Crime Prevention in Indigenous Communities: An Examination of Culturally-Relevant Programs and Culturally-Competent Evaluation Approaches

By Shelley Trevethan and Eva Maxwell

Background

Current research suggests that the overrepresentation of Indigenous youth and adults in the criminal justice system highlights the need for different approaches to crime prevention.

Specifically, crime prevention approaches should incorporate Indigenous worldviews, be culturally sensitive, and promote cultural safety.

To better understand the need for culturally-relevant programs and culturally-competent evaluation approaches for Indigenous Peoples, these research products:

• Identify risk/protective factors for crime among Indigenous persons;
• Analyze the connection between cultural practices, traditions, and activities and crime prevention objectives;
• Examine how Indigenous cultural practices, traditions, and activities have been included in crime prevention programming;
• Consider how culturally-relevant crime prevention programs are being evaluated; and
• Review the effectiveness of Indigenous cultural practices, traditions, and activities based on existing evaluation results.

Author's note

This report reviewed and synthesized literature in response to two guiding research questions: how have Indigenous cultural practices, traditions, and activities been included in crime prevention programming and what is their connection with crime prevention; and, how have culturally-relevant crime prevention programs been evaluated and what is their contribution to crime prevention outcomes? This literature review includes a review of risk/protective factors for crime among Indigenous persons; a summary of the literature on crime prevention programs for Indigenous Peoples; analysis of the connection between cultural practices, traditions, and activities and crime prevention objectives; a review of program evaluations; a summary and analysis of evaluation approaches and methodologies; a review of the effectiveness of Indigenous cultural practices, traditions, and activities based on existing evaluation results; and, conclusions and recommendations. Articles reviewed for this review were published in English, dated from 1983 to 2021, and represented 22 countries. Countries of publication included Canada, Australia, the United States, New Zealand, the Philippines, and South Africa. Overall, the literature in this field (total of 291 articles and publications) is relatively new and challenging to find, particularly so for literature on the evaluation of programs. Indeed, the majority of articles reviewed were from gray literature sources, indicating that the field has not been extensively researched in academia; thus, causality is difficult to establish. Key themes included over-representation of Indigenous Peoples in all stages of the criminal justice system (and the reasons); risk and protective factors; nature of existing programming; and approaches for culturally-competent evaluation.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Inass Doukha and Eugénie Mandon.

Introduction

Purpose

The purpose of the report is to examine Canadian and international literature that describes crime prevention programs for Indigenous Peoples, and evaluations of these programs. Specifically, the report focuses on culturally-relevant approaches for crime prevention programs and evaluations.

Research has consistently demonstrated that Indigenous Peoples are substantially over-represented at all stages of the criminal justice system, both as victims and perpetrators (Allen, 2020; Boyce, 2016; Malakieh, 2020). This demonstrates the need to assess the contextual and environmental factors that may contribute to the disproportionate representation of Indigenous Peoples in the criminal justice system, including socio-economic factors, perceptions of crime/criminal behaviours, cultural or institutionally-embedded prejudice and barriers, etc. It is also worth noting that these factors are largely environmental and can point to deeply embedded inequalities or other existing social constructs and conditions that may prevent certain individuals from accessing the same opportunities as others. Protective factors or measures (e.g., acknowledging and eradicating inequalities, providing access to opportunities, education, prevention) can increase the resilience of at-risk populations and lessen the impact of risk factors on criminal behaviour.

Furthermore, crime prevention programs that can effectively target and address risk factors can help reduce the over-representation of Indigenous Peoples in the criminal justice system. However, for programs to be effective, they need to be relevant and address the specific needs of the individual or group. Research has demonstrated that, to be effective, programs need to be culturally appropriate (Cortés-Kaplan & Dunbar, 2021; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP], 2016; Philpott, 2017).

Public Safety Canada seeks to shed light on best practices and keep abreast of the latest knowledge and research relating to crime prevention initiatives for Indigenous Peoples. In this regard, the Department is interested in learning how and why culturally-relevant approaches have been used in crime prevention programming for Indigenous participants in Canada and abroad, how these approaches have been evaluated, and their level of effectiveness. This research supports Public Safety Canada’s efforts to produce research on effective, evidence-based crime-prevention approaches, by discussing the existing literature on crime prevention programs with Indigenous culturally-specific components; analyzing the connection between culturally-relevant approaches and crime prevention; examining evaluations of crime prevention programs designed for Indigenous participants and their effectiveness; and, producing recommendations based on the gaps and needs arising from the literature review. This literature review will guide Public Safety Canada towards the necessary next steps to continue to support and leverage the use of Indigenous cultural practices, traditions, and activities in crime prevention programming and evaluations in Canada.

Objective of the research

This literature review seeks to address two guiding research questions:

• How have Indigenous cultural practices, traditions, and activities been included in crime prevention programming and what is their connection with crime prevention?
• How have culturally-relevant crime prevention programs been evaluated and what is their contribution to the crime prevention outcomes?

To answer these two questions, the literature review has seven key objectives:

• To conduct an up-to-date review of the Canadian and international literature on the risk and protective factors for crime among Indigenous persons (youth and adults);
• To provide a summary and analysis of the literature on crime prevention programs with an Indigenous culturally-specific component, highlighting the types of activities that have been used, approaches for integrating these activities into the curricula of programs, opportunities and risks, and key lessons learned (including an examination of programs/interventions that focus on various sub-groups such as First Nations/Métis/Inuit peoples, males/females, different age groups, 2SLGBTQI+, or other groups, reflecting the findings that arise in the literature);
• To analyze the intended connection between cultural practices, traditions, and activities (including Indigenous language acquisition) and crime prevention (i.e., theory of change for culturally responsive crime prevention programs);
• To provide an environmental scan of evaluations of crime prevention programs designed for Indigenous participants (including primary, secondary, and tertiary programs), with an emphasis on impact evaluations;
• To provide a summary and analysis of the evaluation methodologies applied in crime prevention programs with an Indigenous culture-specific component, with a focus on the specific types of methodologies used, barriers and facilitators to data or methods, associated risks and opportunities, and key lessons learned;
• To provide a summary and analysis of the effectiveness of Indigenous cultural practices, traditions, and activities in achieving the intended crime prevention program outcomes; and,
• To propose conclusions and recommendations for future research on the design of culturally-competent crime prevention programs.

A glossary of terms is included in Appendix A.

Methodology

Scope of research

This project is limited to literature available through web searches from the early 1990s to present written in English, and does not include consultations or interviews. While the primary focus is on the Canadian context and literature, the search was broadened to include international literature such as from Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States, South America, Eurasia, and others as relevant.

The literature review examined articles on crime prevention programs and initiatives for Indigenous youth and young adults at risk of committing, or who have committed, crimes, and the evaluations thereof. The primary focus was on programs for youth, with a secondary focus on younger children and young adults. Although important areas of study, victims of crime, as well as systems and approaches to incarceration and recidivism, were considered out-of-scope for this project.

Accordingly, documents were screened according to the following inclusion and exclusion criteria:

1. Literature which examines the over-representation of Indigenous Peoples in the criminal justice system was included.
2. Literature which examines risk and protective factors for Indigenous youth and/or adults was included.
3. Literature which describes programs or services that focus on “front-end” crime prevention was included. Articles which examined “back-end” programs (i.e., for incarcerated individuals), and those that examined “victimization”, were considered out of scope for this review.
4. Literature was included if culturally-relevant crime prevention programs/services and/or culturally-competent evaluation of crime prevention programs/services was described, explored, and/or measured. Programs that did not make a link to crime prevention were excluded.
5. Empirical studies (i.e., original research results), and reviews (i.e., articles that summarize the results of other studies) were included.
6. Literature that appears in peer-reviewed articles and “grey literature” (i.e., government reports) was included.
7. Literature published in English was included; other languages were excluded.
8. Literature was included if it involved children, youth, and/or young adults (primary focus: 12-18 years old; secondary focus: 6-12 years old and 18-30 years old), although some relevant programs were included for adults over 30 years of age.

Data collection and analysis

Data Collection: the data collection began with a scan of databases and all other relevant sources of literature (e.g., online/web scans) using the list of keywords identified below. Articles found within the date range (1990s to present) were compiled into a common database (Zotero). Subsequently, all articles were reviewed with a view to sorting and prioritizing the most relevant sources based on the inclusion criteria. Sources were checked for validity and reliability, ensuring they were supported by rigorous methodology, containing findings relevant for this study (see Figure 1). Of particular interest were sources that address or answer the research questions and objectives.

A reference list was created for each relevant article using the following information:

Reference

• Location
• Indigenous Group
• Gender
• Age
• Data Type (Primary/Secondary/Tertiary)
• Program Level (Primary/Secondary/Tertiary)
• Evaluation Methods Used
• Evaluation Findings

Summary of Article:

Analysis: articles were analyzed qualitatively using a content analysis approach (i.e., qualitative, inductive content analysis of both manifest and latent content), through which patterns, themes, tendencies, and trends present in the sources were identified. During this process, all sources were reviewed to determine emerging key themes and code words.

Next, all literature was processed, applying codes to the text. These codes were grouped thematically in a process of decontextualization (breaking down the texts into smaller meaning units) and eventual recontextualization and categorization (identification of themes, categories to arrive at findings). The principal intent of content analysis is to interpret the patterns, themes, and categories arising from the literature to arrive at a set of overall findings, aligned with the research questions and objectives.

Conclusions were drawn from the coded data (e.g., the principal themes and patterns that emerged from the data; how the data and findings related to the research questions; and the sense and general conclusions that arose from the current research). Trends in the type or research being produced on crime prevention in Indigenous communities were also identified, to inform potential future research needs or gaps.

Sources of information

The following literature sources were searched for relevant articles:

• Academic Journals: crime prevention and criminal justice journals from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States, and South America
• Inventories: Public Safety Canada Crime Prevention Inventory; Best Practices of Youth Violence Prevention; Blueprints for Violence Prevention; Effective Family Programs for Prevention of Delinquency; SAMHSA Model Programs; Surgeon General’s Report on Youth Violence; American Youth Policy Forum; Canadian Best Practices Portal
• Databases/Search Tools: Academic Search Complete; Criminal Spectrum; Google Scholar; Legal Source; LexisNexis Quicklaw; ProQuest Social Sciences; PsycInfo
• Publications: Department of Justice Canada; Public Safety Canada; Health Canada; Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC); Indigenous Services Canada (ISC); Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Development Canada (CIRNAC); Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC); Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC); Correctional Service of Canada (CSC); Statistics Canada
• Inquiries: Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Canada; National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG); Royal Commission on Aboriginal People (RCAP); Manitoba Justice Inquiry

The keywords used for finding articles are presented below. These keywords (and their close variants) were used in conjunction with other search parameters (e.g., date, location) and were sometimes combined into phrases:

Aboriginal crime prevention programs; alternative measures; Colonial, Racial and Indigenous Ecologies (CRIE); community-based evaluation; crime; crime prevention programs for Indigenous youth/adults; criminal justice; criminalization; cultural competence; cultural interventions; cultural safety; culturally-responsive evaluation; culturally-responsive Indigenous evaluation; culturally-competent crime prevention program evaluations; culturally-relevant crime prevention activities/programs; diversion; evaluation; evaluation findings; evaluation outcomes; family violence prevention programs; gangs; identity-level crisis; impact evaluations; impact of Indigenous cultural practices, traditions and activities on crime prevention; Indigenous capacity building; Indigenous evaluation; Indigenous methods; Indigenous values; intervention programs; justice system; over-representation of Indigenous People; need factors for Indigenous youth/adults; primary/secondary/tertiary programming; protective factors for Indigenous youth/adults; recommendations; reconciliation; rehabilitation; resilience; restorative justice; risk factors for Indigenous youth/adults; risk-need-responsivity; sentencing circles; strength-based; use of cultural practices/traditions/activities in crime prevention; youth gangs.

In addition, a snowball selection method was used, whereby programs mentioned in one source were identified, reviewed, and included if relevant.

Description of the literature

The literature search resulted in a total of 291 articles/reports relating to the over-representation of Indigenous Peoples, risk/protective factors, and crime prevention programs/evaluations, after non-relevant and duplicate articles were removed. The full list of articles and reports can be found in the bibliography.

Types of articles

With regards to literature, 27% of articles (78 total) were academic articles, and 73% (213 total) were ‘grey literature’.

Dates of publication

Articles dated from 1983 to 2021, with a distribution of 2 articles from the 1980s; 9 articles from the 1990s; 75 articles from the 2000s; 171 articles from the 2010s; and 34 articles from the 2020s, with the largest number of articles in the year 2016 (43 total). This illustrates that the issue of Indigenous over-representation in the criminal justice system has been a longstanding topic of examination. This also shows the fact that literature on and evaluations of crime prevention programs in Indigenous communities is in its infancy.

Location

Twenty-two countries were discussed in the literature search^Footnote1. Among those countries, the greatest representation is from Canada (206 articles), followed by the United States (58 articles), Australia (52 articles), New Zealand (22 articles), the United Kingdom (3 articles), the Philippines (1 article), and South Africa (1 article).

Several articles investigated or mentioned findings from other countries, mostly with a view to providing additional context on approaches to programming and evaluation. One article published in Australia discussed countries such as Japan and Chile, one article published in Canada discussed other parts of Europe, North America, Africa, and Latin America, one article published in the United States mentioned Trinidad, and another article published in Canada discussed countries such as France, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland.

The location of publication of these articles were in six countries: Canada (198 articles), followed by Australia (44 articles), the United States (41 articles), New Zealand (6 articles), the Philippines (1 article), and South Africa (1 article).

Research focus

Of the 291 articles, the primary focus of 54 articles was on the over-representation of Indigenous Peoples in the criminal justice system; 42 on risk and protective factors; 70 on Indigenous-specific programs; 27 on evaluations of Indigenous-specific programs; and 98 on other relevant topics. The secondary focus of 15 articles was on the over-representation of Indigenous Peoples in the criminal justice system; 57 on risk and protective factors; 51 on Indigenous-specific programs; 19 on evaluations of Indigenous-specific programs; and 149 on other related topics. The over-representation of Indigenous Peoples in the criminal justice system is a well-researched topic, with numerous articles spanning many decades. Further, while risk factors for Indigenous Peoples are well documented, examination of protective factors is more recent. Numerous articles discussed Indigenous-specific crime prevention programs; however, few provided systematic evaluations or provided information on why culturally-relevant programming was effective.

Part 1: The need for culturally-relevant programs

This section begins with a discussion on the over-representation of Indigenous Peoples in the criminal justice system, as well as the reasons for the over-representation. It then provides a review of the Canadian and international literature on the risk and protective factors for crime among Indigenous persons.

Over-representation of Indigenous Peoples in the criminal justice system

Numerous inquiries, commissions, and reports have documented the experiences of Indigenous Peoples within the justice system, including their over-representation in the criminal justice system (Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission, 1999; House of Commons Special Committee on Indian Self-Government, 1983; National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 2019). Indigenous Peoples are over-represented at all stages of the criminal justice system, including as victims of crime, among those charged with a criminal offence, those incarcerated in correctional facilities, and among those who are returned to custody following release from prison. Further, both Indigenous males and females, and youth and adults, are over-represented in the criminal justice system. The over-representation of Indigenous Peoples in the criminal justice system is not unique to Canada – similar results have been found in Australia (Battams et al., 2021; Papalia et al., 2019), New Zealand (Webb, 2018), and the United States (OJJDP, 2016).

The literature has also consistently shown that Indigenous Peoples are more likely to be victims of crime than non-Indigenous people. For instance, a Statistics Canada survey found that over one-half (55%) of Indigenous adults reported being a victim of violence during their lifetime (vs. 37% of non-Indigenous adults; Statistics Canada, 2021b). Further, the homicide rate for Indigenous Peoples in 2020 was almost seven times higher than that of non-Indigenous Canadians (10.05 vs. 1.41 homicides per 100,000; Armstrong & Jaffray, 2021). Higher victimization rates among Indigenous Peoples appear to be due to the increased presence of risk factors among this group compared to non-Indigenous people (Bania, 2017; Perreault, 2015).

Although men are more often victims of crime than women, Indigenous women experience higher rates of violence than non-Indigenous women (Perreault, 2015), including intimate partner violence. In an examination of intimate partner violence, one study found that over one-half of Indigenous women (56%) said they had experienced a physical assault during their lifetime (vs. 34% of non-Indigenous women; Heidinger, 2021). Further, it has been found that Indigenous women are 12 times more likely to be murdered or missing than non-Indigenous women (National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 2019), a number that is even higher for Indigenous women in northern and remote areas (Native Women’s Association of Canada [NWAC], 2020).

Indigenous 2SLGBTQI+ persons also reported experiencing a higher prevalence of physical and sexual assaults as compared to non-Indigenous 2SLGBTQI+ persons (73% vs. 45%; 65% vs. 37%, respectively; Jaffray, 2020). In addition, 86% of Indigenous women who identify as 2SLGBTQI+ reported experiencing intimate partner violence in their lifetime, compared with 59% of heterosexual Indigenous women (Statistics Canada, 2021a). Likewise, Indigenous women with a disability were more likely to have been victims of intimate partner violence than Indigenous women who did not have a disability (74% versus 46%; Statistics Canada, 2021a).

Given their prevalence in the criminal justice system, Indigenous Peoples are also more likely to be charged with or convicted of crimes than non-Indigenous Canadians. For example, in an examination of a select number of Indigenous communities, it was found that crime rates were over ten times higher among adults, and six times higher among youth than in non-Indigenous communities (Allen, 2020). Similarly, the rate of Indigenous persons accused of homicide in 2019 was nearly 11 times higher than non-Indigenous persons (Moreau et al., 2020).

In terms of incarceration, according to 2020-21 statistics, Indigenous Peoples, while accounting for 5% of the Canadian adult population, represented 33% of admissions to federal custody and 31% of admissions to provincial and territorial custody (Statistics Canada, 2022). This over-representation is even more pronounced among Indigenous women, who account for 40% of admissions to federal custody (Statistics Canada, 2022). Similarly, Indigenous youth who represent about 8% of the Canadian youth population account for 50% of admissions to youth correctional facilities (Statistics Canada, 2022). Indeed, over the past two decades, the over-representation of Indigenous offenders in custody has been trending steadily upwards, from 17% in 2000-01 to 30% in 2019-20 (Motiuk & Arnet-Zargarian, 2021).

Finally, re-offending and/or return to custody is also substantially higher for Indigenous offenders (one-third vs. 16% for non-Indigenous offenders; Farrell MacDonald, 2014). Re-incarceration rates have been found to be as high as 70% in the Canadian Prairies (Public Safety Canada, 2020).

Reasons for over-representation

Numerous studies and inquiries, conducted since the 1970s, have highlighted factors that have contributed to Indigenous over-representation in the criminal justice system, including colonialism, systemic discrimination, the differential impacts of criminal justice policies, socio-economic marginalization, and cultural differences (e.g., Clark, 2019; Dussault & Erasmus, 1996). Many of these factors are interlinked with one another and stem from the historical and ongoing effects of colonization.

Research has linked the broader effects of colonialism with the over-representation of Indigenous Peoples in the criminal justice system. Dislocation and disconnection of Indigenous Peoples from their traditional lands and rights and the removal of children from their homes to residential schools have had intergenerational effects, which have impacted many aspects of the lives of Indigenous peoples and resulting in a wide range of issues from parenting to substance abuse, violence, poverty, and many others that have direct links to involvement in the criminal justice system. Research suggests that many colonial attitudes and mindsets remain deeply rooted. For example, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People (RCAP) found that the greatest contributor to the over-representation were the colonial values underlying Canadian criminal laws, policies and practices which have negatively impacted Indigenous peoples (Dussault & Erasmus, 1996).

Given the historical context and its pervasive effects, systemic discrimination across all phases of the justice system has been identified as a key reason for the over-representation of Indigenous Peoples (Clark, 2019; TRC, 2015). Systemic discrimination occurs when the application of a standard practice creates an adverse impact upon an identifiable group that may not be consciously intended (Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission, 1999). Examples of systemic discrimination include over- or under-policing of Indigenous communities, lack of access to lawyers, more frequent denial of bail to Indigenous Peoples, the over-classification of Indigenous offenders in prison, and the limited use of Gladue^Footnote2.

Systemic discrimination also manifests in policy and the literature also points to the differential impact of criminal justice policies on Indigenous Peoples. Some examples include the introduction of “tough on crime” policies (e.g., fine default, mandatory minimum sentences) which may result in larger numbers of Indigenous Peoples being admitted to prison or longer sentences; limited use of section 81 and section 84 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,^Footnote3 and cuts to rehabilitative programs that could potentially help in crime prevention (Clark, 2019; Department of Justice Canada, 2021; Pope & Feyerherm, 1995).

