1

The Indigenous Youth Over-Incarceration Paradigm: Perspectives from Canada, Australia
and New Zealand

Written By
Anmol Brar

Under the Supervision of
Dr. Harpreet Aulakh
An Honours Project submitted
in partial fulfillment
of the Degree requirements for the degree of
Bachelor of Arts
Criminal Justice (Honours)
Mount Royal University
April 2024

2
Copyright © 2024 by Anmol Brar
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

This work is completed in entirety by Anmol Brar. All rights are reserved to the information
provided within this document.

MOUNT ROYAL UNIVERSITY
CALGARY, AB., CANADA

3

Table of Contents
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
Land Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………………………… 5
Personal Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………………………. 6
The Indigenous Youth Over-Incarceration Paradigm
Perspectives from Canada, Australia and New Zealand............................................... 7
Research Questions, Aims and Objectives…………………………………………………….…. 8
Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………...……… 9
Data Collection, Analysis and Design………………………………………………………….. 9
Limitations…………………………………………………………………………………… 10
The Current State of the Issue…………………………………………………………………….. 11
Canada’s Inherent Issues……………………………………………………………………… 11
Australia’s Failure…………………………………………………………………………….. 13
The New Zealand System………………………………………………………………… 14
Review of the Culturally Responsive Interventions…………………………………………… 16
Canada’s Call to Action 38..……………………………………………………………………. 18
Australia’s Closing the Gap Outcome 11…………………………………………………. 21
Recommendations for a Path Forward…………………….……………………………………. 24
What is Working for New Zealand…………………………………………………………….. 24
What Can Canada do to Improve…………….…………………………………………… 28
How Australia Can Move in the Right Direction……………………………………… 34
Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 40
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………. 43
References…………………….………………………………..……………………………………. 45

4
Abstract

The overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in custody has been a relevant concern
throughout Canada’s history. However, in recent decades, the paradigm has shifted to a
younger subset of the population. The overincarceration of Indigenous youth is now prevailing
across Anglo-settler colonized nations such as: Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
The overincarceration of Indigenous youth in the Australian justice system is paralleled in
Canada and far worse than the situation in New Zealand. The significant decrease in Māori
youth incarceration in New Zealand warrants further review. This thesis comprehensively
explores the progress made towards Australia’s Closing the Gap Outcome 11 as a parallel to
Canada’s Call to Action 38 response. In doing so, this study limits to culturally responsive
interventions administered through the government. In drawing parallels to New Zealand,
recommendations are made in order to move toward an equitable justice system. This study
utilizes a descriptive approach and provides an in-depth summary of the current state of the
overincarceration paradigm prevalent in Canada and Australia with perspectives from New
Zealand in order to recommend a path forward.

5
Land Acknowledgement

With respect, regard and gratitude, I acknowledge the ancestral home of the Treaty 7
signatories, including the five First Nations: The Siksika (Blackfoot), Kainai (Blood), Piikani
(Peigan), Îethka Stoney-Nakoda, and Tsuut’ina (Sarcee) Nations, consisting of the Chiniki,
Bearspaw and Good Stoney Bands. The City of Calgary is also the homeland of the historic
Northwest Métis and the Otipemisiwak Métis Government, Métis Nation Battle River Territory,
Nose Hill Métis District 5 and Elbow Métis District 6. In researching First Nations in Canada,
Australia and New Zealand, I acknowledge the unique and distinct cultures, languages and
histories of the land's first inhabitants.

6

Personal Acknowledgement

I'd like to begin by acknowledging my family, specifically my parents, for being the hard
working role models they are and for setting a concrete example for myself and my two sisters.
Your resilience and patience are timeless and do not go unnoticed. In addition to my loving
family, I want to acknowledge the many friends, peers, coworkers, and companions who have
come and gone through this four-year journey. Although the journey wasn’t easy (especially
making it through a global pandemic), it was unreservedly worthwhile due to the incredible
faculty in the Criminal Justice degree. In saying this, I would like to specifically thank Dr.
Harpreet Aulakh, for not only being my Honours supervisor, but for being an astounding
professor and teaching the Indigenous class which particularly drew my attention to this
research topic. I further thank Prof. Doug King for supplying his knowledge to us students in the
Honours seminar as well as in all of his classes. This degree would not be the same without you
two, so Thank You!

