the high persistent (29%) and primarily property (25%) reconviction groups.

Following their release, about one-fifth (21%) of Indigenous adults reported living in an Indigenous community.^Note  Notably, larger proportions of individuals with lower volumes of reconvictions resided in Indigenous communities after their release from custody. This was the case for about one-quarter of the low reconvictions group (25%) and primarily violent group (27%), along with smaller proportions of high persistent (16%) and primarily property (14%) group members.

Urban areas—most of which are found in Canada’s South—are generally characterized by having a wide range of services and supports that are accessible to residents, including employment, transit and social and health services. In principle, living in an area where such services are accessible should benefit people leaving incarceration. Potentially, those individuals leaving custody who have higher needs (for example, related to income or health) or requirements to remain close to services of the justice system (for example, parole offices) may choose or be compelled to live in more urban areas; this could help explain the larger proportions of people with higher frequencies of reconvictions living in these areas. However, Indigenous observers have pointed out that Indigenous people face discrimination and other barriers when attempting to access services in urban and southern areas, and argue that Indigenous people leaving custody benefit most from the kinds of culturally relevant supports that Indigenous communities can offer (Department of Justice, 2023).

Summary

Among Indigenous adults released from provincial custody in 2016/2017, four distinct reconviction patterns were identified. The largest proportion of individuals fell into a low reconvictions group, meaning they had few, if any, reconvictions during the four years following their release. The second-largest group followed a high persistent pattern of reconvictions, with a high volume of reconvictions across all types of crime; individuals in this group were responsible for a large share of all the reconvictions recorded during the study period. Positioned between these two groups were the primarily property and primarily violent reconvictions groups, who gravitated towards the one particular kind of crime and at a volume that was lower than the high persistent pattern group.

Socioeconomic characteristics were found to align closely with these reconviction patterns. People with the highest and most wide-ranging reconviction patterns were found to be the most disadvantaged when it came to employment, income, family support within their household, mental and physical health and experiences of homelessness. Conversely, those with few or no reconvictions scored the best on these indicators. Questions remain as to the direction of these correlations: does a higher degree of disadvantage result from increased involvement in crime, or does an increased involvement in crime result from higher disadvantage? Most likely, causality flows in both directions and involves other factors not examined here. Foundationally, it must be noted that Indigenous people in Canada—and Indigenous people with criminal records specifically—face systemic barriers and discrimination when they seek to access employment, housing, healthcare and other social determinants of health and justice. These hurdles may impede the path to reintegration.

A look at where Indigenous people released from custody lived following their release resulted in additional questions. Many reported addresses in southern population centres—conventionally thought of as places where employment, healthcare, housing and other supports are easiest to access. However, as Indigenous persons and as persons with criminal records, many may have faced barriers when attempting to access these social goods.

In contrast, many of those with low reconvictions resided in rural and northern areas, and within Indigenous communities. This suggests that the proximity to community may provide a protective effect that mitigates further criminal involvement. It is important to note, however, that the current data cannot definitively confirm whether stronger community ties facilitate a successful return home, or if high-volume offenders face more barriers to returning to their communities.

As the present study provides an overview of important correlations between socioeconomic factors and reconvictions, it can be considered a starting point for future research. Namely, the different experiences of First Nations people, Métis and Inuit are important for future studies, along with research into how these experiences might be different for men and women. Further, forthcoming research into the justice trajectories of individuals who experienced victimization as children (Cotter & Heidinger 2026) could yield important findings into how early victimization interplays with socioeconomic factors and future involvement in crime.

Lastly, it is essential to recognize that many of the socioeconomic factors analyzed in this study overlap and reinforce each other in complex ways. For instance, geography (as proximity to services) is known to affect certain health indicators, and both have been shown here to correlate with different reconviction patterns. An analysis dedicated to this relationship would be needed to truly understand the nature of the correlation. As well, some socioeconomic characteristics have a bidirectional relationship with reconviction, and likely with reconviction patterns; again, an analysis that is more focused than what was possible in the current study would be required to gain a full understanding of this relationship.