Socio-economic marginalization has been identified in the literature as having a significant impact on the over-representation of Indigenous individuals in the criminal justice system. Linked to the ongoing effects of colonialism, risk factors for Indigenous Peoples include lower levels of educational attainment, higher unemployment rates, and higher poverty, compared to non-Indigenous Canadians. These conditions limit the opportunities and life chances for individuals, forming the basis for the vulnerability of some and increasing their likelihood of involvement with the criminal justice system (Chansonneuve, 2005; Department of Justice Canada, 2020).

Cultural differences that underpin judicial practices have also been identified as influencing the over-representation of Indigenous Peoples in the criminal justice system. The Canadian criminal justice system, based on Western values of justice and common law traditions, differs widely from Indigenous legal traditions which are typically based on kinship, healing, and reintegration. Further, research indicates that differences in the perceptions of wrong-doing or harm, and the approaches to justice between Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultures, may make a difference in charging practices and activities that lead to re-offending (Department of Justice Canada, 2020).

Risk and protective factors for crime among Indigenous Peoples

The likelihood of involvement in crime can be impacted by several aspects, including social and economic status, gender, age, and geography (Bonta & Andrews, 2007; Carrington et al., 2005; Perreault et al., 2008; Savoie, 2007; Sprott et al., 2000). In general, the research has determined that the risk factors for offending are similar for Indigenous and non-Indigenous people: being young, male, low socio-economic status, poor education, unemployment, and substance use (Allard, 2010; Bania, 2017; Corrado & Cohen, 2013; Weatherburn, 2001). The higher incidence of these risk factors in Indigenous populations explains much of the high rates of offending, although risk factors which are unique to Indigenous Peoples also need to be considered. This section outlines risk and protective factors relating to involvement in criminal behaviour for Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. In addition, research relating to Indigenous-specific factors is discussed.

Risk and protective factors for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples

Research over the past few decades on the development of delinquent behaviour has focused on individual, social (including peers and school) and community conditions that influence behaviour (Development Services Group, Inc., 2015a, 2015b; Shader, 2004). A fundamental crime prevention approach targets criminogenic risk factors (characteristics that increase the likelihood of an individual committing a crime) and protective factors (characteristics that reduce the likelihood of adversity leading to negative outcomes and behaviours). The following table provides examples of risk factors for delinquency and protective factors that can help counteract or mitigate risk (adapted from Development Services Group, Inc., 2015a; Shader, 2004).

Some risk factors are static, meaning they cannot be changed (e.g., a history of childhood abuse), whereas others are dynamic and can be modified through appropriate interventions (e.g., poor parental behaviour). Systemic issues in social and economic systems, such as housing, education, employment opportunities and health care also contribute to the root causes of criminality (Trevethan, 2019).

No single risk factor can predict who is likely (or not likely) to engage in delinquent behaviour, but many of these factors are developed early in a person’s life and the more risk factors present, and the longer the duration of exposure, the greater the vulnerability to a negative outcome, particularly if the risks are across multiple social domains (Development Services Group, Inc., 2015b). Therefore, the younger a child is when exposed to risk factors, and the longer the child is exposed to the factors, the greater the risk that the child will engage in later delinquent behaviour. Further, multiple levels of marginality can create conditions which are favourable to involvement in criminal behaviour, or to the increased potential for apprehension or conviction for crimes.

Protective factors can prevent the initial occurrence of a risk factor, interrupt a negative chain of risks, or counter a risk. Therefore, individuals with more protective factors and resilient personalities are better able to cope with risk factors and life challenges, making it less likely they will be involved in problem behaviours and more likely they will do well in life.

Both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people are influenced by the same types of risk and protective factors; however, the prevalence of risk factors for Indigenous Peoples can lead to multiple levels of marginality, and the absence of protective factors can create conditions favourable to involvement in criminal behaviour and to arrest/incarceration. Research shows that Indigenous Peoples are more at risk than non-Indigenous people for experiencing a variety of social issues, including involvement in the child welfare system, homelessness, and substance abuse (Health Canada, 2018; Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2018). For instance, Indigenous youth have more risk factors that non-Indigenous youth, relating to family structure, housing, education, employment, income, mobility, and language (Corrado & Cohen, 2013). Further, Boyce (2016) found that the rates of violence, victimization, substance abuse, mental health issues, and other socio-economic vulnerabilities are higher for Indigenous Peoples than among their non-Indigenous counterparts.

Research has also demonstrated that Indigenous women and girls tend to experience a larger number of risk factors and fewer protective factors than non-Indigenous women and girls (Beaudette, et al., 2014). For instance, Corrado & Cohen (2013) found higher risk factors (e.g., family criminality, abuse, involvement in foster care), and fewer protective factors (i.e., verbal skills, stable family, school success) among Indigenous girls as compared to non-Indigenous girls.

The following provides Canadian statistics to highlight the socio-economic gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people for individual, family, peers, school, and community factors.

For individual-level factors, which stem from origins such as early moral development, personality traits, negative life events, and attitudes toward delinquency:

• A larger proportion of Indigenous Peoples 12 years of age or older reported heavy drinking (five or more drinks on one occasion at least once a month in the 12 months preceding the survey) - 35% for off-reserve First Nations people, 30% for Métis, and 39% for Inuit, compared with 23% for non-Indigenous people (Kelly-Scott & Smith, 2015).
• Larger proportions of Indigenous than non-Indigenous people reported mental health issues. For instance, 11% of off-reserve First Nations youth and 8% of Métis youth reported having a mood disorder. Further, a larger proportion of Indigenous than non-Indigenous adults 18+ living on reserve said that they had had suicidal thoughts in their lifetime (19% vs. 11%; Statistics Canada, 2016b). Rates of acute-care hospitalizations for intentional self-harm are also high among Indigenous youth aged 10-19 (42 per 100,000 for First Nations youth living on reserve; 26 for First Nations youth living off reserve; 20 for Métis youth; 101 for Inuit youth living in Inuit Nunangat; Statistics Canada, 2018).
• A larger proportion of Indigenous Peoples 15 years of age and older reported a disability compared to non-Indigenous people. In 2017, 32% of First Nations people living off reserve, 30% of Métis, and 19% of Inuit reported having at least one disability that limited them in their daily activities, compared to 22% of the non-Indigenous population (Hahmann et al., 2019).

Family, whether natural, adoptive, or foster, is where most of the critical factors affecting how children develop through the stages of life occur, even into adulthood (Corrado & Cohen, 2013). Research on family-related factors for Indigenous Peoples has found:

• A larger proportion of Indigenous than non-Indigenous children aged 0-4 live with one parent (34% vs. 13%) – breakdowns are 39% for First Nation children, 26% for Métis children, 27% for Inuit children (Statistics Canada, 2017a).
• Although Indigenous children account for 7.7% of children aged 0 to 4, they account for more than one-half (51%) of all foster children in this age group (Statistics Canada, 2017a).
• A larger proportion of Indigenous than non-Indigenous people reported having experienced childhood physical and/or sexual abuse (40% vs. 29%). Abuse during childhood was more prevalent among Indigenous than non-Indigenous women (42% vs. 27%; Burczycka & Conroy, 2017).
• Indigenous children are more likely than non-Indigenous children to be raised by younger parents. Among children under six years of age, 26% of Inuit children, 27% of First Nations children living off reserve, and 22% of Métis children had mothers between the ages of 15 to 24 (vs. 8% of non-Indigenous children; Public Safety Canada, 2012a).

Peer-related factors include peer norms and attachment, socialization, and interactions with peers (Development Services Group Inc., 2015b). Research on peer-related factors has found:

• Indigenous gang involvement has precursors that can be traced back to the historical and cultural losses, social and political inequalities, and economic barriers faced by many Indigenous Peoples for multiple generations. These multiple levels of marginality create social and geographic conditions favourable to gang formation and involvement among Indigenous youth (Dunbar, 2017).
• Research with Indigenous gang members found that peers who have been raised in care make good targets for recruitment because gangs promise to act as family substitutes (Grekul & LaBoucane-Benson, 2008).

There is extensive research literature on the importance of educational attainment and high school graduation as strong protective factors (see Corrado & Cohen, 2013). Beginning at the earliest points in preschool, kindergarten, and first grade, positive school experiences and learning achievements have lifelong protective effects against antisocial and criminal behaviours. Conversely, aggression, early school problems, and poor performance are strong risk factors (Corrado & Cohen, 2013). The results of studies on school-related risks for Indigenous Peoples demonstrate that:

• Weak school attachment and low school bonding among Indigenous youth have been found to be correlated with early conduct problems in grade school and gang initiation (Hautala et al., 2016).
• Indigenous adults 25-54 are less likely than non-Indigenous adults to have achieved a high school diploma or greater (74% vs. 89%). Inuit people had the lowest levels of education (56% with a high school diploma), followed by First Nations people (70%), and Métis people (82%; Statistics Canada, 2016a).
• Indigenous young people are more likely to drop out than non-Indigenous young people, with the 2007 to 2010 dropout rates among off-reserve First Nations, Métis, and Inuit at 23%, compared with 9% for non-Indigenous people (Public Safety Canada, 2012a).

Factors at the community level are generally related to the physical environment, economic and recreational opportunities, existing social supports, and other characteristics or structures that affect successful community functioning (Development Services Group Inc., 2015b). The literature has also identified numerous community-related risks:

• A larger proportion of Indigenous than non-Indigenous adults aged 25-54 were unemployed in 2019 (8.3% vs. 4.3% - 10% First Nations people; 6.5% Métis; 4.6% Inuit; Statistics Canada, 2020).
• Indigenous adults 25-54 had lower levels of income than non-Indigenous adults (median employment income of $35,363 in 2016 vs. $43,707) - $30,780 for First Nations people, $31,586 for Inuit, $42,196 for Métis; Statistics Canada, 2016c).
• In 2016, about 20% of Indigenous Peoples aged 15 or over said they had experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months. Among the Inuit living in Inuit Nunangat, 52% of adults experienced food insecurity (Statistics Canada, 2018). In comparison, only about 9% of non-Indigenous Canadians faced food insecurity (Polsky & Gilmour, 2020).
• A larger proportion of the Indigenous than non-Indigenous population living in the provinces reported that they or a member of their household had been a victim of an offence in 2014 (28% vs. 18%; Statistics Canada & Assembly of First Nations, 2021).
• Indigenous Peoples were more likely to report living in a dwelling in need of major repairs (19% vs. 6% of non-Indigenous population). This was more often the case among First Nations people on reserve (44%), followed by Inuit (26%), First Nations people off reserve (14%) and Métis (11%; Statistics Canada, 2017c).
• Close to one-fifth (18%) of Indigenous adults reported living in crowded housing (compared to 8.5% of non-Indigenous adults). This was more often the case for Inuit (41%), First Nations people (23%), and Métis (9%) adults (Statistics Canada, 2017c).

Studies on adults in federal custody illustrate the high rates of risks/needs for intervention for Indigenous men and women offenders in comparison to non-Indigenous offenders. These needs for intervention include education, employment, finances, accommodation, attachment, peers, and drug use (Figure 2; Motiuk & Keown, 2021).

Indigenous-specific risk and protective factors

In addition to standard risk factors, both Canadian and international literature has identified unique risk factors that Indigenous Peoples may face that most non-Indigenous people do not, as well as unique protective factors. These include:

• Colonialism: the effects of colonization and the government’s attempts at forced assimilation of Indigenous Peoples can be traced back to historical and cultural/language losses, loss of identity and social isolation, territorial dispossession, social and political inequalities, and economic barriers, and has had long-lasting negative impacts on community well-being for Indigenous Peoples (Allard, 2010; Clark, 2019; United Nations General Assembly, 2007). For example, in 2016, only 16% of the Indigenous population in Canada reported being able to conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language (Statistics Canada, 2017b). Further, these government polices disempowered Indigenous communities and made them reliant on the government economically (Homel et al., 1999).

  Things have happened that are painful to recount and are deplored by the great majority of Canadians. Many of these events were the result of greed or ill will; others were the product of ignorance, misguided intentions, or a lack of concern for peoples already at the edge of Canadian society. They have left their legacy in the social and economic conditions of Aboriginal communities…

  (Dussault & Erasmus, 1996, Volume 5, p. 3)

• Residential Schools/Sixties Scoop: numerous commissions, inquiries, and reports in Canada have documented the creation of residential schools, and other policies implemented by the government such as the Sixties scoop, which led to the mass removal of Indigenous children from their families and resulted in devastating and intergenerational impacts on Indigenous Peoples and communities (e.g., Chansonneuve, 2005; Dussault & Erasmus, 1996; TRC, 2015). Other countries have noted similar government policies, such as the removal of children in Australia (Allard, 2010; Beyond Blue, 2021). Impacts included loss of language, culture, and governance. It also resulted in losses to family functioning (i.e., disconnected families, single parent families, poor child rearing, family violence; Monchalin & Marques, 2013), as well as poorer health, mental distress, depression, substance misuse, and suicidal behaviours (Wilk et al., 2017). Inadequate exposure to Indigenous parenting role models, personal trauma histories, poverty and racism has weakened generations of Indigenous families (Wilk et al., 2017). Further, these risk factors have contributed to interrelated risk factors such as low educational attainment, substance abuse and addictions, unemployment, substandard living conditions, and high residential mobility (Monchalin & Marques, 2013). Detachment, reinterpretation, accommodation, and resistance were the general coping strategies in residential schools, and some of these learned attitudes and behaviours have proven to be destructive for survivors (Dion Stout & Kipling, 2003). Precursors for contact with the criminal justice system can be traced back to these impacts (Allard, 2010; TRC, 2015). For instance, there is evidence that an insecure cultural identity is related to increased offending (Marie et al., 2009).

  While removing children from their families to protect them may be necessary in some cases, there are many negative and long-term effects associated with being placed in care. These include higher rates of youth homelessness, lower levels of post-secondary education, low income, high unemployment, and increased prevalence of chronic health problems for children. Compared to youth from the general population, youth from the child welfare system are also at much greater risk for becoming involved with the juvenile criminal justice system.

  (Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2018, p. 27)

• Systemic Discrimination: systemic discrimination impacts on access to services, programs, and resources for Indigenous Peoples and communities. This includes different access to health and family services, schools, treatment programs, and crime prevention initiatives (Bressan & Coady, 2017; Clark, 2019). Causal factors related to ongoing colonialism and affecting Indigenous Peoples, includes structural violence, including racism, marginalization, and exclusion from social and economic participation (Monchalin & Marques, 2013).
• Socio-economic Marginalization: the socio-economic conditions of many Indigenous communities limit the opportunities individuals have, forming a basis for vulnerability. This includes social and political inequalities and economic barriers, including lower levels of educational attainment, inadequate housing, poverty, and homelessness (Department of Justice Canada, 2021; Office of the Correctional Investigator, 2013).

The impact of unique risk factors for Indigenous Peoples has been documented in the research literature. For example, the use of residential schools has been shown to affect bonding between Indigenous children and their parents (TRC, 2015). Further, the trauma of the residential school system has had ongoing intergenerational effects on the psychological well-being of Indigenous individuals and communities, with links to higher incidences of childhood adversity and adult trauma (Boksa et al., 2015), and mental health issues (Giroux et al., 2017). Lower levels of education can be attributed, at least in part, to the lack of access to educational opportunities for Indigenous youth on reserve (Corrado & Cohen, 2013). Finally, discrimination, structural inequality, and lack of opportunity have been identified as causal factors to gang involvement among Indigenous youth (Grekul & LaBoucane-Benson, 2008).

In addition to risk factors, protective factors provide a lens through which the standard factors can be interpreted and are a starting point for the understanding of Indigenous developmental pathways. Although there is a considerable amount of research on the risk factors that influence the involvement of Indigenous Peoples in the criminal justice system, there is significantly less research on protective factors. Some research on unique Indigenous protective factors discusses the concept of resilience (the ability to do well despite adversity; Kirmayer et al., 2011), noting that adaptation to adversity is a dynamic rather than static process that includes character traits, a person’s cultural background, values, and supportive aspects of the socio-cultural environment (Clauss-Ehlers, 2010). Further, for Indigenous people, it can involve culturally distinctive concepts that connect people to community and the environment, the importance of collective history, the richness of Indigenous languages and traditions, as well as individual and collective agency and activism (Kirmayer et al., 2011).

The main protective factors consistently identified in the literature include engagement in traditional/cultural practices, positive cultural identity, strong extended-family, and community involvement (Bania, 2017; Georg, 2016).

Indigenous Peoples have unique cultural and traditional ceremonies, teachings, and healing practices. Over the past decade, research has explored how participation in cultural activities or programming, and connection to one’s culture, can be a protective factor, sometimes referred to as cultural resilience (Homel et al., 1999). Some research has found that Indigenous offenders have better treatment and outcomes when reconnected with spiritual and cultural traditions (Dion Stout & Kipling, 2003; Rowan et al., 2014; Trevethan, 2003). This can include developing strong connections with Elders, spirituality, ancestry, and traditional lands. Furthermore, research has found that cultural engagement can be attributed to reducing recidivism (Shepherd et al., 2018). For instance, Chandler & Lalonde (1998) point to the importance of cultural continuity, noting that communities that have taken active steps to preserve and rehabilitate their own cultures are shown to be those in which youth suicide rates are dramatically lower.

Studies have also found that a strong positive cultural identity can be a protective factor against mental health symptoms and diffuse distress brought on by discrimination (Marie et al., 2009). For example, being able to understand or speak one’s Indigenous language can assist in developing a positive self-identity that is protective throughout one’s life (Corrado & Cohen, 2013). Further, land claims can strengthen Indigenous communities by giving them a voice, coalescing individuals and groups, and giving rise to strong Indigenous organizations which in turn provide sites of resistance and stronger definitions of community (Homel et al., 1999).

Strong family connections and support is also a protective factor. For instance, according to Bania (2017), a strong relationship with extended family for Indigenous Peoples is a protective factor. Long before colonization and continued today, for Indigenous Peoples all relations are relatives, they are the extended family. Family and extended family are seen to be a network that provides necessary support (Homel et al., 1999).

Further, connection to community and social networks is identified as a protective factor for crime among Indigenous Peoples (Beyond Blue, 2021). The literature indicates that social connectedness, a sense of belonging to the community, and community ownership, provides support and can positively contribute to an individual’s well-being, including mental and spiritual health (Giroux et al., 2017). This can also include self-determination and strong community governance.

The literature has also highlighted barriers that Indigenous Peoples face in developing protective factors, in particular relating to the impacts of colonialist policies, residential school experiences, and involvement in the child welfare system. For instance:

• Fewer opportunities to develop social competencies, feelings of self-worth, and life skills.
• Disruptions to Indigenous child socialization processes and inadequate exposure to Indigenous parenting role models (Haight et al., 2018).
• With little or no opportunity to learn about Indigenous culture and languages, many Indigenous children lost their cultural identity (Haight et al., 2018; Trevethan et al., 2001). For instance, research has shown that many Indigenous children who were removed from their birth families and communities lost their sense of cultural identity (Haight et al., 2018).
• Indigenous Peoples living in remote areas have less access to educational and employment opportunities (Assembly of First Nations, 2011), and may not be able to access appropriate health and treatment services which can negatively impact their health and well-being (Health Canada, 2018).

Finally, as indicated throughout the literature, more research is needed in this area to better understand the unique risk and protective factors for Indigenous people.

The need for culturally-relevant programs

The multiple levels of marginality that Indigenous Peoples face highlights the need for different approaches to crime prevention. Furthermore, core aspects of Indigenous identity, such as language, culture, teachings, and ceremonies can be important in crime prevention programs (Evans, 2020). Therefore, to be effective, crime prevention approaches should incorporate Indigenous worldviews and cultural humility and promote cultural safety. Thus, many crime prevention approaches targeted for Indigenous participants try to integrate appropriate cultural practices, traditions, and activities (Brascoupé & Waters, 2009).

Part 2: Culturally-relevant programs

This section discusses how Indigenous cultural practices, traditions, and activities have been included in crime prevention programs, and the connection to crime prevention. This includes a summary and analysis of the literature on crime prevention programs for Indigenous people, with a particular focus on programs with cultural components. The section also highlights the types of activities used, ways activities are incorporated into program curricula, risks and opportunities, and key lessons learned. Where possible, an examination of various sub-groups such as First Nations/Métis/Inuit peoples, males/females, age group, 2SLGBTQI+, or other groups, is included.

Crime prevention programs for Indigenous Peoples

A total of 154 articles and reports were found which discussed Indigenous crime prevention programs. The articles and reports examined ranged from 1990 to 2021, almost two-thirds of which (62%) were published in the last ten years.

The literature search identified numerous crime prevention programs for Indigenous youth and adults. A broad definition of “crime prevention” was utilized because many Indigenous programs were holistic and multi-faceted in nature with the intent of addressing several issues (e.g., well-being, culture, family cohesion). Further, some programs attempted to address early risk factors that could lead to youth behaviour issues (e.g., family violence, parenting skills); and others provided a mechanism to reduce crime in the community by utilizing an alternative diversion model (e.g., restorative justice). If a narrow definition of crime prevention were used, many programs or initiatives which strengthen community safety and have crime prevention outcomes would be missed (Capobianco & Shaw, 2003). Therefore, primary, secondary, and tertiary crime prevention approaches were examined, with the following definitions:

• Primary crime prevention: stopping crime before it occurs by addressing social and situational factors that may lead to crime.
• Secondary crime prevention: early intervention for population groups seen to be at high risk of involvement in criminal behaviour in order to prevent crime from occurring.
• Tertiary crime prevention: efforts to divert people who have committed crimes away from imprisonment (adapted from Australian Institute of Criminology, 2003; Battams et al., 2021).