7
The Indigenous Youth Over-Incarceration Paradigm: Perspectives from Canada, Australia
and New Zealand
The overrepresentation of Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system is a relevant
issue prevalent across Anglo-settler colonized nations such as: Canada, Australia and New
Zealand (Hamilton et al., 2020). In Canada, the term "Indigenous" is commonly employed to
refer to the land's initial inhabitants, which encompasses a diverse array of peoples, including
the First Nations, the Inuit and the Métis (Okpalauwaekwe et al., 2022). As with First Nations in
Australia, these groups are subdivided into hundreds of communities nationwide. Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people are Australia's first peoples, they comprise hundreds of groups with
distinct languages, histories and cultural traditions (He et al., 2023; Shay et al., 2024). In the
New Zealand (Aotearoa) context, the Māori are the land's first inhabitants referred to as
Indigenous peoples (Hamley et al., 2023). Hereafter, “Indigenous” and “Aboriginal” will be used
interchangeably to refer to First Nations in Canada, Australia and New Zealand respectfully.
In Canada, Indigenous youth are the youngest population group, with over 50% of
Indigenous youth under the age of 25 (Okpalauwaekwe et al., 2022). However, Indigenous
youth also accounted for 50% of youth admissions to custody in 2020/2021, while representing
about 8% of the total youth population (Statistics Canada, 2022). Similarly in Australia,
Indigenous Australian youth (under 25) comprise over 50% of the total Indigenous population
but accounted for 50% of all young people under supervision on an average night in the June
quarter of 2022 (Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, 2022; Shay et al., 2024). Whilst
representing 6% of all youth aged 10-17, Aboriginal youth in Australia were 20 times more likely
than non-Aboriginal youth to be under youth justice supervision on any given night (Australian
Institute of Health & Welfare, 2022).
The overincarceration of Indigenous youth in the Australian justice system is paralleled
in Canada and far worse than the situation in New Zealand (Webb et al., 2023). In fact, in New
Zealand, Māori under the age of 20 are now less likely to enter prison than any generation over

8
the last 100 years (Cook, 2023; Toki, 2018). The Māori youth prison population (under 20) has
fallen from 38% in 1980 to 1.6% in 2022 (Cook, 2023). The significant decrease in Māori youth
incarceration in New Zealand warrants further review. Despite the myriad of systematic reviews
published on the topic of youth crime and incarceration more generally, few of these have
attempted to identify and relate to Indigenous youth (Pfeifer et al., 2018; Hamilton et al., 2020).
In addition to the dearth of scholarly work on Indigenous youth crime, there is an
absence of comprehensive reviews from the international perspective (Pfeifer et al., 2018;
Sittner & Estes, 2023; Webb, 2022). However, a large sum of interventions have been
implemented across all three countries and there are a number of promising system-based
initiatives that warrant review (Pfeifer et al., 2018; Webb, 2022). The need for a review on this
issue is especially significant given the prevalent overincarceration paradigm seen across
Canada and Australia, with New Zealand beginning to see major change (Cunneen, 2020).
Although much of the literature provides important empirical information, very few
articles identify gaps in the research literature or formalized proposals in order to move forward
towards an increasingly equitable justice system (Sittner & Estes, 2023; Webb, 2022; Webb et
al., 2023). This study will seek to provide increased insight regarding the overincarceration
paradigm from an international perspective and fill gaps in the literature by providing a proposed
framework for the future. Through a comprehensive review of these initiatives, this study
explores the current state of the paradigm in Canada and Australia with a critical look at New
Zealand’s approach to significantly reduce young Māori overincarceration.
Research Questions, Aims and Objectives
The objective of this thesis is to research and explore the current state of Indigenous
youth incarceration in Canada, Australia and New Zealand in order to cross examine, compare
and draw parallels to recommend a path forward for the prevalent issue of overincarceration.
There are three questions I have attempted to answer: 1. Why are Indigenous youth populations