Detailed data tables

Table 1 Selected characteristics of individuals released from provincial custody, by Indigenous and non-Indigenous identity, 2016/2017

Table 2 Reconviction patterns among Indigenous adults released from provincial custody during the first four years after release, by type and number of reconviction offences and reconviction pattern group, 2016/2017

Table 3 Time to reconviction after release among Indigenous adults released from provincial custody, by offence type and reconviction pattern group, 2016/2017

Table 4 Criminal convictions among Indigenous adults released from provincial custody during the four years preceding release, by type of reconviction pattern group, 2016/2017

Table 5 Reconviction patterns among non-Indigenous adults released from provincial custody during the first four years after release, by type and number of reconviction offence and reconviction pattern group, 2016/2017

Table 6 Select socioeconomic characteristics among Indigenous adults released from provincial custody at time of release, by type of reconviction pattern group, 2016/2017

Table 7 Pre-release socioeconomic characteristics among Indigenous adults released from provincial custody, by type of reconviction pattern group, 2016/2017

Table 8 Post-release socioeconomic characteristics among Indigenous adults released from provincial custody, by type of reconviction pattern group, 2016/2017

Table 9 Select health indicators during the five years prior to release among Indigenous adults released from provincial custody, by type of reconviction pattern group, 2016/2017

Table 10 Select health indicators during the five years after release among Indigenous adults released from provincial custody, by type of reconviction pattern group, 2016/2017

Table 11 Select geography indicators among Indigenous adults released from provincial custody during the two years following release, by type of reconviction pattern group, 2016/2017

Data Sources and Methodology

Canadian Correctional Services Survey

The Canadian Correctional Services Survey (CCSS) is an administrative survey conducted by the Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics (CCJCSS) that collects data from correctional services across Canada, including characteristics of people being supervised and their legal hold statuses. As of 2015/2016, CCSS data included correctional service program data from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario (adult data only), Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador (youth data only). This report only includes data from adult correctional supervision programs and as such, data from Newfoundland and Labrador were excluded from this study. CCSS data collection was expanded in subsequent years, and now includes data from Prince Edward Island, Correctional Service Canada, and youth corrections data from Ontario.

Integrated Criminal Court Survey

The Integrated Criminal Courts Survey (ICCS) is an administrative survey conducted by the CCJCSS. It collects data on appearances and charges in youth courts and adult criminal courts. As of April 1, 2005, criminal courts in all ten provinces and three territories reported to the survey. However, information is not available from superior courts in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island (until 2018/2019), nor from municipal courts in Quebec. Together, these represent a very small proportion of all criminal court cases in Canada. Data for Quebec are not available beginning in 2021/2022 and later.

Criminal Code and other federal statute offences

Information on individuals’ criminal history and reconvictions come from the Integrated Criminal Court Survey data file. Specific offences included in the present study include offences listed under the Criminal Code and under other federal statutes.

Criminal Code offences are categorized as follows: violent crime, including homicide, sexual assault, physical assault, robbery, trafficking in persons, criminal harassment, and others; property crime, including breaking and entering, possession of stolen property, theft, identity fraud, mischief and others; “other” Criminal Code offences, including administration of justice offences, weapons violations, disturbing the peace, and others; and Criminal Code traffic violations, including alcohol- and drug-impaired driving, and others.

In addition to the Criminal Code, other federal statutes detail different crimes of which individuals can be convicted. Federal statutes include the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Customs Act, and others.

T1 Family File (T1FF)

The T1FF provides information on individual and family income, employment, and family composition. These data are collected primarily from income tax returns submitted to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). Although rare, if a person had more than one tax record in a given year, the most complete record was retained.

The T1FF is only available for individuals who filed their taxes in any given tax year. The correctional population has been found to be less likely to file their taxes than the general population in previous studies (Babchishin et al., 2021; Boyce et al., 2018). To maximize the coverage in the current study, tax records could have been up to three years prior to the start of custody (pre-custody information) or up to three years after release (post-custody information). Specifically, for pre-custody information, the relevant tax record had to be from the year immediately preceding intake or from one of the two prior tax years—up to three years before custody. For post-custody information, the tax record had to be from the year following release or one of the two subsequent tax years.