As per the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the focus was on “front-end” crime prevention programs (i.e., programs that targeted individuals before they were incarcerated); therefore, programs that only targeted incarcerated youth or adults were excluded. Further, programs that exclusively focused on victims of crime were excluded; although family violence programs were included when the goal was to improve family functioning for the child. Programs were included for youth and adults, although the primary focus was on children (under 12), youth (12-17) and young adults (18-30).

In total, 162 programs were identified that fit the inclusion criteria, some of which were described by several sources. The programs were reviewed and categorized into program focus – most of which fit under the risk/protective factors identified in Part 2 of this report. Appendix B provides descriptions of the programs, organized by category, and with information on location, program level (i.e., primary, secondary, tertiary), focus, gender, age group, and cultural practices used.

About one-half (52%) of the programs identified in the literature were being utilized in Canada, and about one-third (31%) in Australia. Other programs were utilized in the United States (15%), New Zealand (7%), the Philippines (3%), South Africa (1%), Hungary (1%), Mexico (1%), and Norway (1%).

Program focus

The programs were categorized into themes based on the primary focus of the program (i.e., what the program was trying to accomplish). It should be noted that many of the programs targeted several risk or protective factors (e.g., to improve conflict management skills, relationships, and educational outcomes), so some programs could potentially fit into numerous categories. The analysis demonstrated that programs tended to fit into individual, family, peer, school, and community factors. However, the primary focus for some programs seemed to be cultural aspects.

As illustrated in Table 2, for about one-third of the programs (30%) the primary focus was on individual risk/protective factors; one-quarter (22%) on family-related factors; 9% on peer-related factors; 12% on school-related factors; and, 10% on community factors. In addition, 18% of the programs focus primarily on culture-related factors such as reconnecting at-risk youth to traditional ways of viewing the world, addressing the intergenerational impacts of colonialism and residential schools, or utilizing restorative approaches for diversion. However, it should be noted that almost all programs included some cultural aspects.

The programs that focus on individual risk/protective factors include those with the objective of improving strengths, such as pro-social attitudes, self-esteem, self-reliance, problem-solving, and conflict-resolution skills. For instance, the “Circle of Courage ®” model, applied world-wide (i.e., Canada, Australia, United States, New Zealand, South Africa), aims to help at-risk youth make changes in their living environments and become more empowered and resilient (Monchalin, 2012; National Crime Prevention Centre [NCPC], 2011; Public Safety Canada, 2018b). The “Aboriginal Emotional Maturity Problem-Solving and Awareness Targeting Higher Impulse Control” (EMPATHIC) program, utilized in Canada and the United States, focuses on teaching Indigenous children (grades 1-5) to understand and manage their emotions and solve problems in a positive way to reduce the likelihood of violence and criminalization (Bania, 2017; Public Safety Canada, 2009b). In addition, the “Hard to Reach Youth” Project in New Zealand is a Māori designed approach to address youth gang issues, by identifying skills and strengths and developing alternative strategies to crime and violence (Te Puni Kōkiri, 2010).

Other programs that focus on individual risk/protective factors aim at improving life skills and employment, such as leadership, job skills, or employment readiness. For instance, the “Wasa-Nabin Urban Youth Program” in Canada offers employment readiness supports for Indigenous youth (Wabano Centre, 2021b). The “Yiriman Youth Justice Diversion Program” (YYJDP) in Western Australia attempts to divert at-risk youth from the justice system into healthier lifestyles through a bush trek and “care for country” camp to develop job skills in land management (Redfern, 2017).

Programs that focus on family-related risk/protective factors include those that help to improve parenting skills by supporting parents in their children’s early years, enhancing parenting skills such as the ability to communicate and deal with behaviour problems, and improve family functioning. For example, a home visiting program in Southern Australia involves a nurse visiting and providing support to Indigenous families in the first weeks of an infant’s life to enable healthy family functioning (Bania, 2017; City of Calgary, 2017). The Kwanlin Dun “First Nations Healthy Families Program” in the Yukon, Canada provides parents of high-risk Indigenous children with culturally-appropriate practical parenting skills (Linden, 2001).

Other programs that focus on family-related risk factors aim to reduce domestic violence, a risk factor that has been demonstrated to impact on youth involvement in the criminal justice system. Programs include education about domestic violence, and skills to enhance communication and resolve conflict. For instance, the “Walking the Path Together” program in Alberta, Canada aims to reduce the likelihood of Indigenous children growing up to use or accept violence in their intimate relationships (NCPC, 2014). The “Aboriginal Family and Community Healing Program” is a family violence program in Australia which focuses on family and community healing, and equipping people with the skills to communicate effectively and resolve conflict (Australian Institute of Health & Welfare [AIHW] & Australian Institute of Family Studies [AIFS], 2016).

Programs that focus on peer-related risk and protective factors include those that help youth improve their social skills, connect to peers, and develop healthy relationships. An example is “Project Venture” (PV), an outdoor experiential program used in the United States, Canada, and Hungary. The program uses outdoor activities centred on traditional American Indian values to develop positive peer relationships and group skills (Bania, 2017; Carter et al., 2007; NCPC, 2011; OJJDP, 2016; Public Safety Canada, 2012b). Another intervention program is the “Aboriginal Girls’ Circle” (AGC) in Australia, which focusing on empowering Indigenous girls in secondary school to be socially and emotionally resilient and active community citizens (Dobia et al., 2013).

Programs that focus on school-related risk and protective factors attempt to improve the school environment and academic achievements. The school environment is important because it impacts on the daily life of children; and school completion is an important determinant in an individual’s future social and economic position (City of Calgary, 2017). These include programs that develop a desire for learning, improving academic achievement, and successfully graduating. It also includes developing a positive school environment and a culture of strengths in school. For instance, the Aboriginal Head Start (AHS) program is an early intervention program with the aim of instilling a desire for learning among Indigenous preschool children (Capobianco & Shaw, 2003; Linden, 2001). The “Sporting Chance” program in Australia engaged Indigenous students in school and sports-focused learning to improve education and career opportunities (Osborne et al., 2013). The “Strengths in Motion” program in Canada aims to provide Indigenous children involved in the child welfare system with culturally-appropriate strengths-based supports in the school setting (Bania, 2017; Brownlee et al., 2012).

Programs that focus on community-related risk and protective factors aim to enhance community capacity and mobilization. These include programs that build capacity and engage Indigenous communities in developing solutions to crime, provide a coordinated approach to addressing social problems, and focus on reducing crime. For instance, night patrols are one of the longest running types of crime prevention programs in Indigenous communities, and has been utilized in Australia, Canada, the United States, and New Zealand (Cunneen, 2001; Jones et al., 2014; Ryan et al., 2006). These programs involve officials who patrol communities at night and provide culturally-appropriate assistance to community members who may be at risk of causing harm or becoming a victim. Similarly, the Indigenous Community Policing model, utilized in Mexico, Australia, and Canada, provides an alternative to the established provincial or state police by incorporating Indigenous customs and practices. Justice groups are another example of a long running type of crime prevention program in Australia (Cunneen, 2001; Jones et al., 2014; Ryan et al., 2006). This involves organized groups of Indigenous Peoples who meet to develop comprehensive solutions to crime.

Programs that focus on Indigenous-specific factors include those that aim to reconnect Indigenous Peoples with their culture. For instance, the “Coyote Pride Mentoring Program” promotes healthy cultural development of youth through the use of Indigenous mentors and Elders (Bania, 2017; Bent Arrow Traditional Healing Society, 2021). Another example is the Fagfaga System in the Philippines (Vicente & Codmor, 2019) which uses Elders to educate youth on Indigenous practices so that regulations will be adhered to. Other programs, such as “Indigenous Traditional Games” in Australia uses sports (Higgins & Davis, 2014), and the “Applied Theatre Engagement” in Canada uses the arts (Conrad, 2020), to help Indigenous youth develop knowledge about their cultural heritage. Finally, some programs aim to address trauma from colonialism and promote self-determination. For instance, the We-Al-Li Program in Australia (Franks et al., 2001) involves assisting Indigenous participants deal with the effects of transgenerational trauma through the use of talking circles.

Other programs that focus on Indigenous-specific risk factors provide restorative justice approaches as a modification of existing court processes, with goals of improving access to court services for Indigenous Peoples and providing a holistic approach to repair harm caused through a crime. For instance, Indigenous Courtworkers in Canada (Clark, 2011) and Australia (Battams et al., 2021) provide a link between the Indigenous accused and the court, as well as support throughout the court process. Another example is “Biidaaban”, a community-based model of restorative justice rooted in Anishinaabe legal principles and founded on the premise that restorative justice requires holistic healing not solely between the offender and victim but the whole of the community (Hewitt, 2016). In addition, Gladue Courts, used in Canada, assist Indigenous accused and offenders in ways that take into account their Indigenous heritage and provide them with Indigenous support people (Campbell Research Associates, 2008; Rudin, 2019). Youth justice conferencing in Australia bring together police, young offenders, victims, and families to discuss the offence, encourage the offender to accept responsibility and apologize, and reach an agreement on compensation (Higgins & Davis, 2014).

Level of crime prevention program

The 162 programs were categorized as to whether they targeted primary, secondary, and/or tertiary levels of crime prevention. Ten programs targeted more than one level of crime prevention, so were counted more than once. About one-half (46%) of the programs focused on addressing social and situational factors that may lead to crime (primary crime prevention). These included programs with the objective of raising awareness about gangs or substance abuse; those that focus on developing problem-solving, relationship and/or leadership skills; and those that provide activities to keep youth occupied in a pro-social manner. Other primary crime prevention programs provide support to new mothers or prepare young children for preschool.

About one-half (41%) of the programs focused on secondary crime prevention, where youth leaving the child welfare system or those at risk of involvement in substance abuse, gangs, or the criminal justice system are identified for targeted interventions. Examples of interventions included: approaches to help strengthen family relationships and parenting skills to deal with problem behaviour; programs to reduce domestic abuse and the cycle of violence; providing safe houses for those who want to leave gangs; multi-faceted case management to address individual issues (e.g., wraparound approach); enhancing skills to handle conflict/aggression; and employment readiness programs. At the community level, secondary crime prevention programs included night patrols (to help at-risk individuals).

One-fifth (20%) of the programs involved tertiary crime prevention designed to divert those who have committed crimes from the correctional system. This included court-ordered substance abuse counselling and treatment; cognitive-behavioural anger management programs; individual case management; family violence counselling and treatment; and bush/wellness camps. In addition, many of these types of programs provide alternatives to the court system (e.g., sentencing circles, Gladue court, youth justice conferences, restorative justice models) or provide support to those who have committed crimes (e.g., Indigenous liaison, interpreter services).

Gender

When information on the gender of participants was identified, most programs (89%) indicated that they were designed for both male and female participants. Approximately 9% said they were specifically designed for female participants, and 2% for male participants.

Of the 13 programs designed for female participants, four said they provide support to pregnant and new Indigenous mothers and their babies with the goal of improving health outcomes and parental bonding, which are important protective factors (Ngumytji TjiTji Pirni; Aboriginal Maternal and Infant Health Service; Pre-Natal Program; Family Spirit®). A fifth program, the “Taonga Education Trust” program in New Zealand, supports Māori teen mothers in achieving their high school education.

Five programs indicated a goal of reducing family violence. Three (Aboriginal Specific Programming for Women Dealing with Anger and Violence; Far West Area Rural Crisis Intervention Projects Australia; Alice Springs Domestic and Family Violence Outreach Service) focus on developing coping skills and providing support to Indigenous women, some of whom are in rural communities. Another program (Aboriginal Women Against Violence Project) in Australia trains Indigenous women to become trainers, mentors, and advocates in their communities. Further, the “Children’s Aid Society (CAS)/Violence Against Women (VAW) Counsellor and Advocate” program in Canada, provides support to Inuit women and their children who are involved with the CAS and/or affected by violence.

Finally, three programs focus on reducing violence generally. Two of these programs are in Australia (Aboriginal Girls’ Circle; Balgo Women’s Law Camp) and provide Indigenous women with support, empower them to be resilient and handle conflict, and reinforce strengths of culture and community. The third program, “With a Little Help from My Friends” is in Canada and focuses on those living with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, which links to high vulnerability of victimization, violence, and crime.

Of the three male-specific programs, one is a safe house for male youth and adults who want to leave a gang (Paa Pii Wak Safe Haven for Men), one provides counselling for domestic abusers (A New Day), and one is a wellness camp for those who have harmed and been harmed (Men’s Wellness Program).

Furthermore, two programs referred to 2SLGBTQI+ participants. The “Akwe:go” program mentioned supporting 2SLGBTQI+ individuals, and the “Youth Circle After School Program” mentioned hosting a 2Spirit night.

Age

Programs often targeted a range of age groups. Where information was available on age, over two-thirds (68%) of the programs said that they targeted youth (12-17 years of age). About one-half (45%) targeted young adults (18-30 years of age), and 39% targeted adults (those over 30). About one-quarter (23%) targeted children under 12 years of age.

Most programs for children tend to focus on individual or family risk factors. For instance, home visit programs focus on early development of infants and young children, and programs such as the “Families and Schools Together” (FAST) program in Canada aims to enhance parent-child bonding. The objective of other programs was to reduce family violence, such as the “Walking the Path Together” program. Others are early intervention programs which are often delivered in schools, such as the “Aboriginal EMPATHIC” program, designed to develop emotional awareness and impulse control among Indigenous youth in grades one to five.

Programs for youth spanned across all categories, with the largest number addressing individual risk or protective factors. For instance, the “Storytelling” program in the United States seeks to increase emotional strength and self-esteem and decrease substance use by using a storytelling intervention, and the “Eastside Aboriginal Space for Youth” (EASY) program in Canada provides socio-recreational and life skills for Indigenous youth at high risk of gang involvement. There are also peer-related programs which focus on developing healthy relationships. For example, the “Spirit Movers and Fire Keepers Youth Program” in Canada provides awareness, knowledge, and teachings about Indigenous culture, and promotes and initiates the development of healthy friendships and relationships with other youth, free of violence and abuse (Bania, 2017). In addition, some programs address school risk/protective factors, such as the “Swan Nyungar Sports Education Program” in Australia which combines sport within a traditional educational curriculum with the goal of improving school attendance, developing confidence and leadership skills, and linking youth to local vocational opportunities. Other youth programs focused specifically on Indigenous cultural elements, such as the “Tapwe Youth Warrior Program” in Alberta Canada, which helps Indigenous youth find their inner selves by relearning the concept of warrior.

The largest number of programs for young adults concentrated on family factors. Many of these are youth programs which also include individuals who are 18 or older, such as anti-gang programs (e.g., “Warrior Spirit Walking” and “Regina Anti-Gang Service Project” in Canada). Others are categorized as adult programs, but also include young adults (e.g., programs for new mothers). One program, the “Taita Project” in New Zealand uses a strengths-based approach to encourage college students to engage in proactive activities and the school community. There are also some Indigenous-specific programs such as the “Aboriginal Cultural Immersion Program” in Australia that enables Indigenous people who had committed crimes to develop greater awareness and understanding of their cultural identity.

Most programs that target adults try to address family-related factors, such as home visit programs for pregnant or new Indigenous mothers or enhancing parenting skills (e.g., the Triple P program used in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). Other programs focus on reducing family violence and strengthening family functioning (e.g., Atawhaingia te pa harakeke in New Zealand).

Indigenous group

Most programs examined were pan-Indigenous (i.e., focused on Indigenous Peoples in general). This includes Indigenous Peoples in Canada (First Nations, Métis, Inuit); Aboriginal and Torres Strait peoples in Australia; Māori in New Zealand, American Indians/American Natives in the United States, Khoe-San/Khoisan in South Africa, Indigenous or Native Mexico Americans in Mexico, Sami in Norway, Igorots in the Philippines, and Roma in Hungary.

Twenty-one (25%) of the Canadian programs explicitly mentioned targeting First Nations individuals, and five (6%) said they were Inuit-specific. No programs stated that they targeted only Métis individuals. Some programs said they included both Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants.

Indigenous cultural practices, traditions, and activities in crime prevention programs

Most of the crime prevention programs discussed the use of some cultural practices, traditions and/or activities – only 11% did not specifically identify any cultural practices in the program. A few programs seem to be generic programs utilized with both Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants. For instance, the “Roots of Empathy” program is a school-based program for elementary school children that aims to promote empathy and prevent violence. Although identified as a crime prevention program for Indigenous children (PHAC, 2016n), the program does not appear to be adapted specifically for Indigenous children. Similarly, some home visiting programs do not seem to utilize Indigenous nurses or support workers.

Some of the programs examined indicate that they have been adapted from non-Indigenous programs. For instance, the “Regina Anti-Gang Service” (RAGS) program is adapted from Multisystemic Therapy (MST) and Wraparound programs (Public Safety Canada, 2012c). Similarly, the Bii-Zin-Da-De-Dah and Thiwáhe Gluwáš’akapi programs have been adapted from the Strengthening Families Program (SFP; Ivanich et al., 2018).

The programs examined used a mix of cultural elements, which can be broken down into four broad categories: culturally-appropriate program design; community involvement; traditional cultural concepts; and, Indigenous-specific activities and experiences. Table 3 provides examples of the types of cultural practices, traditions, and activities identifies.

Culturally-appropriate program design

An important aspect identified by some programs was that they were designed by Indigenous communities or individuals. For instance, the “Family Well Being Empowerment Course” in Australia states that it is a predominantly Indigenous-developed program, focusing on personal empowerment to improve problem-solving skills, resilience, and well-being (Franks et al., 2001). Similarly, the “Hard to Reach Youth Project” is a Māori designed approach to address youth gang issues. Other programs, although not necessarily Indigenous developed, indicated that they were informed by Indigenous culture or adapted to incorporate cultural aspects. An example is the “Dakotah Pride” program that modified the Alcoholics Anonymous approach using a Red Road curriculum (Joe et al., 2008).

The design of many programs included traditional concepts, such as a traditional restorative justice approach or Indigenous legal principles. For instance, “Biidaaban” is a community-based model of restorative justice in Canada which is rooted in Anishinaabe legal principles. The “Ator” system in the Philippines uses an Indigenous means of settling disputes between a victim and accused (Vicente & Codmor, 2019).

Numerous programs have built in culturally-appropriate approaches (e.g., Indigenous therapies). For instance, the Wabano “Youth Circle After School Program” uses an Indigenous model of care. The “We-Al-Li” program in Australia involves Indigenous therapies to deal with the effects of transgenerational trauma.

The use of culturally-appropriate staff was also highlighted as a critical component of programs. This includes the use of Indigenous staff, Elders, interpreters, police, etc.

Importantly, many programs emphasized the importance of a holistic approach. For instance, the “Education as a Vehicle for Holistic Learning” project includes a new school on the Cote First Nation in Canada which teaches formal requirements through the school life skills in the local environment (Schissel, 2010). The “Hollow Water Community Holistic Circle Healing” is based on Anishinaabeg cultural value systems and “ways of knowing”, whereby healing processes are integrated into the community holistic circle healing. These are used to nurture the right relationship with the spirit world, the earth and those who suffer, identify and support a community orientation and traditional ways-of-doing, use healing for deriving justice, and employ community processes as a means of envisioning a healing justice paradigm (Department of Justice Canada, 2015).

Community involvement

Another important component that was stressed was the involvement of Indigenous communities. This included developing the program in partnership with Indigenous communities, the use of community-based or community-run programs. For instance, the Urban Extrajudicial Measures Program is run by the Saskatoon Tribal Council in Canada (Hansen, 2015). Similarly, the “Best Start” program in Australia is owned and managed by the local community (Franks et al., 2001).

Some programs include community leaders, Elders, and citizens in the activities (e.g., facilitators, staff, mentors). For example, the “Hobbema Community Cadet Corps Program” in Canada is a positive crime reduction approach involving enforcement and preventative strategies intended to engage, empower, and mobilize community members against gang and drug activity. The program utilizes mentors who teach young First Nations cadets to concentrate on positive attitudes, abilities, and achievements, rather than focusing on negative obstacles that hinder success (PHAC, 2016i). Similarly, the “Coyote Pride Mentoring Program” matches Indigenous youth and Indigenous mentors from the community who emphasize the importance of education and cultural values.

Traditional cultural philosophies

Most of the programs described the importance of using cultural philosophies, values, and beliefs. This often involved imparting traditional knowledge and wisdom through stories and sacred teachings, cultural symbols, and spiritualism. As an example, the “Atawhaingia te pa harakeke” (Nurture the Family) model in New Zealand employs a process of decolonization to enable Māori to better understand how they came to be in the current circumstances and acknowledge various external factors that contributed to their issues (Capobianco & Shaw, 2003). Similarly, the “Spirit Movers and Fire Keepers Youth Program” in Canada provides youth with awareness, knowledge, and teachings about Indigenous culture, and supports the creation of ties to culture through sacred teachings and promoting holistic healing.

In addition, the use of Indigenous languages as part of the programs was noted in some programs. The “Youth Project Team” in the United States provides a blend of instruction and activity with a focus on culture and language (Pearson, 2009). The “Yiriman Youth Justice Diversion Program” in Australia is delivered in traditional languages by Elders in remote bush locations of cultural significance.

Indigenous-specific activities and experiences

Most programs described incorporation of Indigenous-specific activities and experiences in delivery of the program. This included a wide variety of components, such as ceremonies (e.g., smudging, prayers, pow wows), as well as talking or healing circles. For example, intervention activities in the “Walking the Path Together” program include talking circles, discussions with Elders and family group conferencing. The “Oskâyi Kiskinotahn” (Strengthening the Spirit) program in Canada uses ceremonies, sweat lodges and smudging in group sessions (Public Safety Canada, 2014).

Other Indigenous-specific activities discussed in the programs include the use of traditional Indigenous teachings (e.g., land-based teachings, storytelling, medicine wheel), activities (e.g., traditional art, song, dance), and outdoor activities (e.g., bush camps, wilderness activities, ancestral sites). For instance, the “Gwich’in Outdoor Classroom Culture-Based Crime Prevention Program” in Canada and Australia offers opportunities for Indigenous youth to immerse themselves in land-based traditional teachings (PHAC, 2016h). The “Yiriman Project” incorporates trips to bush camps to learn traditional skills. The “Youth Project Team” includes activities to prepare for a canoe trip, such as using cedar strips to make ropes, sewing shawls, practicing dancing, singing, and drumming.

Different use of cultural components by program level

Some differences emerged based on the level of the program. For instance, primary prevention programs tend to focus on learning about, and developing connections with, Indigenous culture; creating relationships within the community; and healing (e.g., addressing the intergenerational impacts of residential schools). Other primary crime prevention approaches involved community-based justice approaches, such as the use of Indigenous police or justice councils to prevent crime.

Secondary and tertiary prevention programs, which are attempting to divert at-risk individuals or deal with those accused of offences, tend to include traditional on-the-land activities and the use of Elders to re-establish connections to the land and Indigenous culture; the use of Indigenous counsellors or mentors to build protective factors; and the use of a restorative justice and holistic approaches to address multiple levels of marginality.

Role of culture in improving protective factors and reducing risk factors

As discussed earlier in this report and illustrated in the examination of Indigenous-specific programs, Indigenous Peoples are influenced by the same types of risk and protective factors as non-Indigenous people. However, Indigenous Peoples tend to experience multiple levels of marginality, face unique risks, and can be exposed to fewer protective factors, all of which can contribute to their over-representation in the criminal justice system.

Over the past two decades, the literature has paid increasing attention to the importance of culture in crime prevention. Studies have emphasized the need to address the unique risk factors that Indigenous Peoples face, including the effects of colonization, residential schools and the sixties scoop, systemic discrimination, and socio-economic marginalization (Clark, 2019; Cunneen, 2001, Lafontaine et al., 2005; Philpott, 2017; Trevethan, 2003). Crime prevention programs can be more meaningful and effective if they are culturally appropriate; however, the use of culturally-appropriate programming is still relatively new and there has not been a great deal of empirical research examining the effectiveness of culturally-appropriate programs (Bania, 2017).

The crime prevention programs for Indigenous Peoples in this review were examined to identify results about how the cultural practices, traditions and activities improved protective factors and reduced risk factors. Some articles provided results on the outcome of the programs, but generally there was not a great deal of in-depth information on the role that cultural approaches played in addressing risk or protective factors and the extent to which the cultural elements made a difference. Furthermore, the methodology for assessing program outcome were varied (ranging from anecdotal information, interviews with participants, use of assessments, comparison with control groups, etc.), which makes it difficult to determine the effectiveness of the cultural components of the programs. Table 4 describes the results from programs that identified cultural components within the program and provided outcome findings.

One of the main findings from evaluations or program reviews was an improvement in Indigenous-specific protective factors, including a stronger understanding of traditional culture, and the impacts of colonization and the residential school experience on Indigenous Peoples. For instance, the “Culturally Appropriate Program” (CAP) was found to increase knowledge among participants relating to pre-contact history, the impacts of contact with another culture and colonization, and healing. The “Circle of Courage ®” approach succeeded in making fundamental values part of their personal growth journey. Programs were also found to enhance connection to culture, Indigenous values, and the community. For example, the “Yiriman Project” created a strengthened connection to culture, tradition, and identity among youth and young adults through relationships with Elders; healing through connection to the land; and the development of culture, language, and bush skills. Finally, some programs said that they increased cultural identity and aspects of well-being among participants (e.g., Aboriginal Girls’ Circle; Aboriginal Family and Community Healing Program).

Results from many of the programs also illustrated success in addressing individual risk and protective factors. This included improvements in psychological dispositions (e.g., self-esteem, empowerment, suicidal thoughts, mental health) and prosocial attitudes (e.g., towards use of substances). It also included enhanced skills (e.g., problem-solving, self-control, employment). Some programs also identified improvements in behaviour (e.g., prevention/reduction in substance abuse, less involvement in the child welfare system, employment success, reductions in behavioural problems and criminal behaviour). For instance, the “Storytelling” intervention was found to improve youths’ self-concept, problem solving skills, and prosocial attitudes towards drugs, and decrease substance use. Also, Lowe et al. (2012) found that the “Cherokee Talking Circle” in the United States was significantly more effective in reducing substance use and other related problem behaviours among American Indian adolescents, compared with non-cultural, standard substance abuse education programs.

Several programs demonstrated improvements in family-related factors, including child-rearing knowledge and skills (e.g., greater confidence in managing difficult child behaviours, less over-reacting) and caregiver-child bonding. Some of these programs found improvements in family functioning (e.g., greater communication, reduced conflict and violence). Further, some programs helped caregivers return to school or employment, which provided a more stable environment for the children. For instance, parents in the intervention group of the Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) reported greater improvements in addressing child behaviour problems and reduced interparental conflict about child-rearing, in comparison to a control group of parents. Furthermore, at the 6-month follow-up, intervention parents reported greater reductions in overreactive parenting practices and greater confidence in managing difficult child behaviours than the control group.

Some programs pointed to improvement in school-related factors, including a positive school environment and bonding to school, as evidenced in involvement in extracurricular activities. Results from the “Strengths in Motion” showed that students in the program felt better about themselves and the classroom environment, and engaged more frequently in extracurricular activities, as compared to those in schools without the program. In addition, some studies found improvements in school performance, such as increased attendance and academic achievement. Further, some programs reported improvement in classroom behaviour, fewer school violations and reductions in victimization and bullying. For instance, youth who participated in the “Gwich’in Outdoor Classroom” outperformed a comparison group of peers in academic achievement and school attendance.

A few programs point to improvements in peer-related factors, including prosocial norms and attachment to positive peers (e.g., demonstrating more concern for others, connection to positive peers). In addition, some results demonstrate engagement in prosocial activities (e.g., helping other students, engagement in school activities, sports, outdoor activities). As an example, “Project S.T.E.P.” indicated that youth felt the program helped them develop healthy relationships.

Finally, a few programs provided results relating to community factors. This included bonding to positive community influences (e.g., Elders, community leaders, mentors), and increased prosocial norms within the community (e.g., community self-esteem). Programs also demonstrated improvements in community capacity (e.g., housing), mobilization, and outcomes (e.g., reduced crime and violence). Finally, some programs demonstrated that they were cost effective. For instance, results from the “Biidaaban” restorative justice program illustrated that the costs of the program were extraordinarily small compared to the costs of housing offenders.

Most of the programs attributed success, at least in part, to the cultural components of the programs. However, few specifically examined which components made a difference, and why. Results from the “Yiriman Project” identified the importance of community ownership and involvement and Elders. Findings from the “Urban Extrajudicial Measures Program” noted that youth respond positively to cultural protocols and teachings and take pride in understanding traditions of Indigenous Peoples. Others noted the importance of Indigenous facilitators (Capobianco & Shaw, 2003). The review of the “Outdoor Classroom” found that Indigenous cultural values build cultural knowledge, self-image and pride; create a sense of identity, belonging and confidence; break down barriers to learning; enhance willingness to learn other skills; and build positive attitudes. Finally, in an evaluation of the “Cherokee Talking Circle” (CTC), Lowe et al. (2012) found that the culturally-based intervention was significantly more effective for the reduction of substance abuse and related problems than a non-culturally based intervention for Native American adolescents.

Opportunities and risks

The literature identifies a variety of potential opportunities and risks associated with Indigenous crime prevention programs. Some of the opportunities include:

• There is a clear opportunity for additional research on the impacts of cultural practices, traditions, and activities in Indigenous-specific crime prevention programs. Although the literature describes the importance of incorporating cultural elements into these programs, and identifies many programs that do so, there is currently little research that demonstrates what aspects are making a difference (Cardinal & Pepler, 2021).
• Incorporating Indigenous-specific cultural components into crime prevention programs for Indigenous Peoples can provide an important opportunity to more effectively address risk and protective factors that are specific to Indigenous Peoples (e.g., impacts of colonization, residential schools, intergenerational trauma).
• There is an opportunity to complete community assessments to identify strengths and areas of concern for communities, and tailor crime prevention programs to address the issues and draw upon the strengths. Furthermore, this approach could build cultural practices specific to communities which may be more relevant for participants.
• Development of crime prevention programs for Indigenous Peoples also provides a chance to utilize a holistic approach to crime prevention and community safety. This fits within the Indigenous philosophy of addressing the multiple root causes of behaviour, as well as including immediate and extended family, school, and the community.
• In developing crime prevention programs, there is an important opportunity for community ownership and control. According to the Canadian Institute of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Health Research Council (CIHR, NSERC & SSHRC, 2018), principles of ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP®) addresses issues of privacy, intellectual property, data custody and secondary use of data. If a program is owned and managed by a community, there is likely to be greater buy-in and longevity (Cardinal & Pepler, 2021). It can also help to build community capacity.
• Because Indigenous communities in other countries have had some similar experiences as those in Canada, there is an opportunity to examine lessons learned and best practices in crime prevention programs for Indigenous Peoples from other countries.

Some of the risks include:

• It may be challenging to effectively adapt a program that was developed for non-Indigenous populations. Although it may seem that adapting an existing program is faster, efficient, and more cost-effective than creating a new one, according to Ivanich and colleagues (2018), the results from case examples demonstrate that the process is neither quick nor easy. Further, although an adapted program may be based on a proven one, the changes to the program may affect its efficacy. If a program is going to be adapted, it is important to utilize a rigorous process of cultural adaptation incorporating many voices and diverse expertise, the revisions should be documented so it is clear what has changed, and a systematic review should be undertaken to ensure the program is culturally appropriate and achieves the intended outcomes.
• There is a risk with importing an Indigenous-specific program developed for one community into another community because it may not address the needs of the new community. For instance, there are over 630 First Nation communities in Canada, which represent more than 50 Nations and 50 Indigenous languages (Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, 2021). Since Natural Laws are unique to each region or Nation, homogenous programs are unlikely to work effectively (City of Calgary, 2017).
• Many programs focus on individualized interventions rather than utilizing a more holistic approach that considers emotional, mental, spiritual, and physical aspects of a person in connection with family, community, and the natural environment (Firestone et al., 2015). This presents a risk that the program may not address the root causes of criminal behaviour. On the other hand, it is important that a program does not try to address so many risk factors within one intervention that it is not effective. It is important to clearly target the risks and protective factors to be addressed and ensure the program is structured to effectively achieve the goals.
• A critical risk that Indigenous-specific crime prevention programs face is whether there are appropriate resources to design, implement and monitor the program. This includes the need for sustainable funding to run the program in the long term. It also includes ensuring there are the required skills and capacities in the community to deliver the program.

Lessons learned

The literature on crime prevention programs for Indigenous Peoples provides some lessons learned:

• Community Empowerment: it is critically important that Indigenous communities are involved in the design and implementation of crime prevention programs, and that the programs respect OCAP® principles. Further, programs should utilize culturally-competent program designers and facilitators with cultural humility (sensitivity; non-judgmental attitude – Adams, 2016; Cardinal & Pepler, 2021; Memmott et al., 2006).
• Program Type: it is important to ensure programs include, and provide support to, a variety of groups within Indigenous populations as opposed to using “one-size-fits-all” approaches. The literature described programs across Canada and internationally, as well as those in urban and rural/remote settings. Most of the programs focused on Indigenous Peoples generally, although a few targeted First Nations or Inuit people, and none targeted only Métis people. Further, most programs were for both males and females; a few focused on specifically on females or males, and only two made mention of 2SLGBTQI+ individuals. Only one program specifically referred to individuals with a disability (i.e., those with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome).
• Holistic Approach to Healing: programs should take a holistic, inter-related and comprehensive approach which incorporates Indigenous worldview to address the root causes of criminal behaviour and aid healing. This should involve the individual, family, and the community (Indigenous Corporate Training, 2016; Memmott et al., 2006; Osborne et al., 2013; Public Safety Canada, 2015b).
• Working from Strengths: it is important to identify and build on an individual’s strengths in order to develop resiliency in the face of obstacles (Bania, 2017).
• Importance of Cultural Elements: the research to date has indicated the importance of including cultural elements in crime prevention programming, especially cultural practices and activities (e.g., use of ceremonies, healing circles, land-based activities, etc.), as well as having the participation of Indigenous facilitators and support people (e.g., Elders), and recognizing the context of colonialism. This can encourage cultural safety and trust in the program, strengthen cultural identification, and connections with the community (Cardinal & Pepler, 2021; Memmott et al., 2006; Sanchez-Way & Johnson, 2000; Theriot & Parker, 2007).
• Resources: it is important that Indigenous crime prevention programs have secure and long-term funding, including culturally-appropriate facilitators and support workers with the right skills and capabilities (Bartels, 2011; City of Calgary, 2017; Memmott et al., 2006; Osborne et al., 2013; Ryan et al., 2006).
• Impact of Programs: there is a clear need for additional research on the role and effectiveness of cultural components in crime prevention programs for Indigenous people.

Part 3: Culturally-competent evaluation

Existing evaluations of culturally-relevant crime prevention programming

This report includes an inventory of 55 existing, available evaluations of crime prevention programs for Indigenous Peoples and communities (Table 6). Evaluation of culturally-relevant programs is relatively new (dating from 2000 to present) and is limited to evaluations of programs in Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Culturally-competent evaluations are even harder to find. As seen later in this section, early, Westernized evaluation methods continue to be the most prevalent methods used and there has been little evaluation of the specific effect and contribution of culturally-relevant program components to crime prevention objectives.

Some gaps exist in the table pertaining to evaluation designs and data collection methods. Information on evaluations is difficult to come by, as there is an absence of evaluated crime prevention programs focusing on Indigenous populations (Capobianco et al. 2009), which may be a result of several factors: the current infancy of evaluation approaches utilizing Indigenous frameworks or leveraging Indigenous forms of knowledge; the lack of availability of information; the lack of published evaluation reports for individual programs (several reports used for this study provided aggregate findings from a series of evaluations); and a possible difference in interpretation over what consists “crime prevention” activities. These factors, and others, are explored in detail in this section. This section also presents the experiences and theoretical and anecdotal guidance from authors that have contributed to the body of knowledge.

Approaches and methodologies to assess implementation and achievement of outcomes

Whereas the evaluations of crime prevention programs remain summary and relatively new, several articles from academic and grey literature sources discuss best practices in approaches and methodologies to assess implementation and achievement of outcomes. Some of these publications draw from existing program evaluations; others remain at a theoretical or anecdotal level.

Indigenous framework

Western approaches to evaluation typically focus on an assessment of program relevance and performance, via systematic collection and analysis of evidence, beginning with the logic model and evaluation framework/matrix and focusing on outcomes and metrics. Evaluations typically are initiated by and grounded in the perspective of the funding agency or policymaker; thus the program logic and outcomes are rooted in an agreed-upon set of values, outcomes, and rules. In response, Indigenous communities and key organizations and stakeholders have spoken about the misalignment of Western evaluation methods/logic and their inability to uncover meaningful outcomes from the perspective of community healing and holistic outcomes (Evans, 2020).

Consistency of data collection methods and an agreed-upon evaluation framework are key elements that increase a program’s ability to be evaluated in the context of Indigenous justice and government programs (Stewart et al., 2014). In this regard, integrating an Indigenous framework can make the evaluation more responsive to Indigenous ethics and values (Jones et al., 2002). Weaving an Indigenous framework into the evaluation design means:

• Ensuring that Indigenous forms of knowledge, research, and investigation are given equal or greater weight than non-Indigenous approaches and methods (DeLancey, 2020).
• Decolonizing the approach, to include self-determination and self-governance. Determining who will set the knowledge seeking agenda (including evaluation questions and methods), the methods that will be used to gather information and knowledge; the final use and dissemination of the knowledge and data; whose voice will lead the process; and whose knowledge will be sought and valued (Evans, 2020).
• Considering the community’s unique context (including economic, environmental, institutional, spiritual, social, and political realities) and avoiding one-size-fits-all approaches and generalizations (Evans, 2020).
• Elaborating on a social-ecological approach, by understanding the complex and dynamic program and community contexts, with a view to designing an evaluation that takes into account histories and local aspirations, as well as ontologies of the communities experiencing the program (Chouinard & Cram, 2020).
• Establishing and maintaining culturally relevant and appropriate guiding principles (Evans, 2020).
• Building in culturally-relevant evaluation methods (e.g., case studies, participant observation, dialogue; Evans, 2020).
• Considering the purpose of evaluation and the impacts of the evaluation process. Understanding that Indigenous evaluation approaches enable communities to identify program and community outcomes that respond to community-level needs rather than the needs of the funding agency or policymaker. Viewing evaluation as an opportunity (and ongoing journey) to make space for collective healing, health, and wellness; as well as the deconstruction of intricate truths, realities, and traumas (Evans, 2020).

The evaluation design is the first critical point of practical application of the Indigenous framework. Stewart et al. (2014) discuss their experience, citing: “The evaluation team had to find ways of ensuring the evaluation privileged the voices of those involved in supporting and delivering the programs, the communities that are affected by their outcomes and most importantly, the young people who receive the programs and contribute their energy to the programs achieving their desired outcomes. The fieldwork for the evaluations involved extensive negotiation, travel and adaptation” (p. 97).

It may be hard to envision an evaluation design that responds to the key tenets of an Indigenous evaluation framework. A qualitative, participatory approach ^Footnote4 may be one way of bringing the focus back to program participants’ voices, allowing them to tell their stories. This may involve data collection methods such as informal and facilitated group discussions, case studies, community and individual story-sharing sessions, and workshop-based participatory analysis (Redfern, 2017).

Chouinard & Cousins (2007) describe a set of program evaluations that used participatory approaches and the design of collaborative methodologies anchored in Participatory Action Research (PAR) principles to ground the evaluation culturally and elicit the participation of Indigenous Peoples in the evaluation process. However, the authors point out that a certain tension existed between the evaluation needs of the Indigenous communities and of the government funders; a tension that is worth mentioning but was underreported in the literature.

Cunneen (2001) described two key approaches to evaluation for Indigenous evaluations: impact evaluation and process evaluation. Impact evaluations focus on the measurable benefits of crime prevention programs and policies to decrease or prevent offending. Process evaluations are a form of formative evaluation, which is designed to identify potential and actual influences on the progress and effectiveness of implementation efforts. Process evaluations may be particularly important for Indigenous communities, as the effect of crime prevention programs may have a strong effect of the community’s sense of confidence in its ability to deal with crime and risk factors (Cunneen, 2001). Moreover, formative evaluation fits well with the Indigenous evaluation framework: it allows the evaluation process to focus on the description of the program and on individual and/or community participation in and experience of program activities. Indeed, the increased use of formative evaluation activities, such as process evaluations, may help capture the intricacies and realities of program efforts, including cultural adaptations, recruitment, engagement, and retention efforts, staffing initiatives, as well as challenges and strategies experienced by the programs (Public Safety Canada, 2021a).

Bowman, Francis and Tyndall (2015) describe a process for Indigenizing evaluation. This includes:

• The development and utilization of a traditional knowledge council
• Use of Indigenous knowledge and institutions to add to the local Indigenous knowledge base
• Incorporation of traditional gifts as part of the evaluation process
• Control and ownership of Indigenous knowledge and data and approval of evaluation process by the Indigenous community (process formalized through Memoranda of Understandings with the evaluator)
• Evaluation data serving to inform and improve community’s understanding and processes of healing and wellness
• Critical examination to identify and prohibit racism and colonial practices and to promote use of Indigenous knowledge and approaches
• Honoring traditional knowledge and making evaluation useful to community needs

Development of measures

After the evaluation design, determining evaluation measures is the next important step. As stated by two articles, measures can be co-constructed by evaluators/researchers and community members to evaluate the outcomes that have been defined by and are relevant for the community interests. Evaluation measures should be feasible and realistic and must be culturally relevant and meaningful (Hausman et al., 2013; City of Calgary, 2017). Indeed, measures and indicators should contribute to the objective of community empowerment (rather than being simply used to ensure external accountabilities; Chouinard & Cousins, 2007).