National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS)

The National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS) provides information on emergency department visits. Although NACRS collects information on other types of care (e.g., community-based clinics), only information on emergency department and acute care visits is consistently collected from reporting institutions across Canada.

The NACRS collects information on emergency department registrations. Over the current study period, the submission of emergency department data was mandated in Ontario and Alberta, whereas it was not mandated or only partially mandated in the other provinces and territories. This means that complete data on emergency department visits are only available for Ontario and Alberta.

Canadian Vital Statistics – Death database

The Canadian Vital Statistics – Death (CVSD) database is an administrative survey that collects information from all provincial and territorial vital statistics registries on all deaths in Canada.

Linkage

The CCSS was linked to the ICCS, CVSD, T1FF, and NACRS through the Social Data Linkage Environment (SDLE), a highly secure environment that facilitates the creation of linked population data files for social analysis. Specifically, each file is linked to a secure repository of personal identifiers in the SDLE, after which each person is assigned a unique, anonymous key that allows their data to be integrated with other files within the SDLE.

The target population for this study was drawn from the CCSS records that linked to the secure repository of personal identifiers in the SDLE (98%). Specifically, the target population consists of adults supervised by five provincial correctional programs (Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia) who met the following criteria:

• They had been sentenced to full-time custody in a provincial correctional facility;
• The length of their sentenced custody was greater than one day;
• The most serious offence for which they were sentenced was a federal statute offence;
• They were adults at the time of their release;
• They were released from custody between April 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017;
• They linked to at least one prior conviction before their release from custody.^Note 

Latent Class Analysis

Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was used to identify distinct patterns of reconviction among individuals in the study cohort. LCA is a statistical method used to uncover unobserved subgroups within a population based on individuals' responses to observed variables, such as their reconviction history. This technique was selected due to its ability to account for heterogeneity in criminal behaviour patterns.

The study cohort consisted of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals, for whom data representing reconviction events over a four-year period was included. Key indicators used for LCA included the frequency of reconvictions for four different types of offences: violent offences, property offences, administration of justice offences, and other offences (i.e., Criminal Code traffic offences, other Criminal Code offences and other federal statute violations).

LCA was performed using R software. Initially, models with two, three, four and five classes were tested for the entire cohort. However, statistical tests revealed that Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals exhibited different patterns of reconviction, leading to separate LCA models being run for each subgroup. The optimal number of classes was determined based on statistical criteria, including the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). The final model revealed distinct reconviction patterns within both the Indigenous and non-Indigenous subgroups. The identified latent classes were interpreted and labelled based on the likelihood of reconviction and the types of offences committed.

Indigenous communities

For ease of readability, the term "Indigenous communities" is used in this article. It is important to note that this term does not necessarily represent all Indigenous communities in Canada.

The communities discussed here were identified using the 2021 Census subdivisions (CSDs) boundaries and were categorized into ‘on reserve’, ‘inside Inuit Nunangat’, and ‘other’ categories. The category ‘on reserve’ includes eight CSD types legally affiliated with First Nations or Indian bands, i.e., Indian reserve (IRI), Indian settlement (S‑É) (except for the two Indian settlements of Champagne Landing 10 and Kloo Lake, located in Yukon), Indian government district (IGD), Terres réservées aux Cris (TC), Terres réservées aux Naskapis (TK), Nisga'a land (NL), Tsawwassen Lands (TWL) and Tla'amin Lands (TAL).

The category ‘inside Inuit Nunangat’ includes CSDs located in the four Inuit regions: Nunatsiavut (Northern coastal Labrador), Nunavik (Northern Quebec), the territory of Nunavut and the Inuvialuit region of the Northwest Territories. These regions collectively encompass the area traditionally occupied by Inuit in Canada.