An important step to developing culturally valid/appropriate measures may be to compare them to the traditional measures (i.e., those that would have otherwise been designed with program funder/policy maker’s needs/outcomes in mind), with a view to comparing advantages and disadvantages of both (Hausman et al., 2013; City of Calgary, 2017). This approach may provide some resolution to the aforementioned tension between the evaluation needs of the Indigenous communities and of the government funders.

Culturally-relevant and localized evaluations

Finally, the evaluation design should also be grounded in the cultural context of the community, giving fundamental importance to differences between communities (e.g., cultural, linguistic, historic, worldviews), enabling Indigenous communities to develop a strengths-based approach, rather than falling back on past negative stereotypes (Chouinard & Cousins, 2007). Additionally, evaluation results cannot be generalized across different Indigenous communities, as shown in Cox and colleagues’ (2016) discussion of evaluations of adolescent violence prevention programs, “success in adolescent violence prevention need not be assumed on the basis of evaluation studies conducted in other countries” (p. 220). Evaluators should consider why and how generalizations can reduce the truth and value of any one community’s efforts and outcomes. Thus, individually tailored and designed evaluations (including methods, questions, time points, etc.) would be driven by the unique aspects of the community and program (Evans, 2020).

Effective approaches

Indigenous evaluation approaches allow communities to identify relevant outcomes based on their needs and realities, rather than on the needs of the funding agency/policymaker. They also inform the processes and mechanisms that enable individual and collective healing and wellness and make space for story-sharing in a process of self-governance and self-determination (Department of Justice Canada, 2020).

The authors describe several elements of effective culturally-relevant evaluation approaches:

• Relationship-building, including with Elders, knowledge keepers, and healers (Dodge-Francis, 2018; Department of Justice Canada, 2020)
• Networks (Dodge-Francis, 2018)
• Understanding of the diversity of Indigenous contexts (Dodge-Francis, 2018)
• Culturally responsive and community driven approach (Department of Justice Canada, 2020)
• Strengths-based perspectives (Department of Justice Canada, 2020)
• Adherence to ethics (Department of Justice Canada, 2020)
• Decolonized approach (Department of Justice Canada, 2020)
• Trauma-informed approach (Department of Justice Canada, 2020)
• Story-sharing and safe spaces (Department of Justice Canada, 2020)
• Appropriate timelines and resources (Department of Justice Canada, 2020)
• Trust between evaluators and community facilitators (Native American Centre for Excellence, 2010)
• Connection between the knowledge and data being collected and the direct community benefit (Chouinard & Cousins, 2007; Native American Centre for Excellence, 2010)
• Commitment to knowledge sharing, learning, and training (Native American Centre for Excellence, 2010)
• Openness to discuss issues of cultural dissonance that may arise throughout the evaluation (Native American Centre for Excellence, 2010)
• Development of culturally-relevant outcomes, measures, and indicators, expanding beyond the traditional conceptualization of what is seen to be accurate, reliable, and valid evaluation research and information (Chouinard & Cousins, 2007)
• Linking culturally-competent evaluation to existing literature (e.g., on evaluation use, participatory approaches, capacity building; Chouinard & Cousins, 2007)
• Concerted dialogue about trust, data ownership, and sovereign rights of Indigenous Peoples (Bowman et al., 2015)
• Ensuring appropriate financial (and other) resources to carry out measured, careful, culturally-competent evaluation (Bowman et al., 2015)

Use and effectiveness of data collection methods

As seen in Table 5, existing evaluations of crime prevention programs for Indigenous communities have relied primarily on Westernized evaluation methods (pre- and post-survey data; interviews; focus group sessions; control-experimental group design; self-report questionnaires) applied to outcome and process evaluations. Five evaluations included participatory evaluation methods: the evaluations of the CIRCLE project; the Aboriginal Family and Community Healing Program; the Sisseton Wahepton Oyate IASAP Demonstration Project; the Balgo Women’s Law Camp; and Youth Build. For these programs, there is currently no information or limited information on the effectiveness of the selected data collection methods.

Furthermore, it is often difficult to find information on the evaluation methods used to assess the programs in question. Indeed, it may be possible that there are a large number of evaluations conducted privately/not published to which access is limited.

Contribution of Indigenous cultural practices, traditions, and activities to crime prevention program outcomes

In general, there is little rigorous evaluation evidence to show whether crime prevention programs are effective in reducing the over-representation of Indigenous young people and adults in the criminal justice system. Few programs have been comprehensively evaluated and demonstrate effectiveness (Higgins & Davis, 2014). Of those, even fewer assess the contribution of Indigenous cultural practices, traditions, and activities to crime prevention outcomes.

In lieu of a robust body of knowledge on the topic, crime prevention programming often begins with the knowledge of what works in the broader society, with subsequent incorporation of Indigenous rituals and practices (Linden, 2001; Lowe et al., 2012). However, as seen in the evaluation of the Tribal Strategies Against Violence (TSAV) program, certain approaches are not viable, as they are not culturally relevant or appropriate, nor are they adequately grounded in Indigenous histories, worldviews, and practices (Nichols et al., 2002). Finally, although few studies evaluate the specific link between culturally-relevant programming and crime prevention outcomes, the results of a study by Lowe and colleagues (2012) found that a culturally based intervention for Indigenous youth was significantly more effective than a non-culturally based intervention.

The following table outlines programs where evaluation findings made specific reference to inclusion of Indigenous cultural activities, values, worldviews, traditions, and practices:

More research is needed to understand the issues facing Indigenous young people, as well as the effects and impacts of culturally-relevant crime prevention programs in communities (Cox et al., 2016; Morsette et al., 2012; OJJDP, 2016). Despite this, Higgins and Davis (2014) provide a list of promising practices identified in evaluations:

• Appropriately resourced interventions and evaluations and that are based on clear program logic
• Cultural appropriateness and cultural competence throughout entire evaluation design and process
• Collaboration between and engagement with Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals, communities, organizations, and partners
• Development and use of a holistic and comprehensive approach to address multiple and complex needs

Opportunities for culturally-competent evaluation

The literature revealed four key opportunities for culturally-competent evaluations:

Strengthen link between federal government and communities: focusing on culturally-competent evaluation and growing the body of knowledge allows funders and policymakers to consider aligning existing evaluation tools and processes with Indigenous needs and frameworks, as well as to develop and apply opportunities for collaboration and harmonization between the community level and federal partners (Public Safety Canada, 2019).

The evaluator as an advocate: the evaluator can become an important advocate for the community when they respect and honour community viewpoints, values, and concern. The evaluator can become a point of liaison, representing communities’ needs to program funders and policymakers. The role requires the evaluator to engage with the program from the start, telling the story, honouring the community and its context and realities, empowering the community, and using culturally valid measures (Grover, 2010).

Co-development: evaluation – particularly one rooted in dialogue and participatory approaches – provides an opportunity for knowledge sharing; teaching; co-development of approaches, methods and solutions; and mobilization of community and experiential knowledge to ground the evaluation (Dodge-Francis, 2018).

Drawing on Indigenous knowledge: in contrast to scientific forms of knowledge (which are usually general and generalizable), Indigenous knowledge is local and specific and can draw on a very long-term information base. There is an opportunity to weave the two forms of knowledge together, to arrive at a relevant and meaningful picture of the program and its effectiveness in meeting community needs (Emery, 2000).

Barriers, limitations, and risks of culturally-competent evaluation

The literature points to several barriers, limitations and risks associated with culturally-competent evaluation.

Relationship barriers

Issues of trust are an important barrier in the relationship between Indigenous communities, program participants and evaluators, researchers, and funding organizations/policymakers. For example, trust issues were noted as one of the barriers to participation for the evaluation of Walking the Path Together. This issue of trust on behalf of the participants extended to concerns about confidentiality, and a fear of losing children to welfare of potential impacts on social assistance benefits that may result from their participation in the program (Bania, 2017; Public Safety Canada, 2018b). In the case of the evaluation of the SNAP program, it was found that the parents of Indigenous youth at risk, who reside in rural areas, had a higher level of concern about stigmatization associated with the programming, reducing their willingness to participate (Public Safety Canada, 2013). This resulted in a smaller number of participants, which can make data analysis more difficult during program evaluations.

One article also speaks to the relationship barrier posed by paternalistic policies and approaches, which undermine community leadership and the potential for collective efficacy (Cooper et al., 2016). In fact, there may be a pre-existing mistrust of government agencies conducting evaluation; resentment of processes imposed from outside the community; a sense that funders do not understand or respect communities, and do not understand Indigenous evaluation approaches; and a perception that evaluation tools and approaches are used as “management tools” for “dealing” with Indigenous communities (Grover, 2010).

Planning barrier

Due to resource and capacity constraints, it may be rare for communities to conduct a detailed analysis of existing, systemic issues before moving ahead with prevention programs, causing a possible rift between program outcomes and need. Furthermore, poorly resourced evaluations are required to make choices that may deprive certain groups or interests from being fully represented (Cooper et al., 2016).

Moreover, one evaluation found that pressing deadlines (e.g., for grant requirements) posed a barrier to participation, as the participants did not have time to absorb and process information and consider how the data fit in the picture of their communities. The same study found that capacity building is an important element of evaluation and that evaluations must build in time to support participants in their ability to read and interpret data and findings. Finally, the study also found that poor planning of on-site time was a barrier to the evaluation process. Indeed, there may be a need for more evaluator time spent on site than for other communities, as relationships and family loyalty may be more highly valued than the Western evaluation-related values of efficiency, timeliness, and objectivity (Grover, 2010).

Evaluation methods and data barriers

Weaving together Indigenous frameworks with evaluations processes initially designed based on the tenets of Western research or the needs of government funders or policymakers is not without its challenges, particularly when it comes to the tension between traditional evaluation approaches and Indigenous forms of knowledge and knowledge creation.

One author speaks to the difficulty of gathering epidemiological data in Indigenous settings, due to the lack of data or gaps in mainstream data collection and reporting systems that may, for instance, not include data from reserves or may be inconsistent across jurisdictions. Qualitative methods and reliance on storytelling may not be considered as relevant or rigorous by some readers of evaluations coming from a Western worldview. In addition, quantitative data gathering and analysis may be limited (Grover, 2010).

Although best practice recommends that evaluations be specific and tailored to each community and program, the disadvantage may be that evaluation approaches become extremely specific and require expertise and knowledge to evaluate the programs that address the circumstances around each community’s unique problems. This may make evaluation in Indigenous settings highly specialized and findings difficult to extrapolate to other situations (Linden, 2001). Adversely, the issue with generalizing results is that they may dilute the knowledge developed and gathered through a participatory process; may not be appropriate for other contexts/situations; and may result in Indigenous disempowerment.

One article reported that evaluators, researchers, and the funding agency found it difficult to let go of scientific assumptions and constructions of what is traditionally considered “good evaluation.” In this particular instance, uncertainties and discomfort were resolved when the evaluation team developed an ongoing dialogue with the local community, valuing their input, maintaining consistent communication, and sharing findings in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Thus, although the evaluators initially saw the close interactions with the program as a threat to the evaluation’s objectivity, the methods were ultimately responsive to community values and contexts (Richmond et al., 2008).

Evaluation protocols, outcomes, and measures that fail to address Indigenous realities, contexts, knowledge, needs, and worldviews prevent communities and evaluators to develop meaningful content and knowledge. Additionally, politically driven policies that ignore key evaluation findings lead to poor policy and financial waste, disabusing community leadership of its potential to become a force for change (Cooper et al., 2016).

Access

Barriers to access are particularly relevant for those communities that may be remote or under-resourced. For example, the evaluation of the Walking the Path Together Program revealed that travel distance was a barrier to participation in the program and in the evaluation (NCPC, 2014; Public Safety Canada, 2018b). Similarly, implementation findings from the SNAP Program evaluation showed that Indigenous youth in rural communities may have more difficulty accessing programming and that Indigenous youth may have more difficulty understanding the content of the curriculum/program due to language barriers or if cultural norms have not been appropriately integrated (Public Safety Canada, 2013). Similar problems were noted with employees having difficulties completing standardized instruments and data entry for the evaluation. Other barriers may include difficulty in accessing certain respondent groups (e.g., youth that are not attending school).

Lessons learned

Finally, the research provides insights on lessons learned about evaluation from past evaluations of Indigenous crime prevention programs:

• Building trust with communities, programs, and participants can take a long time (e.g., over a year) and is an essential element of success that should not be overlooked (Bania, 2017; Public Safety Canada, 2008; 2018b).
• A collaborative approach can encourage community ownerships and leverage resources, even when they may be limited. Furthermore, community leadership can only be unlocked via genuine crime prevention partnerships (Cooper et al., 2016; Public Safety Canada, 2008).
• The evaluation project should factor in a capacity building component, to ensure knowledge sharing and co-development of evaluation and research strategies and findings (Public Safety Canada, 2008).
• The use of singular, “one-size-fits-all” program and evaluation designs should be questioned; instead, designs should be based on the needs, strengths, circumstances, and realities of different communities (Cooper et al., 2016).
• Knowledge should be shared in different formats to suit the diversity of users and participants (e.g., new media can include graphic illustrations, videos, storytelling; Emery, 2000).
• Preserving the autonomy, partnership, and interests of Indigenous Peoples is key to responsible evaluation (Emery, 2000).
• The role of the evaluator is context- and culture-specific; thus the evaluator must begin their process with the interests, realities, and context of the communities in mind (Richmond et al., 2008).
• Planning for culturally-competent evaluations must include appropriate resourcing, flexibility, communication, and coordination with and between Indigenous communities and government agencies, and appropriate systems (e.g., computerized data collection systems; Bania, 2017; Public Safety Canada, 2018b).

Conclusions

Indigenous Peoples are over-represented at all stages of the criminal justice system, including as victims of crime, those charged with a criminal offence, those incarcerated in correctional facilities, and those who are returned to custody following release from prison. The reasons for the over-representation are rooted in a history of colonization of Indigenous Peoples, including the impacts of colonialism, residential schools and the sixties scoop, systemic discrimination, the differential impact of criminal justice policies, and socio-economic marginalization.

In general, research has determined that individual, family, peer, school, and community risk factors for involvement in criminal behaviour are similar for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people (e.g., being young, male, unhealthy relationships, low socio-economic status, lower educational levels, unemployment, substance use, etc.). The higher incidence of these risk factors in Indigenous populations explains much of the high rates of offending, although risk factors which are unique to Indigenous Peoples also need to be considered (i.e., the effects of colonialism). Research has found that Indigenous Peoples tend to experience multiple levels of marginality, face unique social issues which can contribute to their involvement in the criminal justice system, and be exposed to fewer protective factors. Several specific protective factors for Indigenous Peoples also exist, including engagement in traditional/cultural practices, positive cultural identity, strong extended-family, and community involvement.

The main purpose of this literature review was to address two research questions:

• How have Indigenous cultural practices, traditions, and activities been included in crime prevention programming and what is their connection with crime prevention?
• How have culturally-relevant crime prevention programs been evaluated and what is their contribution to the crime prevention outcomes?

The following provides a summary of the findings from the review.

Culturally-relevant programming

The multiple levels of marginality that Indigenous Peoples face, and the specific protective factors for Indigenous Peoples highlight the need for different approaches to crime prevention. Indeed, based on the review of the literature, many existing Indigenous programs are holistic and multi-faceted in nature with the intent of addressing several issues as a crime prevention approach (e.g., increasing cultural connections, enhancing family cohesion, improving problem-solving skills). Some of the programs reviewed attempted to address early risk factors that could lead to youth behaviour issues (e.g., family violence, parenting skills); some focused on improving protective factors among at-risk youth; and others provided a mechanism to reduce crime in the community by utilizing an alternative diversion model (e.g., restorative justice models).

Linking existing programming to risk factors, many Indigenous programs have the same goals as non-Indigenous crime prevention programming (e.g., improving individual factors such as prosocial attitudes; supporting families; helping youth develop healthy relationships with their peers; improving school environments and academic achievement; enhancing community capacity and mobilization). However, most Indigenous-specific programs also included a variety of cultural elements to help connect participants to their culture, ensure the program content is relevant, involve the community, and to include spirituality and healing.

The following key components of cultural programming were identified in the literature: 1) a culturally-appropriate program design (i.e., holistic programs designed by, and for, Indigenous communities or individuals, incorporating culturally-relevant concepts, approaches, and staff); 2) community involvement in the design, implementation, and management of programs; 3) incorporation of traditional cultural philosophies, knowledge, and wisdom (i.e., sacred teachings, cultural symbols, spiritualism, traditional languages); and 4) Indigenous-specific activities and experiences (e.g., traditional Indigenous activities, ceremonies, on-the-land experiences).

In conceptualizing the role and objectives of crime prevention programs, studies have emphasized the need to address the unique risk factors that Indigenous Peoples face, including the effects of colonization, residential schools and the sixties scoop, systemic discrimination, and socio-economic marginalization. Some articles provided results on the outcome of the programs, often pointing to success in increasing connections to culture and the community, and individual protective factors. Unfortunately, information on the role that cultural approaches played in addressing risk or protective factors and the extent to which the cultural elements made a difference was very limited.

Opportunities

The literature identified several opportunities associated with Indigenous crime prevention programs. These include: 1) an opportunity for additional research on the impacts of cultural practices, traditions, and activities in Indigenous-specific crime prevention programs; 2) incorporating Indigenous-specific cultural components into crime prevention programs for Indigenous Peoples to more effectively address risk and protective factors that are specific to Indigenous Peoples (e.g., impacts of colonization, residential schools, intergenerational trauma); 3) completing a community assessment to identify strengths and areas of concern for the community and tailoring a crime prevention program to address the issues and draw upon the strengths; 4) developing crime prevention programs specifically for Indigenous Peoples by utilizing a holistic approach to crime prevention and community safety; 5) grounding the work in community ownership and control (in accordance with OCAP® principles); and, 6) examining lessons learned and best practices in crime prevention program for Indigenous Peoples from other countries.

Risks

Conversely, some of the risks associated with culturally-relevant programming include: 1) attempts to adapt programs developed for non-Indigenous populations to Indigenous contexts may not be as effective or appropriate as a fully Indigenous-designed program; 2) importing an Indigenous-specific program developed for one community into another community may not work effectively; 3) focusing on individualized interventions rather than utilizing a more holistic approach that considers emotional, mental, spiritual, and physical aspects of a person in connection with family, community, and the natural environment may not be effective; and, 4) programs may fail if they do not have appropriate resources to design, implement and monitor the program. This includes the need for sustainable funding to run the program in the long term, as well as the required skills and capacities in the community to deliver the program.

Lessons learned

The literature on crime prevention programs for Indigenous Peoples provides some lessons learned. It is critically important that Indigenous communities are involved in the design and implementation of crime prevention programs; that the programs respect OCAP® principles; and that program designers and facilitators employ cultural humility (sensitivity and non-judgmental attitudes). Programs should also take a holistic, inter-related and comprehensive approach which incorporates Indigenous worldviews to address the root causes of criminal behaviour and aid healing, and which works with individual, family, and community level strengths. Programs need to be well resourced, including secure and long-term funding and well informed and equipped resources and staff in addition to Indigenous staff and leaders. Finally, it is important that culturally-relevant elements in crime prevention programming be both planned and evaluated. This includes the use of cultural practices and activities; the involvement of Indigenous leaders and community members; using Indigenous forms of knowledge and wisdom in developing a program; and starting from a place of trust in the program, with the aim of strengthening cultural identification and building connections with the community.

Culturally-competent evaluation

Evaluation of culturally-relevant programs is relatively new (dating from 2000 to present) and is limited to evaluations of programs in Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Culturally-competent evaluations are even harder to find.

Best practices

Although there is an absence of evaluated crime prevention programs focusing on Indigenous populations, several articles discuss best practices for (future) program evaluation. Authors advocate the use of Indigenous frameworks and a concerted effort at evaluation using Indigenous-specific approaches, by: 1) developing an evaluation design that responds to the key tenets of an Indigenous evaluation framework (for instance, by using a qualitative, participatory approach; designing impact and process evaluations; using Indigenous knowledge and institutions, etc.); 2) co-constructing evaluation measures with Indigenous communities and leaders, ensuring that they contribute to the objective of community empowerment; 3) grounding the evaluation design and conduct in the cultural context of the community, giving fundamental importance to differences between communities and allowing communities to develop a strengths-based approach; and 4) ensuring key culturally-relevant evaluation components are present (e.g., relationship building, adherence to ethics, story-sharing and safe spaces, appropriate timelines and resources, trust, commitment to knowledge sharing, learning and training, discussion of cultural dissonance, etc.).

Data collection methods

To date, most evaluations have relied primarily on mainstream/Western evaluation methods (e.g., pre- and post-survey data, interviews, focus group sessions, etc.) applied to outcome and process evaluations and there has been little evaluation of the specific effect and contribution of culturally-relevant program components to crime prevention objectives. Only five evaluations employed participatory evaluation methods (i.e., grounded in the Community Based Participatory Research/CBPR method), with no information on the effectiveness of these methods.

Effectiveness of culturally-relevant approaches

Looking at the results of culturally-relevant programs, in general, there is little rigorous evaluation evidence to show whether crime prevention programs are effective in reducing the over-representation of Indigenous young people and adults in the criminal justice system. Few programs have been comprehensively evaluated and demonstrate effectiveness. Of those, even fewer assess the contribution of Indigenous cultural practices, traditions, and activities to crime prevention outcomes, although evidence from several existing evaluations indicate that holistic, culturally-relevant approaches and activities contribute to healing, reducing substance abuse, and supporting youth in their personal and cultural growth. In lieu of a robust body of knowledge on the topic, crime prevention programming often begins with the knowledge of what works in the broader society, with subsequent incorporation of Indigenous rituals and practices. More research and evaluation are required to uncover the link between culturally-relevant programming and crime prevention.

Opportunities

Four key opportunities emerged related to culturally-competent evaluations: 1) strengthening the link between federal governments and communities (i.e., collaboration and harmonization between the community level and federal partners as they work together to develop evaluation approaches and methods aligned with Indigenous needs and frameworks); 2) strengthening the role of the evaluator as an advocate for the community and its viewpoints, values, and concerns, and a liaison between communities and funders/policymakers; 3) co-development of evaluation approaches rooted in dialogue and equal participation, with a view to mobilizing community strengths; and, 4) drawing on Indigenous knowledge and weaving together both long-term, traditional wisdom and proven evaluation approaches.

Barriers

The literature points to several barriers, limitations and risks associated with culturally-competent evaluation: 1) relationship barriers (particularly when it comes to building trust and addressing the lasting impact of paternalistic policies and approaches); 2) planning challenges, including resource and capacity constraints and pressing deadlines, which are at odds with the goals and challenges of Indigenous evaluation methods; 3) evaluation method- and data- related barriers (resorting to using Westernized research designs and data collection methods; lack of data or inconsistent data across jurisdictions; the view that qualitative methods are not “as rigorous” and discomfort from evaluators about the use of new approaches; and failing to ground evaluation protocols, outcomes, and measures in Indigenous realities, contexts, knowledge, needs and worldviews); and, 4) barriers to access, particularly for communities that are remote or under-resourced.

Lessons learned

The literature on evaluation of Indigenous crime prevention programs reveals eight key lessons learned:

1. Building trust with communities, programs, and participants can take a long time (e.g., over a year) and is an essential element of success that should not be overlooked.
2. A collaborative approach can encourage community ownerships and leverage resources, even when they may be limited. Furthermore, community leadership can only be unlocked via genuine crime prevention partnerships.
3. The evaluation project should factor in a capacity building component, to ensure knowledge sharing and co-development of evaluation and research strategies and findings.
4. The use of singular, “one-size-fits-all” program and evaluation designs should be questioned; instead, designs should be based on the needs, strengths, circumstances, and realities of different communities.
5. Knowledge should be shared in different formats, to suit the diversity of users and participants (e.g., new media can include graphic illustrations, videos, storytelling).
6. Preserving the autonomy, partnership, and interests of Indigenous Peoples is key to responsible evaluation.
7. The role of the evaluator is context- and culture-specific; thus, the evaluator must begin their process with the interests, realities, and context of the communities in mind.
8. Planning for culturally-competent evaluations must include appropriate resourcing, flexibility, communication, and coordination with and between Indigenous communities and government agencies, and appropriate systems (e.g., computerized data collection systems).

Contributions of this literature to the field

This literature starts by providing a comprehensive view of risk and protective factors – both general and those that apply specifically to Indigenous communities and peoples. Furthermore, the literature collects and informs on existing crime prevention programs in Indigenous communities, highlighting where programs are culturally-relevant and where they have been evaluated. The evaluation section features a discussion of evaluation methods and findings to date. What arises prominently from the research are best practices and guidance on how to move forward with the development of culturally-relevant programming; how to use Indigenous evaluation approaches; and lessons learned/areas for future improvement.

Overall strengths

This literature review employed an extensive and rigorous methodological approach applied to a relatively new body of knowledge (which provides a useful indicator for the interest in this field). This literature review provides a comprehensive, sequential discussion of the over-representation of Indigenous Peoples at all stages of the criminal justice system; the risk and protective factors faced by Indigenous Peoples in relation to crime prevention; and existing crime prevention programming for Indigenous Peoples and communities and evaluations thereof.

Overall weaknesses

Overall, research on this subject is new and under-developed. Several weaknesses were identified:

1. Overall, the research is very new, with the majority of articles dating from 2014 to 2021, and with many preliminary findings on programs.
2. The majority of the literature uncovered was grey literature (as opposed to academic, peer reviewed research); thus, it is not possible to report on findings from longitudinal studies, making causality difficult to establish.
3. Evaluations of crime prevention programs in Indigenous communities are few, with culturally-competent evaluations being even more scarce. Findings related to evaluation approaches, methods, and best practices thus arise from anecdotal evidence and speculative research suggestions provided by the authors.
4. To date, there has not been any examination of the effectiveness of specific culturally-relevant components.
5. It appears that very few of the articles and reports reviewed were prepared by Indigenous authors – it would be important to hear the views of Indigenous researchers and communities.
6. Most of the literature is based on research from Canada, Australia, the United States, and New Zealand. A limited amount of information was found from the Philippines, South Africa, Hungary. Mexico, and Norway.
7. The research review was only conducted with English articles and reports.

Opportunities and gaps for further research

Several opportunities and gaps for further research arise from this literature review:

1. Supporting longitudinal research to examine the role of culturally-relevant activities.
2. Conducting research from Indigenous viewpoints, grounded in Indigenous knowledge and wisdom.
3. Conducting intersectional research to further understand the multivariate risk factors faced by Indigenous Peoples, in Canada and abroad.
4. Co-designing programs and research on crime prevention with Indigenous community members and leaders, leveraging local and traditional knowledge; sharing learnings and information; and building trusting relationships for future research.
5. Evaluating the effectiveness of cultural practices, traditions, and activities separately, in order to understand the links between cultural components and crime prevention, and the specific effects of the cultural components.
6. Utilizing Indigenous evaluation methods, approaches, and protocols.

Recommendations and next steps for research

Based on the findings in this literature review, it is recommended that Public Safety Canada and its network of government, academic, and community partners:

1. Support longitudinal research to understand the role of culturally-relevant programming as it relates to crime prevention objectives and outcomes.
2. Create funding opportunities to support supplementary research to address the research opportunities and gaps listed in the section above, including gathering information from Indigenous communities and organizations.
3. Co-develop, implement, and evaluate culturally-relevant crime prevention programming with Indigenous communities, in Canada and abroad.
4. Work with Indigenous communities to develop guidance and protocols for Indigenous evaluation methods and approaches. Implement and report on the use of Indigenous evaluation approaches.

References

Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission (1999). Report of the Aboriginal justice inquiry of Manitoba. http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volume.html.

Adams, E. (2016). Leading a framework for cultural safety and humility for First Nations in British Columbia. First Nations Health Authority. https://www.fnha.ca/Documents/FNHA-Leading-a-Framework-for-Cultural-Safety-and-Humility-for-First-Nations-in-British-Columbia.pdf.

Allard, T. (2010). Understanding and preventing Indigenous offending. Indigenous Justice Clearinghouse. https://www.indigenousjustice.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/mp/files/publications/files/brief009-v1.pdf.

Allen, M. (2020). Crime reported by police serving areas where the majority of the population is Indigenous, 2018. Juristat. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/85-002-x/2020001/article/00013-eng.pdf?st=YV1AbQ8y.

Arbreton, A.J.A., & McClanahan, W.S. (2002). Targeted outreach: Boys & Girls clubs of America's approach to gang prevention and intervention. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED466518.pdf.

Armstrong, A. & Jaffray, B. (2021). Homicide in Canada. Juristat. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2021001/article/00017-eng.htm.

Arnott, A., Guenther, J., Davis, V., Foster, D., & Cummings, E. (2010). Evaluation of the Akeyulerre Healing Centre. Charles Darwin University Social Partnerships in Learning Consortium. https://www.academia.edu/3236292/Evaluation_of_the_Akeyulerre_Healing_Centre?email_work_card=view-paper.

Assembly of First Nations (2011). Fact sheet - Quality of life of First Nations. https://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/factsheets/quality_of_life_final_fe.pdf. 

Australian Institute of Criminology (2003). Approaches to understanding crime prevention. AIC Reduction Matters Series, 1448-1383. https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/crm/crm1.

Australian Institute of Health & Welfare & Australian Institute of Family Studies (2016). Family violence prevention programs in Indigenous communities (Resource sheet no. 37.) https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/c0e5bdde-e9c4-4a1f-808e-256191835cde/ctgc-rs37.pdf.aspx?inline=true. 

Bania, M. (2017). Culture as catalyst: Preventing the criminalization of Indigenous youth. Crime Prevention Ottawa. https://www.thunderbay.ca/en/city-services/resources/Documents/Crime-Prevention/Culture-as-Catalyst-Prevention-the-Criminalization-of-Indigenous-Youth-final-report.pdf. 

Bartels, L. (2011). Crime prevention programs for culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Australia (Research in Practice Report No. 18). Australian Institute of Criminology. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2188686.

Battams, S., Delany-Crowe, T., Fisher, M., Wright, L., Krieg, A., McDermott, D., & Baum, F. (2021). Applying crime prevention and health promotion frameworks to the problem of high incarceration rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations: Lessons from a case study from Victoria. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 12(2), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2021.12.2.10208

Beaudette, J., Cheverie, M., & Gobeil, R. (2014). Aboriginal women: Profile and changing population (Report No. R-341). Correctional Service of Canada. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/scc-csc/PS83-3-341-eng.pdf 

Bent Arrow Traditional Healing Society (2021). Coyote pride youth mentoring program. https://bentarrow.ca/coyote-pride/.

Beyond Blue (2021). Protective and risk factors. https://www.beyondblue.org.au/who-does-it-affect/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-people/risk-factor

Boksa, P., Joober, R., & Kirmayer, L.J. (2015). Mental wellness in Canada’s Aboriginal communities: striving toward reconciliation. J Psychiatry Neurosci, 40(6), 363-365. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4622632/ 

Bonta, J., & Andrews, D.A. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Public Safety Canada. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rsk-nd-rspnsvty/index-en.aspx.

Bowman, N.R., Francis, C.D., & Tyndall, M. (2015). Culturally responsive Indigenous evaluation: A practical approach for evaluating Indigenous projects in tribal reservation contexts. In S. Hood, R. Hopson & H. Frierson (Eds.), Continuing the Journey to Reposition Culture and Cultural Context in Evaluation Theory and Practice (pp. 335-359). Information Age Publishing. http://lead.wceruw.org/Bowman-bookChapter.pdf.

Boyce, J. (2016). Victimization of Aboriginal people in Canada, 2014. Juristat. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14631-eng.pdf?st=-eKVgClX.

Brascoupé, S., & Waters, C. (2009). Cultural safety exploring the applicability of the concept of cultural safety to Aboriginal health and community wellness. International Journal of Indigenous Health, 5(2), 6–41. https://doi.org/10.3138/ijih.v5i2.28981

Bressan, A., & Coady, K. (2017). Guilty pleas among Indigenous people in Canada. Department of Justice Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/gp-pc/gp-pc.pdf.

Brownlee, K., Rawana, E.P., & MacArthur, J. (2012). Implementation of a strengths-based approach to teaching in an elementary school. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 4(2), 106-113. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=464f83a41cb1341615996ade81cf7f05573e7777

Burczycka, M., & Conroy, S. (2017). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2015. Juristat. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/14698-eng.htm 

Campbell Research Associates (2008). Evaluation of the Aboriginal legal services of Toronto Gladue caseworker program: Year three October 2006-September 2007. https://www.aboriginallegal.ca/uploads/1/4/1/7/141757576/gladue-year-three-evaluation.pdf 

Capobianco, L., & Shaw, M. (2003). Crime prevention and Indigenous communities: Current international strategies and programmes. International Centre for Crime Prevention. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cnmcs-plcng/cn35055-eng.pdf.

Capobianco, L., Shaw, M., & Sagant, V. (2009). Community safety and Indigenous peoples: Sharing knowledge, insights and action. International Centre for Crime Prevention. https://cipc-icpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Community_Safety_and_Indigenous_Peoples_ANG.pdf.

Cardinal, S., & Pepler, D.J. (2021). Community journey of change through relational determinants of health. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 12(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2021.12.3.11058

Carrington, P., Matarazzo, A., & deSouza, P. (2005). Court careers of a Canadian birth cohort (Crime and Justice Research Paper Series, Volume 2005, No. 6). Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-561-m/85-561-m2005006-eng.htm

Carter, S., Straits, K.J.E., & Hall, M. (2007). Project Venture: Evaluation of an experiential, culturally based approach to substance abuse prevention with American Indian youth. Journal of Experiential Education, 29(3), 397–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590702900315

Chandler, M.J., & Lalonde, C. (1998). Cultural continuity as a hedge against suicide in Canada's First Nations. Transcultural Psychiatry, 35(2), 191–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/136346159803500202.

Chansonneuve, D. (2005). Reclaiming connections: Understanding residential school trauma among Aboriginal people. Aboriginal Healing Foundation. http://archives.algomau.ca/main/sites/default/files/2010-058_001_011.pdf.

Cherney, A. (2004). Crime prevention/community safety partnerships in action: Victorian experience. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 15(3), 237-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2004.12036296.

Chouinard, J.A., & Cousins, J.B. (2007). Culturally competent evaluation for Aboriginal communities: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Evaluation, 4(8), 40-57. http://www.welllivinghouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/culturally-competent-eval-for-Abor-communities.pdf. 

Chouinard, J.A., & Cram, F. (2020). Culturally responsive approaches to evaluation: Empirical implications for theory and practice. Sage. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/culturally-responsive-approaches-to-evaluation/book255371.

Canadian Institute of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council & Social Sciences and Health Research Council (2018). Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/documents/tcps2-2018-en-interactive-final.pdf.

Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (2021). Indigenous peoples and communities. https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100013785/1529102490303.

City of Calgary (2017). Siim ohksin: Wahkotiwin research brief and strategy: Approaches towards crime prevention among Indigenous people. https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/www/csps/cns/documents/design-cpip-research-briefs-indigenous--brief.pdf 

Clairmont, D. (2006). Aboriginal policing in Canada: An overview of developments in First Nations. https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipperwash/policy_part/research/pdf/Clairmont_Aboriginal_Policing.pdf.

Clark, S. (2011). The Nunavut court of justice: An example of challenges and alternatives for communities and for the administration of justice. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 53(3), 343-370. https://utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjccj.53.3.343.

Clark, S. (2019). Overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the Canadian criminal justice system: Causes and responses. Department of Justice Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/oip-cjs/oip-cjs-en.pdf.

Clauss-Ehlers, C.S. (2010). Encyclopedia of cross-cultural school psychology. Springer. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-0-387-71799-9_115.

Conrad, D. (2020). Youth participatory action research and applied theatre engagement: Supporting Indigenous youth survivance and resurgence. University of Toronto Press, 41(2), 258-277. https://www.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/tric.41.2.a04.

Cooper, T., Scott, J., Barclay, E., Sims, M., & Love, T. (2016). Crime prevention and young people: Models and future direction for youth night patrols. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 18(4), 266–283. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41300-016-0009-9.

Cooper, T., & Bahn, S. (2010). Evaluation of the city of Stirling Reel connections project. Draft final report. Edith Cowan University. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cnmcs-plcng/cn13868-eng.pdf.

Corrado, R.R., & Cohen, M. (2013). Aboriginal youth at risk: The role of education, mobility, housing, employment, and language as protective factors for problem and criminal behaviours. In P. Dinsdale, J. White, & C. Hanselmann (Eds.), Urban Aboriginal communities in Canada: Complexities, challenges, opportunities, pp. 153-172. Thompson Educational Publishing, Inc. http://thompsonbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/UACC_Ch7.pdf.

Correctional Service of Canada (2019a). Sections 81 and 84, federal corrections and the Indigenous community. https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/002/003/002003-0004-en.shtml.

Correctional Service of Canada (2019b). Quick facts: The federal offender population profile 2018. https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/publications/092/005007-3033-eng.pdf.  

Cortés-Kaplan, H., & Dunbar, L. (2021). Crime prevention programs in Canada: Examining key implementation elements for Indigenous populations (Research Report 2021-R001). Public Safety Canada. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2021-r001/2021-r001-en.pdf.

Courage Partners (2011). Interim evaluation of youth in communities. Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2012/interim_evaluation_yic_report.pdf.

Cox, E., Leung, R., Baksheev, G., Day, A., Toumbourou, J.W., Miller, P., Kremer, P., & Walker, A. (2016). Violence prevention and intervention programmes for adolescents in Australia: A systematic review. Australian Psychologist, 51(3), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12168.

Crooks, C.V., Chiodo, D., Thomas, D., & Hughes, R. (2010). Strengths-based programming for First Nations youth in schools: Building engagement through healthy relationships and leadership skills. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8, 160–173. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/aprci/229.

Cunneen, C. (2001). The impact of crime prevention on Aboriginal communities. University of Sydney. https://northlake-h.schools.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/doe/sws/schools/n/northlake-h/localcontent/crimepreventioninaboriginalcommunities.pdf.  

dé Ishtar, Z. (2007). Aboriginal women have answers themselves. Report of the Balgo Women’s Law Camp. https://parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/commit.nsf/luInquiryPublicSubmissions/4435AABDAFDA77A9482578310040CF4F/$file/Submission%2015.pdf.

DeLancey, D. (2020). Indigenous evaluation in Northwest Territories: Opportunities and challenges. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 34(3), 492-512. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.68837.

Department of Justice Canada (2015). Family Violence Initiative. Compendium of promising practices to reduce violence and increase safety of Aboriginal women in Canada - Compendium Annex: Detailed practice descriptions. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/fv-vf/annex-annexe/p70.html.

Department of Justice (2020). State of the criminal justice system annual report. 2020 report: Focus on women. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/state-etat/2021rpt-rap2021/

Department of Justice Canada (2021). Understanding the over-representation of Indigenous individuals in the criminal justice system. State of the criminal justice system dashboard. https://www.justice.gc.ca/socjs-esjp/en/ind-aut/uo-cs#marginalization.

Development Services Group, Inc. (2013). Protective factors for populations served by the administration on children, youth, and families: A literature review and theoretical framework. Office on Child Abuse and Neglect Children’s Bureau Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. http://www.dsgonline.com/acyf/DSG%20Protective%20Factors%20Literature%20Review%202013.pdf.

Development Services Group, Inc. (2015a). Protective factors for delinquency. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Protective%20Factors.pdf.

Development Services Group, Inc. (2015b). Risk factors for delinquency. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Risk%20Factors.pdf

Dickson-Gilmore, J. (1992). Finding the ways of the ancestors. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 34(3-4), 479-502. https://www.utpjournals.press/toc/cjcrim/34/3-4.

Dion Stout, M., & Kipling, G. (2003). Aboriginal people, resilience and the residential school legacy. Aboriginal Healing Foundation. https://www.ahf.ca/downloads/resilience.pdf.

Dobia, B., Bodkin-Andrews, G., Parada, R., O’Rourke, V., Gilbert, S., Daley, A. & Roffey, S. (2013). Aboriginal girls circle: Enhancing connectedness and promoting resilience for Aboriginal girls. Final pilot report. University of Western Sydney. https://www.academia.edu/19553477/Aboriginal_Girls_Circle_enhancing_connectedness_and_promoting_resilience_for_Aboriginal_girls_Final_Pilot_Report?email_work_card=view-paper

Dodge-Francis, C. (2018). Culturally responsive Indigenous evaluation and Tribal governments: Understanding the relationship. New Directions for Evaluation, 2018(159), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20329.

Doone, P. (2000). Report on combating and preventing Maori crime. Wellington: Crime Prevention Unit. https://library.nzfvc.org.nz/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=3171

Dunbar, L. (2017). Youth gangs in Canada: A review of current topics and issues. Public Safety Canada. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2017-r001/2017-r001-en.pdf.

Dussault, R., & Erasmus, G. (1996). Bridging the cultural divide: A report on Aboriginal people and the criminal justice system in Canada. Royal Commission on Aboriginal People. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/bcp-pco/Z1-1991-1-41-8-eng.pdf.

Educational Program Innovations Charity (2016). Aboriginal EMPATHETIC Program. https://www.epiccharity.com/past-projects.