The category ‘other’ includes all CSDs in Canada not defined as 'on reserve’ or ‘inside Inuit Nunangat’. For more information on Indigenous variables, including information on their classifications, please refer to the Indigenous Peoples Reference Guide, Census of Population, 2021. Additionally, the 2021 CSD boundaries were flagged according to the percentage of the population that identified as Indigenous in the 2016 Census of Population. An Indigenous community flag is assigned to on-reserve CSDs if greater than 50% of the population identified as Indigenous or to off-reserve CSDs if greater than 70% of the population identified as Indigenous.

References

Alasia, A., Bédard, F., Bélanger, J., Guimond, E. & Penney, C. (2017). Measuring remoteness and accessibility: A set of indices for Canadian communities. Reports on Special Business Projects. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 18-001-X.

Assembly of First Nations. (2025). National First Nations Justice Strategy.

Babchishin, K., Keown, L.A. & Mularczyk, K. (2021). Economic outcomes of Canadian federal offenders. Public Safety Canada Publications Catalogue no. PS113-1/2021-2E-PDF.

Berg, M. & Huebner, B. (2011). Reentry and the ties that bind: An examination of social ties, employment and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 28 (2).

Borrows, J. (2010). Canada’s Indigenous Constitution. University of Toronto Press.

Boyce, J., Te, S. & Brennan, S. (2018). Economic profiles of offenders in Saskatchewan. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Burczycka, M. & Munch, C. (2015). Trends in offences against the administration of justice. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Canadian Human Rights Commission. (2022). Levelling the field: developing a special program under the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Employment Equity Act. Catalogue no. HR4-65/2021E-PDF.

Clark, S. (2019). Overrepresentation of Indigenous People in the Canadian Criminal Justice System: Causes and Responses. Justice Research and Data. Department of Justice Canada.

Cobbina, J. Huebner, B. & Berg, M. (2012). Men, women and postrelease offending: An examination of the nature of the link between relational ties and recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 58 (3).

Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. (2024). Justice Fact Sheet: Empowering Change Within the Criminal Justice System.

Cotter, A. (2022). Perceptions of and experiences with police and the justice system among the Black and Indigenous populations in Canada. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Cotter, A. & Heidinger, L. (2026). Recontact with police among child and youth victims of violent crime, 2010 to 2024. Juristat.  Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

David, J.D. & Mitchell, M. (2020). Contacts with the Police and the Over-Representation of Indigenous Peoples in The Canadian Criminal Justice System. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 63(2).

Department of Justice Canada. (2021). Evaluation of the Indigenous Justice Program.

Department of Justice Canada. (2023). Indigenous Justice Strategy: What we learned. Wave 1 Justice Canada-led engagement.

Department of Justice Canada. (2025). State of the criminal justice system dashboard: Governmental, legislative and judicial responses.

Fazel, S. & Seewald, K. (2018). Severe mental illness in 33,588 prisoners worldwide: Systematic review and meta-regression analysis. British Journal of Psychiatry, 200 (5).

Fazel, S. & Yu, R. (2009). Psychotic disorders and repeat offending: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 37 (4).

Franklin, T.W. & Henry, T.K.S. (2020). Racial Disparities in Federal Sentencing Outcomes: Clarifying the Role of Criminal History. Crime & Delinquency, 66(1).

Gendron, M.-P., Wanamaker, K., Filoso, D., Mahboob, W. & Johnson, S. (2025). Infectious diseases, risk behaviours, and harm-reduction in men’s institutions: Findings from the 2022 National Health Survey. Correctional Service Canada Catalogue no. PS83-3/484E-PDF.

Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. (2025). Homelessness data snapshot: The National Shelter Study 2024 Update. Catalogue No. T94-60/1-2025E-PDF.

Institute for Research on Public Policy. (2018). Rethinking Criminal Justice in Canada.

Jennings, W. & Rengle, J. (2012). On the number and shape of developmental/life-course violence, aggression, and delinquency trajectories: A state-of-the-art review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(6).

John Howard Society of Ontario. (2024). Not in my workplace: Addressing workplace exclusion of individuals with criminal records.