Elderfield, J., & Louden, W. (2005). Evaluation of the Swan Nyungar Sports Education Program (SNSEP): Final report. Edith Cowan University. https://books.google.ca/books?id=dKLMjgEACAAJ.

Emery, A.R. (2000). Guidelines: Integrating Indigenous knowledge in project planning and implementation. http://www.kivu.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Partnership-Guidelines.pdf.

Evans, J. (2020). Exploring Indigenous approaches to evaluation and research in the context of victim services and supports. Department of Justice Canada. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2021/jus/J2-495-2020-eng.pdf.

Eversole, R., Routh, R., & Ridgeway, L. (2004). Crime and violence prevention in an urban Indigenous community. Environment and Urbanization, 16(2), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624780401600224.

Ewert v Canada, 2018 SCC 30, [2018] 2 S.C.R. 165. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/17133/1/document.do.

Farrell MacDonald, S. (2014). Profile of Aboriginal men offenders: Custody and supervision snapshots (Report No. R-321). Correctional Service of Canada. https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/r321-eng.pdf.

Firestone, M., Tyndall, M., & Fischer, B. (2015). Substance use and related harms among Aboriginal people in Canada: A comprehensive review. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 26(4), 1110–1131. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26548667/.

First Nations Health Authority (2021). Cultural safety and humility. https://www.fnha.ca/wellness/wellness-and-the-first-nations-health-authority/cultural-safety-and-humility.

First Nations Information Governance Centre (2020). Strengths-based approaches to Indigenous research and the development of well-being indicators. https://fnigc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FNIGC-Research-Series-SBA_v04.pdf.

Fletcher, C. (2003). Community-based participatory research relationships with Aboriginal communities in Canada: An overview of context and process. Pimatisiwin, 1, 27-62. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235413126_Community-based_participatory_research_relationships_with_Aboriginal_communities_in_Canada_An_overview_of_context_and_process.

Franks, A., Smith-Lloyd, D., Newell, S., & Dietrich, U.C. (2001). Aboriginal health promotion self-determination project: Background paper. Health Promotion Unit, Northern Rivers Area Health Service. https://www.academia.edu/1004156/Aboriginal_Health_Promotion_Self_Determination_Project_background_paper?email_work_card=view-paper.

Georg, S. (2016). How are Indigenous communities managing risk and protective factors to improve community safety? Towards a strength-based approach.

Giroux, R., Homer, K., Kassam, S., Pokrupa, T., Robinson, J., Sauvé, A., & Sumner, A. (2017). Mental health and suicide in Indigenous communities in Canada. Canadian Federation of Medical Students. https://www.cfms.org/files/position-papers/sgm_2017_indigenous_mental_health.pdf.

Government of Alberta. (2004). Walking together: First Nations, Métis and Inuit perspectives in curriculum symbolism and traditions. https://www.learnalberta.ca/content/aswt/

Greenwood, P.W. (2008). Prevention and intervention programs for juvenile offenders. The Future of Children, 18(2), 185-210. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49852121_Prevention_and_Intervention_Programs_for_Juvenile_Offenders

Grekul, J., & LaBoucane-Benson, P. (2008). Aboriginal gangs and their (dis)placement: Contextualizing recruitment, membership, and status. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 50(1), 59-82. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278213314_Aboriginal_Gangs_and_Their_Displacement_Contextualizing_Recruitment_Membership_and_Status.

Grover, J. (2010). Challenges in applying Indigenous evaluation practices in mainstream grant programs to Indigenous communities. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 23(2), 33-50. https://evaluationcanada.ca/secure/23-2-033.pdf.

Hahmann, T., Badets, N., & Hughes, J. (2019). Indigenous people with disabilities in Canada: First Nations people living off reserve, Métis and Inuit aged 15 years and older. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/89-653-x/89-653-x2019005-eng.pdf?st=yCdDK_G6.

Haight, W., Waubanascru, C., Glesener, D., & Marsalis, S. (2018). A scoping study of Indigenous child welfare: The long emergency and preparations for the next seven generations. Children and Youth Services Review, 93(2018), 397-410. https://innovation.umn.edu/scholar-spotlight/wp-content/uploads/sites/68/2021/01/The-long-emergency-and-preparations-for-the-next-seven-generations-2018.pdf.

Hansen, J.G. (2015) Indigenous-settler incarceration disparities in Canada: How tribal justice programming helps urban Indigenous youth. Indigenous Policy Journal, Winter, 25(3), 1-16.

Hansen, J.G., & Lancely, D. (2016). Crime prevention among Indigenous peoples: An exploration of Opaskwayak restorative justice. University of Saskatchewan. https://cfbsjs.usask.ca/documents/funding/Opaskwayak.pdf.  

Hausman, A. J., Baker, C. N., Komaroff, E., Thomas, N., Guerra, T., Hohl, B. C., & Leff, S. S. (2013). Developing measures of community-relevant outcomes for violence prevention programs: A community-based participatory research approach to measurement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52(3–4), 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-013-9590-6.

Hautala, D.S., Sittner, K.J., & Whitbeck, L.B. (2016). Prospective childhood risk factors for gang involvement among North American Indigenous adolescents. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 14(4), 390–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204015585173.

Health Canada (2018). Public consultation on strengthening Canada’s approach to substance use issues. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/substance-use/canadian-drugs-substances-strategy/strengthening-canada-approach-substance-use-issue.html.

Heidinger, L. (2021). Intimate partner violence: Experiences of First Nations, Métis and Inuit women in Canada, 2018. Juristat. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2021001/article/00007-eng.pdf.

Hewitt, J.G. (2016). Indigenous restorative justice: Approaches, meaning and possibility. University of New Brunswick Law Journal, 67(2016), 313-335. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/unblj/article/view/29082.

Higgins, D. J., & Davis, K. L. (2014). Law and justice: Prevention and early intervention programs for Indigenous youth. Closing the Gap Clearinghouse. https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/85dd676d-62ab-47cf-8a01-a1847a05a17a/ctg-rs34.pdf.aspx?inline=true.

Hobbema Community Cadets Corp (2010, October 23). Who we are. https://hobbemacadets.webs.com/whoweare.htm.

Homel, R., Lincoln, R.A., & Herd, B. (1999). Risk and resilience: Crime and violence prevention in Aboriginal communities. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 32(2), 182. https://doi.org/10.1177/000486589903200207

Hornick, J.P., Boyes, M., Tutty, L., & White, L. (2005). The domestic violence treatment option in Whitehorse, Yukon: Final evaluation report. National Crime Prevention Centre. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/107352

Houlding, C., Schmidt, F., Stern, S., Jamieson, J., & Borg, D. (2012). The perceived impact and acceptability of group Triple P Positive Parenting program for Aboriginal parents in Canada. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(12), 2287–2294.

House of Commons Canada (2010). Standing committee on justice and human rights (JUST). 40th Parliament, 3rd Session, Number 009. https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/403/JUST/Evidence/EV4399041/JUSTEV09-E.PDF.

House of Commons Special Committee on Indian Self-Government (1983). Indian self-government in Canada: Report of the special committee. 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, Number 40. http://caid.ca/PennerRep1983.pdf.

Indigenous Corporate Training Inc. (2016, January 26). Indigenous Peoples worldviews vs western worldviews. https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/indigenous-peoples-worldviews-vs-western-worldviews.

Ivanich, J.D., Mousseau, A.C., Walls, M., Whitbeck, L., & Rumbaugh Whitesell, N. (2018). Pathways of adaptation: Two case studies with one evidence-based substance use prevention program tailored for Indigenous youth. Prevention Science, 21(Suppl 1), 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0914-5.

Jaffray, B. (2020). Experiences of violent victimization and unwanted sexual behaviours among gay, lesbian, bisexual and other sexual minority people, and the transgender population, in Canada, 2018. Juristat, Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/85-002-x/2020001/article/00009-eng.pdf?st=3OIJL5ck.

Joe, J.R., Chong, J., Young, R., Lopez, D., Jones, B.J., & Gaikowski, G. (2008). Final report: Participatory evaluation of the Sisseton Wahepton Oyate IASAP demonstration project. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/222740.pdf.

Jones, N.A., Ruddell, R., Nestor, R., Quinn, K., & Phillips, B. (2014). First Nations policing: A review of the literature. Collaborative Centre for Justice and Safety. https://www.justiceandsafety.ca/rsu_docs/aboriginal-policing---complete-with-cover.pdf.

Jones, R., Masters, M., Griffiths, A., & Moulday, N. (2002). Culturally relevant assessment of Indigenous offenders: A literature review. Australian Psychologist, 37(3), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050060210001706866.

Kelly-Scott, K., & Smith, K. (2015). Aboriginal peoples: Fact sheet for Canada. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/89-656-x/89-656-x2015001-eng.pdf?st=f2mflS5W.

Keown, L.J., Sanders, M.R., & Franke, N. (2018). Te Whānau Pou Toru: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a culturally adapted low-intensity variant of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program for Indigenous Māori families in New Zealand. Prev Sci, 19, 954–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0886-5.

Kirmayer, L., Dandeneau, S., Marshall, E., Kahentonni Phillips, M., & Jessen Williamson, K. (2011). Rethinking resilience from Indigenous perspectives. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 56(2), 84-91. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/070674371105600203.

Kowanko, I., Stewart, T., Power, C., Fraser, R., Love, I., & Bromley, T. (2009). An Aboriginal family and community healing program in metropolitan Adelaide: Description and evaluation. Aust Indigenous Health Bull, 9(4), 1-12.

Lafontaine, T., Ferguson, M., & Wormith, J.S. (2005). Street gangs: A review of the empirical literature on community and corrections-based prevention, intervention and suppression strategies. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268201688_Street_Gangs_A_Review_of_the_Empirical_Literature_on_Community_and_Corrections-Based_Prevention_Intervention_and_Suppression_Strategies

Laframboise, T., & Howard-Pitney, B. (1995). American Indian life skills development. https://www.sprc.org/sites/default/files/American%20Indian%20Life%20Skills%20%28AILS%29.pdf.

Linden R. (2001). Crime prevention in Aboriginal communities. http://www.ajic.mb.ca/crime.pdf.

Lowe, J., Lynn, C.E., Liang, H., Riggs, C., & Henson, J. (2012). Community partnership to affect substance abuse among native American adolescents. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse, 38(5), 450–455. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3604899/.

Lujan, C.C., Riding, J., & Tsosie, R. (2000). Justice in Indian country: A process evaluation of the U.S. Department of Justice Indian Country. Justice Initiative. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/181048.pdf.

Luna-Firebaugh, E.M., Lobo, S., Hailer, J., Barragan, D., Mortensen, M., & Pearson, D. (2002). Impact evaluation of STOP grant program for reducing violence against women among Indian tribes. National Institute of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/195174.pdf.

Malakieh, J. (2020). Adult and youth correctional statistics in Canada, 2018/2019. Juristat. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/85-002-x/2020001/article/00016-eng.pdf?st=7Phwtkyc.

Marie, D., Fergusson, D.M., & Boden, J.M. (2014). Childhood socio-economic status and ethnic disparities in psychosocial outcomes in New Zealand. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 48(7), 672–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867414525839

Mehl-Madrona, L., & Mainguy, B. (2014). Introducing healing circles and talking circles into primary care. The Permanente Journal , 18(2), 4-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4022550/pdf/permj18_2p0004.pdf

Memmott, P., Chambers, C., Go-Sam, C., & Thomson, L. (2006). Good practice in Indigenous family violence prevention - Designing and evaluating successful programs. Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse, 11, 1-36. https://www.indigenousjustice.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/mp/files/resources/files/adfvc-good-practice-in-indigenous-family-violence-prevention-designing-and-evaluating-successful-programs.v1.pdf.

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women & Girls Core Working Group (2021). 2021 Missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people national action plan: Ending violence against Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people. https://mmiwg2splus-nationalactionplan.ca/.

Monchalin, L. (2012). Reducing crime affecting urban Aboriginal people: The potential for effective solutions in Winnipeg. University of Ottawa. http://capg.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Reducing-Crime-Affecting-Urban-Aboriginal-People-The-Potential-for-Effective-Solutions-in-Winnipeg-L.Monchalin.pdf.

Monchalin, L., & Marques, O. (2013). Preventing crime and poor health among Aboriginal people: The potential for preventative programming, First Peoples Child & Family Review, 7(2), 112-129. https://doi.org/10.7202/1068845ar  

Morsette, A., van den Pol, R., Schuldberg, D., Swaney, G., & Stolle, D. (2012). Cognitive behavioral treatment for trauma symptoms in American Indian youth: Preliminary findings and issues in evidence-based practice and reservation culture. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 5(1), 51-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1754730X.2012.664865.

Motiuk, L., & Arnet-Zargarian, A. (2021). Indigenous federal admissions and releases: 2000-01 to 2019-20(RIB-21-01). Correctional Service of Canada. https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/092/005008-rib-21-01-en.pdf.

Motiuk, L., & Keown, L.A. (2021). Identified needs of federal offenders in custody: 2020 (RIB-21-04). Correctional Service Canada. https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/005008-rib-21-04-en.pdf.

Murray, J., & Farrington, D.P. (2010). Risk factors for conduct disorder and delinquency: Key findings from longitudinal studies. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(10), 633-642. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/070674371005501003.

National Crime Prevention Centre (2008). Promising and model crime prevention programs. Public Safety Canada. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/prmsng-mdl-vlm1/prmsng-mdl-vlm1-eng.pdf.

National Crime Prevention Centre (2011). Promising and model crime prevention programs volume II. Public Safety Canada. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/prmsng-mdl-vlm2/prmsng-mdl-vlm2-eng.pdf.

National Crime Prevention Centre (2014). Walking the path together. Building the evidence: Crime prevention in action. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/wlkng-pth/wlkng-pth-eng.pdf.

National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (2019). Reclaiming power and place: Executive summary of the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Executive_Summary.pdf.

Native American Centre for Excellence (2010). Steps for conducting research and evaluation in native communities. https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/nace-native-american-evaluation-literature-review.pdf

Native Women’s Association of Canada (2020). The Native Women’s Association fact sheet: Violence against Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people in Canada. https://www.nwac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/MMIWG-and-Violence-Fact-Sheet-Formatted-2021.pdf.

Ndiko, L. (2018). Indigenous games. ETA College. https://www.etacollege.com/indigenous-games/.

New South Wales Department for Women (2001). Broken Hill and Menindee rural crisis intervention projects - Community solutions to Aboriginal family violence: Final report and model of best practice 1999-2000. https://www.indigenousjustice.gov.au/resources/broken-hill-and-menindee-rural-crisis-intervention-projects-community-solutions-to-aboriginal-family-violence-final-report-and-model-of-best-practice-1999-2000/.

Nichols, V.R., Litchfield, A., Holappa, T., & Van Stelle, K. (2002). Tribal strategies against violence: Cross-site evaluation report. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/195791.pdf.

Office of the Correctional Investigator (2013). Annual report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator 2012-2013. https://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/cnt/rpt/annrpt/annrpt20122013-eng.aspx

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2016). Tribal youth in the juvenile justice system. A product of the Model Programs guide. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/mpg/literature-review/tribal-youth-in-the-juvenile-justice-system.pdf.

Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres (2021). Akwe:go. https://ofifc.org/program/akwego/.

Ontario Human Rights Commission (2018). Interrupted childhoods: Over-representation of Indigenous and Black children in Ontario child welfare. http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/interrupted-childhoods#3.CASs%20and%20child%20welfare%20legislation.

Oranga Tamariki Ministry for Children (2019). Guidelines for “community initiatives for youth at risk”. https://www.orangatamariki.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Working-with-children/Information-for-providers/Service-Specifications/Community-initiatives-for-youth-at-risk.pdf.

Osborne, K., Baum, F., & Brown, L. (2013). What works? A review of actions addressing the social and economic determinants of Indigenous health (Issues Paper No. 7). Closing the Gap Clearinghouse. https://www.academia.edu/9105037/What_works_A_review_of_actions_addressing_the_social_and_economic_determinants_of_Indigenous_health?email_work_card=view-paper.

Palmer, D. (2013). Demonstrating the relationship between culture, on-country activity and positive social outcomes for Indigenous young people. New Community, 43(3), 54-60. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260158511_Palmer_D_Demonstrating_the_relationships_between_culture_on-country_activity_and_positive_social_outcomes_for_Indigenous_young_people

Palys, T. (2014). A programme evaluation of Vancouver Aboriginal Transformative Justice Services Society (VATJSS). https://www.sfu.ca/~palys/VATJSEvaluation-2014.pdf.

Papalia, N., Shepherd, S.M., Spivak, B., Luebbers, S., Shea, D.E., & Fullam, R. (2019). Disparities in criminal justice system responses to first-time juvenile offenders according to Indigenous status. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(8), 1067-1087. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0093854819851830.

Pearson, S.S. (2009). Strengthening Indian country through tribal youth programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://2bvwbm3nkjunbdihp5qn91qi-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/TYP-Report-final.pdf

Perreault, S. (2015). Criminal victimization in Canada, 2014. Juristat. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14241-eng.pdf?st=-GHCcMxQ

Perreault, S., Savoie, J., & Bédard, F. (2008). Neighbourhood characteristics and the distribution of crime on the Island of Montréal. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/catalogue/85-561-M2006007.

Philpott, A. (2017) Forging a path toward self-determination: Revisioning a restorative justice response to the crisis of Indigenous overrepresentation in the Canadian criminal justice system. McGill Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism, Working Paper Series, 5(13). https://www.mcgill.ca/humanrights/files/humanrights/ihri_wps_v5_n13_philpott.pdf.

Polsky, J.Y., & Gilmour, H. (2020). Food insecurity and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Reports. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/82-003-x/2020012/article/00001-eng.pdf?st=PsndXS9q.

Pope, C.E. & Feyerherm, W. (1995). Minorities and the juvenile justice system. Research Summary. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED461681.pdf.

Preston, J.P., Carr-Stewart, S., & Northwest, C. (2009). Aboriginal youth gangs: Preventative approaches. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 4(2), 152-160. https://fpcfr.com/index.php/FPCFR/article/view/169.

Project S.T.E.P. (2021). Project S.T.E.P. https://project-step.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Project-Step-Report-English.pdf.

Public Health Agency of Canada (2016a). Aboriginal Head Start in urban and northern communities. Canadian Best Practices Portal. https://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aboriginalwtt/nimi-icinohabi-program/.

Public Health Agency of Canada (2016b). Alice Springs Indigenous family wellbeing program. Canadian Best Practices Portal. https://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aboriginalwtt/alice-springs-indigenous-family-wellbeing-program/.

Public Health Agency of Canada (2016c). A New Day. Canadian Best Practices Portal. https://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aboriginalwtt/a-new-day/.  

Public Health Agency of Canada (2016d). Canadian Red Cross - Walking the prevention circle. Canadian Best Practices Portal. https://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aboriginalwtt/canadian-red-cross-walking-the-prevention-circle/.  

Public Health Agency of Canada (2016e). Caring for the circle within: Jackson Lake Land Based healing program for women. Canadian Best Practices Portal. https://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aboriginalwtt/caring-for-the-circle-within-jackson-lake-land-based-healing-program-for-women/.  

Public Health Agency of Canada (2016f). Dane-zaa traditional decision-making model. Canadian Best Practices Portal. https://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aboriginalwtt/dane-zaa-traditional-decision-making-model/

Public Health Agency of Canada (2016g). Family spirit. Canadian Best Practices Portal. https://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aboriginalwtt/family-spirit/.  

Public Health Agency of Canada (2016h). Gwich’in outdoor classroom project. Canadian Best Practices Portal. https://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aboriginalwtt/gwichin-outdoor-classroom-project/.

Public Health Agency of Canada (2016i). Hobbema community cadet corps. Canadian Best Practices Portal. https://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aboriginalwtt/hobbema-community-cadet-corps/.

Public Health Agency of Canada (2016j). KidsFirst. Canadian Best Practices Portal. https://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aboriginalwtt/kidsfirst/.

Public Health Agency of Canada (2016k). Listening to one another. Canadian Best Practices Portal. https://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aboriginalwtt/listening-to-one-another/.

Public Health Agency of Canada (2016l). Maskwacis life skills training. Canadian Best Practices Portal. https://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aboriginalwtt/maskwacis-life-skills-training/.  

Public Health Agency of Canada (2016m). Nimi Icinohabi program. Canadian Best Practices Portal. https://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aboriginalwtt/nimi-icinohabi-program/.

Public Health Agency of Canada (2016n). Roots of empathy. Canadian Best Practices Portal. https://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aboriginalwtt/roots-of-empathy/.  

Public Health Agency of Canada (2016o). Triple P - positive parent program. Canadian Best Practices Portal. https://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/interventions/triple-p-positive-parenting-program/.

Public Health Agency of Canada (2016p). Tsi Tionkwatention A’non:wara Rason:ne (“My home on Turtle Island” youth lodge). Canadian Best Practices Portal. https://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aboriginalwtt/tsi-tionkwatention-anonwara-rasonne-my-home-on-turtle-island-youth-lodge/.  

Public Health Agency of Canada (2016q). Walking the path together. Canadian Best Practices Portal. https://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aboriginalwtt/walking-the-path-together/

Public Health Agency of Canada (2016r). Winnipeg Aboriginal sport achievement centre: Youth achievement program. Canadian Best Practices Portal. https://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aboriginalwtt/winnipeg-aboriginal-sport-achievement-centre-youth-achievement-program/.  

Public Safety Canada (2008). Gwich’in Outdoor Classroom Project. National Crime Prevention Centre. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2007-es-10/2007-es-10-eng.pdf.

Public Safety Canada (2009a). Supporting the successful implementation of the National Crime Prevention Strategy (Catalog No. PS4-74/2009E-PDF). National Crime Prevention Centre. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/spprtng-mplmtn/spprtng-mplmtn-eng.pdf

Public Safety Canada (2009b). The Aboriginal EMPATHIC program (Catalog No. PS4-42/21-2009E-PDF). National Crime Prevention Centre. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2009-se-20/2009-se-20-eng.pdf

Public Safety Canada (2012a). A statistical snapshot of youth at risk and youth offending in Canada. National Crime Prevention Centre. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ststclsnpsht-yth/ssyr-eng.pdf.

Public Safety Canada (2012b). Implementation fact sheets on promising and model crime prevention programs – 2012. National Crime Prevention Centre.  https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/mplmnttn-fct-shts-2012/mplmnttn-fct-shts-2012-eng.pdf.

Public Safety Canada (2012c). Regina anti-gang services (Catalog No. PS4-167/2012E-PDF). National Crime Prevention Centre. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rgn-nt-gng/rgn-nt-gng-eng.pdf.

Public Safety Canada (2013). Results from the stop now and plan (SNAP) program (Catlog No. PS4-181/2013E-PDF). National Crime Prevention Centre. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rslts-stp-nwpln/rslts-stp-nwpln-eng.pdf.  

Public Safety Canada (2014). Strengthening the spirit – Oskâyi Kiskinotahn: Building a comprehensive response to family violence in Aboriginal communities (Catalog No. PS114-12/2014E-PDF). National Crime Prevention Centre. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/strngthnng-sprt/strngthnng-sprt-eng.pdf.

Public Safety Canada (2015). Moving toward a stronger future: An Aboriginal resource guide for community development. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/mvng-twrd-strngr-ftr/mvng-twrd-strngr-ftr-en.pdf.

Public Safety Canada (2016). Bamboo shield crime prevention in action-CPA-25 national anti-drug strategy. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/bmb-shld/index-en.aspx?wbdisable=true.

Public Safety Canada (2018a). Building the evidence – crime prevention in action: The X-roads crime prevention program (X-roads). https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/xrds/index-en.aspx.

Public Safety Canada (2018b). Overview of direct intervention approaches to address youth gangs and youth violence. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2018-ddrss-yth-gngs-vlnc/2018-ddrss-yth-gngs-vlnc-en.pdf.

Public Safety Canada (2019). Evaluation of the Aboriginal community safety planning initiative. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2018-19-vltn-brgnl-cmmnt-sft/index-en.aspx.

Public Safety Canada (2020, January 21). Indigenous people in federal custody surpasses 30% Correctional Investigator issues statement and challenges. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2020/01/indigenous-people-in-federal-custody-surpasses-30-correctional-investigator-issues-statement-and-challenge.html  

Public Safety Canada (2021a). Crime prevention programs in Canada: Examining key implementation elements for Indigenous populations (2021-S001). https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2021-s001/2021-s001-en.pdf.  

Public Safety Canada (2021b). Eastside Aboriginal Space for Youth (EASY). https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/crm-prvntn/nvntr/dtls-en.aspx?i=10012.

Rawana, E., Brownlee, K., Whitley, J., Rawana, J., Franks, J., & Walker, D. (2009). Strengths in Motion: A strengths-based approach to enhance positive school climate and address issues of bullying and school violence. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273446963_Strengths_in_Motion_A_Strengths-Based_Approach_to_Enhance_Positive_School_Climate_and_Address_Issues_of_Bullying_and_School_Violence.

Rawsthorne, M., Chivell, A., & Smith, A. (2010). Aboriginal women against violence project evaluation report. https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/6267.

Redfern, T. (2017). Justice reinvestment policy brief: Yiriman youth justice diversion program. https://www.academia.edu/39397262/Yiriman_Youth_Justice_Diversion_Program_Justice_Reinvestment_Policy_Analysis_.

Richmond, L.S., Peterson, D.J., & Betts, S.C. (2008). The evolution of an evaluation: A case study using the Tribal participatory research model. Health Promotion Practice, 9(4), 368–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839906289069.

Rowan, M., Poole, N., Shea, B., Gone, J. P., Mykota, D., Farag, M., Hopkins, C., Hall, L., Mushquash, C., & Dell, C. (2014). Cultural interventions to treat addictions in Indigenous populations: Findings from a scoping study. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 9(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-597X-9-34.

Royal, T.A.C. (2002). Indigenous worldviews: A comparative study. Te Puni Kökiri-Ministry for Mäori Development. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5369700de4b045a4e0c24bbc/t/53fe8f49e4b06d5988936162/1409191765620/Indigenous+Worldviews. 

Rudin, J. (2019). Indigenous people and the criminal justice system: A practitioner’s handbook. Edmund Publishing. Canadian Criminal Law Review, 25, 181-194. https://emond.ca/indigenous-people-and-the-criminal-justice-system-a-practitioners-handbook-p.html.

Ryan, N. Head, B., Keast, R., & Brown, K. (2006). Engaging Indigenous communities: Towards a policy framework for Indigenous community justice programs. Social Policy and Administration, 40(3), 304-321. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00004834.

Sagiri, Y. (2001). United National Indian Tribal Youth, Inc. (Youth in Action, 7). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/yfs00107.pdf.

Sanchez-Way, R., & Johnson, S. (2000). Cultural practices in American Indian prevention Programs. Juvenile Justice, 7(2), 20-30. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/cultural-practices-american-indian-prevention-programs.

Saskatoon Community Youth Arts Programming (2021). SCYAP: Programs. https://scyapinc.org/.

Saskatoon Tribal Council (2021). Urban justice programs. https://www.sktc.sk.ca/programs-services/family-community-services/justice/urban-justice-programs/.

Savoie, J. (2007). Youth self-reported delinquency, Toronto, 2006. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/85-002-x/85-002-x2007006-eng.pdf?st=I5mfPYBR.

Schinke, S.P., Orlandi, M.A., Botvin, G.J., Gilchrist, L.D., Trimble, J.E., & Locklear, V.S. (1988). Preventing substance abuse among American-Indian adolescents: A bicultural competence skills approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35(1), 87–90. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1838568/.

Schissel, B. (2010). Ill health and discrimination: The double jeopardy for youth in punitive justice systems. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 1(2), 157-178. https://doi.org/10.18357/IJCYFS122010673

Shader, A. (2004). Risk factors for delinquency: An overview. Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=207540.

Shepherd, S.M., Delgado, R.H., Sherwood, J., & Paradies, Y. (2018). The impact of indigenous cultural identity and cultural engagement on violent offending. BMC Public Health, 18(50), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4603-2

Sprott, J.B., Jenkins, J.M., & Doob, A.N. (2000). Early offending: Understanding the risk and protective factors of delinquency. Applied Research Branch Strategic Policy, Human Resources Development Canada. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.576.2133&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

Statistics Canada (2016a). Educational attainment. Data tables, 2016 Census.

Statistics Canada (2016b). Lifetime and past-year suicidal thoughts among off-reserve First Nations, Métis and Inuit adults, aged 18 years and over, Canada, 2012. Aboriginal Peoples Survey, 2012. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/89-653-x/89-653-x2016012-eng.pdf?st=kTRrNmCe.

Statistics Canada (2016c). Median employment income. Data tables, 2016 Census.

Statistics Canada (2017a). Diverse family characteristics of Aboriginal children aged 0 to 4 (Catalog No. 98-200-X2016020). Census in Brief. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016020/98-200-x2016020-eng.pdf.

Statistics Canada (2017b). The Aboriginal languages of First Nations people, Métis and Inuit: Census of Population 2016 (Catalog No. 98-200-X2016022). Census in Brief. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016022/98-200-x2016022-eng.pdf.

Statistics Canada (2017c). The housing conditions of Aboriginal people in Canada (Catalog No. 98-200-X2016021). Census in Brief. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016021/98-200-x2016021-eng.pdf.

Statistics Canada (2018). First Nations people, Métis and Inuit in Canada: Diverse and growing population (Catalog No. 89-659-x2018001). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-659-x/89-659-x2018001-eng.htm

Statistics Canada (2020). Labour force characteristics by Aboriginal group. Data tables, 2016 Census. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410035901

Statistics Canada (2021a). Intimate partner violence among diverse populations in Canada, 2018. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-quotidien/210519/dq210519c-eng.pdf?st=NZFvDaRE.

Statistics Canada (2021b). Self-reported violent victimization among Indigenous people (Table 35-10-0168-01). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510016801.

Statistics Canada (2022). Adult and youth correctional statistics, 2020/2021. The Daily. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220420/dq220420c-eng.htm

Statistics Canada & Assembly of First Nations (2021). A snapshot: Status First Nations people in Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/41-20-0002/412000022021001-eng.pdf?st=ZBrgZS3p

Stewart, J., Hedwards, B., Richards, K., Willis, M., & Higgins, D. (2014). Indigenous youth justice programs evaluation. Australia Institute of Criminology. https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/Indigenous-Youth-Justice-Programs-Evaluation.pdf.

Stewart, L.A., Hamilton, E., Wilton, G., Cousineau, C., & Varrette, S. K. (2015). The effectiveness of the Tupiq program for Inuit sex offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(12), 1338-1357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X14536374.  

Takyi, C. (2017). An exploration of crime prevention among Indigenous youth who utilize the services of the Saskatoon Community Youth Arts Programming (SCYAP) [Master’s thesis, University of Saskatchewan]. Harvest. https://harvest.usask.ca/bitstream/handle/10388/8114/TAKYI-THESIS-2017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

Taylor, S. (2005). Traditional Indigenous games. In Higgins D. (Ed.), Early learnings Telstra foundation research report volume 2: Indigenous community development projects and early learnings. Telstra Foundation. https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/sites/default/files/publication-documents/telstra2.pdf.

Te Puni Kōkiri (2010). Māori designed, developed and delivered initiatives to reduce Māori offending and re-offending. Report on notes taken on the day of the wānanga. https://www.tpk.govt.nz/en/a-matou-mohiotanga/criminal-justice/maori-designed-developed-and-delivered-initiatives.

Theriot, M.T., & Parker, B. (2007). Native American youth gangs: Linking culture, history and theory for improved understanding, prevention and intervention. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 5(4), 83-97. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J222v05n04_04.

Totten, M. (2009). Aboriginal youth and violent gang involvement in Canada: Quality prevention strategies. IPC Review, 3, 135–156. https://www.reginapolice.ca/gang/publications/IPC%20Review%203%20-%20Totten.pdf.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2015). Honouring the truth, reconciling for the future: Summary of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Exec_Summary_2015_05_31_web_o.pdf.

Trevethan. S. D. (2003). Is there a need for Aboriginal-specific programming for Aboriginal offenders? In Newhouse, D., & Peters, E. (Eds.), Not strangers in these parts: Urban Aboriginal peoples (pp. 194-200). Policy Research Initiative. https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.686648/publication.html.

Trevethan, S.D. (2019). The intersection of social and economic systems with the criminal justice system. Department of Justice Canada.

Trevethan, S.D., Auger, S., & Moore, J., MacDonald, M., & Sinclair, J. (2001). The effect of family disruption on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal inmates. https://www.aboriginallegal.ca/assets/prisons_effectoffamilydisruption.pdf.

Tungasuvvingat Inuit Centre (2021). A guide to Inuit-specific programs and services at Tungasuvvingat Inuit. https://tiontario.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Tungasuvvingat-Inuit-Program-Guide.pdf.

Turner, M.T., Richards, M., & Sanders, M.R. (2007). Randomised clinical trial of a group parent education programme for Australian Indigenous families. J Paediatr Child Health, 43(6), 429-437. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17535171/.

United Nations General Assembly (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Resolution adopted by the General Assembly (A/RES/61/295). https://www.refworld.org/docid/471355a82.html.

United States Department of Health and Human Services (2010). Project venture: Programs. https://projectventure.org/programs/

University of Saskatchewan (2021). Power and privilege: Chapter 1 – terminology. https://teaching.usask.ca/curriculum/indigenous_voices/power-and-privilege/chapter-1.php.

University of Victoria (2009). Cultural safety: Peoples experiences of colonization in relation to health care. http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/courses/csafety/mod3/index.htm.

Vicente, J.B., Codmor, L.K. (2019). Crime prevention program of an Upland municipality in the Philippines. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences, 8(11), 1-48. https://garph.co.uk/IJARMSS/Nov2019/G-2758.pdf.  

Wabano Centre (2021a). Advocacy and support – Youth support. https://wabano.com/advocacy-and-support/youth-support/.

Wabano Centre (2021b). Programs and events. https://wabano.com/programs-and-events/.

Wakeling, S., & Jorgensen, M. (2008). Strengthening and rebuilding Tribal justice systems: A participatory outcomes evaluation of the U.S. Department of Justice Comprehensive Indian Resources for Community and Law Enforcement (CIRCLE) Project. United States Department of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221081.pdf.

Weatherburn, D. (2001). What causes crime? Crime and Justice Bulletin, 54. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Publications/CJB/cjb54.pdf.

Webb, R. (2018). Rethinking the utility of the risk factors and criminogenic needs: Approaches in Aotearoa New Zealand. Journal of Global Indigeneity, 3(1), 1-21. http://ro.uow.edu.au/jgi.

Whitbeck, L.B., Yu, M., Johnson, K., Hoyt, D.R., & Walls, M.L. (2008). Diagnostic prevalence rates from early to mid adolescence among Indigenous adolescents: First results from a longitudinal study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 47(8), 890–900. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2643437/pdf/nihms82577.pdf. 

Wilk, P., Maltby, A., & Cooke, M. (2017). Residential schools and the effects on Indigenous health and well-being in Canada—a scoping review. Public Health Reviews, 38(8), 1-23. https://publichealthreviews.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s40985-017-0055-6.pdf.

Yadeun-Antuñano, M., & Vieira, L. C. (2018). Indigenous perspectives of resilience: Strength and adaptive strategies. In W. Leal Filho, T. Wall, U. Azeiteiro, A. M. Azul, L. Brandli, & P. G. Özuyar (Eds.), Good Health and Well-Being (pp. 1–12). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69627-0_59-1.

Yarram & Yarram (2012, November). Working with Aboriginal families [Paper presentation]. No To Violence Conference, Melbourne, Australia.  https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/c0e5bdde-e9c4-4a1f-808e-256191835cde/ctgc-rs37.Download%20PDF.aspx.

Youth Achievement Program (2021). Our approach. https://youthachievementprogram.com/our-approach.

Appendix A: Glossary of terms

The following describes key concepts and themes identified throughout this report.

2SLGBTQI+

Refers to “Two Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Plus”; the “+” is a way of being inclusive, honouring and celebrating how our languages are expanding and offering choices for our sexual and gender diverse relatives to identify (Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women & Girls Core Working Group, 2021).

2-Spirit night

Refers to an evening where 2SLGBTQI+ individuals come together to talk, share stories, re-establish cultural connection, and celebrate their diversity.

Ceremonies

Refers to formal spiritual acts or rituals performed as prescribed by Indigenous custom, law, or other authority to give thanks, purify the soul of negative thoughts, or maintain harmony and balance between humankind and the rest of creation (Government of Alberta, 2004) - can include sun dances, pow wows, ceremonial prayers, smudging, sweat lodges, etc.

Circles

Different types of circles are embedded in the traditional practices of Indigenous communities, such as talking circles, sharing circles, teaching circles, healing circles, family circles, and family group conferencing; they take a variety of forms but usually involve members sitting in a circle to consider a problem or a question, or teach a lesson, and often utilize Elders, prayers, and sometimes an spiritual objects to designate who is speaking (Mehl-Madrona & Mainguy, 2014).

Colonialism

Refers to the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically (University of Saskatchewan, 2021).

Colonization

Refers to the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the Indigenous Peoples of an area (University of Saskatchewan, 2021).

Crime prevention

Crime prevention is any action that causes a reduction in the level of criminal activity and the resulting harm, or in the number of criminal offenders and their victims. Types of crime prevention initiatives:

Primary Crime Prevention: focuses on stopping crime before it occurs by addressing social and situational factors that may lead to crime

Secondary Crime Prevention: focuses on early intervention for population groups seen to be at high risk of involvement in criminal behaviour in order to prevent crime from occurring

Tertiary Crime Prevention: focuses on efforts to divert people who have committed crimes away from imprisonment (adapted from AIC, 2003; Battams et al., 2021)

Criminogenic risk factors

Characteristics that increase the likelihood of an individual committing a crime (Public Safety Canada, 2009a).

Cultural humility

A process of self-reflection to understand personal and systemic biases and to develop and maintain respectful processes and relationships based on mutual trust (First Nations Health Authority, 2021).

Cultural resilience

Considers how cultural background (i.e., culture, cultural values, language, customs, norms) helps individuals and communities overcome adversity (Clauss-Ehlers, 2010).

Cultural safety

Involves the recognition that we are all bearers of culture and that we need to be aware of and challenge unequal power relations at the individual, family, community, and societal level (Adams, 2016; University of Victoria, 2009).

Decolonization

Refers to challenging colonial influences and dismantling and replacing structures that perpetuate the status quo using Indigenous perspectives.

Gladue principles

Refers to an approach to sentencing and bail hearings which allows judges to consider sentencing alternatives to incarceration when appropriate. These reports/principles allow a judge to consider the colonial history of Indigenous Peoples when they encounter the criminal justice system. This initiative is aimed at reducing the number of incarcerated Indigenous people.

Indigenous outdoor activities

Refers to activities conducted on the land which provide opportunities to share stories, teach lessons, collect food and medicine, and re-establish connections to the land and Indigenous culture (e.g., bush trips/camp, wilderness activities, outdoor classrooms, visiting ancestral sites).

Indigenous worldviews

A unique set of values and behaviours which seek to foster a sense of oneness and unity with the world (Indigenous Corporate Training, 2016; Royal, 2002).

Intergenerational trauma

The historical and ongoing effects of colonization and the residential school system in Canada which continue to impact First Nations, Inuit, and Métis communities across several generations (Health Canada, 2018).

Marginalized

Relegated to a minimal position within a society or group.

OCAP® principles

Refers to ownership of, control of, access to, and possession of research processes affecting participant communities, and the resulting data. OCAP addresses issues of privacy, intellectual property, data custody and secondary use of data (CIHR, NSERC & SSHRC, 2018).

Protective factors

Characteristics of the child, family, and wider environment that reduce the likelihood of adversity leading to negative outcomes and behaviours, such as delinquency and adult offending (Development Services Group, Inc., 2013).

Residential schools

Refers to government-sponsored religious schools that were established to assimilate Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian culture.

Resilience

The ability to do well despite adversity (Kirmayer et al., 2011).

Restorative justice

A healing process based in Indigenous legal traditions which seeks to attain process-oriented results for victims of crime and those who perpetrate those crimes (Hewitt, 2016).

Risk factors

Personal traits, characteristics of the environment, or conditions in the family, school, or community that are linked to a persons’ likelihood of engaging in delinquency and other problem behaviours (Murray & Farrington, 2010).

Social determinants of health

The broad range of personal, social, economic, and environmental factors that determine individual and population health (Health Canada, 2018).

Story book

Refers to a way of culturally mapping and integrating traditional knowledge and experience, heritage sites, and areas that are important to Indigenous communities.

Strength-based approach

Focus on identifying and supporting the various strengths, motivations, ways of thinking and behaving, as well as the protective factors—within the person or the environment—that support people in their journeys toward well-being (First Nations Information Governance Centre, 2020).

Systemic discrimination

When the application of a standard or criterion, or the use of a ‘standard practice,’ creates an adverse impact upon an identifiable group that is not consciously intended (Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission, 1999).

Traditional Indigenous activities

Refers to recreational activities that originate from a particular cultural group, community, or people, and preserve age-old traditions and stories – for example, Indigenous games, art, crafts, drumming, songs, and dance (Ndiko, 2018).

Traditional Indigenous teachings/skills

Refers to teachings or skills that have been handed down through generations of Indigenous Peoples by traditional healers or Elders and can include land-based teachings, bush skills, hunting, bush medicine, teepee teachings, First Nation pole, storytelling, teachings about the medicine wheel, etc.

Wraparound services

Additional individualized services that help successfully support someone in treatment (can include childcare, education and employment training, housing, transportation, and help with finances and/or legal issues; Health Canada, 2018).

Appendix B: Program descriptions

Date modified:

2023-12-21