Khorrami, M. & Paquin-Marseille, L. (2025). Disparities in decision and sentencing outcomes between Indigenous accused and White accused in adult criminal court, 2016/2017 to 2020/2021. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Kouyoumdjian, F., Schuler, A., Matheson, F. & Hwang, S. (2016). Health status of prisoners in Canada. Canadian Family Physician, 62 (3).

Kutateladze, B.L., Andiloro, N.R., Johnson, B.D. & Spohn, C.C. (2014). Cumulative disadvantage: Examining racial and ethnic disparity in prosecution and sentencing. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 52, no. 3.

Laub, J., Nagin, D. & Sampson, R. (1998). Trajectories of change in criminal offending: Good marriages and the desistance process. American Sociological Review, 63 (2).

Melvin, A. (2023). Postsecondary educational attainment and labour market outcomes among Indigenous peoples in Canada, findings from the 2021 Census. Insights on Canadian Society. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 75-006-x.

Pedneault, C., Lee, S. & Jones, N. (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. (2022). Victimization of First Nations people, Métis and Inuit in Canada. Juristat.  Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Perreault, S. (2026). Police-reported crime in rural and urban areas in the Canadian provinces, 2024. Juristat.  Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Public Safety Canada. (2022). Federal Framework to Reduce Recidivism.

Richards, J. & Kuhn, R. (2023). Unsheltered Homelessness and Health: A Literature Review. AJPM Focus. Vol. 2, No. 1.

Robinson, P., Small, T., Chen, A. & Irving, M. (2023). Over-representation of Indigenous persons in adult provincial custody, 2019/2020 and 2020/2021. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Rumboldt, J. (2022). Endaamnaan: Homes for all nations. A First Nations homelessness literature review. ISBN: 9781550146844.

Savage, L. (2025). Patterns of re-offending among accused persons living in rural areas of the Canadian provinces, 2014 to 2023. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Simpson, L. B. (2011). Dancing on Our Turtle’s Back. Arbeiter Ring Publishing.

Statistics Canada. (2016). Population centre and rural area classification, 2016.

Statistics Canada. (2017a). Aboriginal peoples in Canada: Key results from the 2016 Census. The Daily. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-001-X.

Statistics Canada. (2017b). Education in Canada: Key results from the 2016 Census. The Daily. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-001-X.

Statistics Canada. (2022a). State of the union: Canada leads the G7 with nearly one-quarter of couples living common law, driven by Quebec. The Daily. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-001-X.

Statistics Canada. (2022b). Table 98-10-0123-01: Census family structure, presence of children and average number of persons per census family: Canada, provinces and territories, census metropolitan areas and census agglomerations. 

Statistics Canada. (2023). Table 98-10-0293-01: Indigenous identity population by gender and age: Canada, provinces and territories, census divisions and census subdivisions.

Statistics Canada. (2026a). Trends in reconvictions among adults sentenced to provincial custody or community supervision, 2015/2016 to 2020/2021. The Daily. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-001-X.

Statistics Canada. (2026b). Table 35-10-0231-01: Reconviction rates among adults sentenced to provincial custody or community supervision by Indigenous identity.

Statistics Canada. (2026c). Overrepresentation of Indigenous and Black adults in provincial and federal custody. The Daily. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-001-X.

Statistics Canada. (2026d). Table 35-10-0228-01: Average counts of adults in federal and provincial custody by racial identity.

Thistle, J. (2017). Indigenous definitions of homelessness in Canada. Canadian Observatory on Homelessness Press.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action.

Uggen, C. & Wakefield, S. (2008). What have we learned from longitudinal studies of work and crime? The long view of crime: A synthesis of longitudinal research, pp.191-219.

Wilper, A., Woolhandler, S., Boyd, J.W., Lasser, K., McCormick, D., Bohr, D. & Himmelstein, D. (2009). The health and health care of US prisoners: Results of a nationwide survey. American Journal of Public Health, 99 (4).

Wortley, S. & Jung, M. (2020). Racial disparity in arrests and charges. ISBN: 978-1-4868-4616-0.