9
in custody continuously rising while non-Indigenous youth populations continue to decline in
Canada and Australia? 2. What is currently being done in Canada and Australia to mitigate the
overrepresentation of Indigenous youth? 3. What are the current recommendations provided
and what seems to be working for New Zealand that could be applied in Canada and Australia?
There will be a three step approach utilized in this study in order to answer the research
questions. Firstly, a comprehensive analysis for the current state of the issue in Canada,
Australia and New Zealand is provided, followed by an examination of the culturally responsive
government interventions already in place. This looks at funding, programs and frameworks
already being utilized by the government to circumvent the issue. Finally, recommendations put
forward from various sources are explored in an attempt to guide the prospective governments
in Canada and Austraila while drawing parallels from New Zealands restorative framework to
addressing the Indigenous youth overincarceration paradigm.
Methodology
Data Collection, Analysis and Design
This research paper focuses on providing an insightful summary of the current state of
overincarceration among Indigenous youth in Canada and Australia, while also taking a critical
look at New Zealand's approach towards significantly reducing the number of young Māori
entering the justice system. The study adopts a descriptive design, enabling a comprehensive
description of the paradigm and facilitating parallel comparisons between countries. The
research methodology involves a semi-systematic literature review, which critically analyzes the
most recent and relevant scholarly literature on the subject matter. Furthermore, the purposive
sampling method is employed to review scholarly research on the overincarceration paradigm.
In terms of data collection, this study focuses on secondary data collection by utilizing
peer-reviewed journal articles, news articles, published books, government reports, webpages,
media reports, book chapters and case studies. This multi-disciplinary research approach allows

10
for the collection of different types of data contributing to the overall findings. In order to ensure
the relevance and accuracy of all data used in this study, a pre-screening process will be
employed. This will involve a thorough reading of the abstracts of journal articles, book
chapters, and reports. By identifying common themes and patterns, similarities and differences
among sources of data will be compared. The identification of common themes will further
ensure the relevance and accuracy of all data utilized in this study.
Data sources include: Google Scholar, Mount Royal University library database, Taylor
and Francis Online, Sage Journals, ProQuest, JSTOR, Statistics Canada, Australian Bureau of
Statistics, etc. Keywords used to find relevant data include: “Indigenous youth
over-incarceration”, Indigenous youth overrepresentation in custody”, “Aboriginal youth in
custody Australia”, “Canada youth over-incarceration”, “Maori youth crime”, “New Zealand Maori
youth”. For the exclusion criteria, any journal article, book chapter or report published before
2015 is excluded from the study in order to ensure relevancy of results. In terms of journal
articles, only peer-reviewed scholarly papers published in English were utilized to maintain
standardization and credibility.
Limitations
Despite efforts to incorporate recent and relevant journal articles, book chapters, reports,
and statistics in this study, the scope of research analyzed was limited due to a semi-systematic
literature review conducted within a restricted time frame. The strict time frame also hindered an
extensive analysis of specific Indigenous groups within each country, which could have provided
a more comprehensive and far-reaching evaluation. It is also necessary to acknowledge my
personal biases as a constraint, which may have affected the scope of data collected. Due to
researcher bias, data not supporting my research questions may have been unintentionally
omitted. Furthermore, the availability of data was a limiting factor as this study heavily utilized
government administered and reported statistics. In attempting to draw parallels between all
three countries, the lack of standardized data prevented an extensive analysis.

11
The Current State of the Issue
Youth justice systems globally accredit various narratives, such as; welfare, public safety,
child protection, development, punishment and restoration (Hamilton et al., 2020; Mackenzie,
2020). However, the prevailing models focus on punitive justice and correctionalism, which
prioritize proportionate punishment, administration of accountability and sentencing, with the
intent to control and correct a young person's behavior (Barmaki, 2023; Cunneen, 2020). Such
models assume that young people make rational choices and offend with free will, which
necessitates discipline, control and accountability for their actions (Webb et al., 2023). However,
it must be pointed out that Western criminal justice systems and particularly their diversion
practices, do not realistically consider that youth with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD),
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or other psychological disorders do not mature out of
crime or respond to desistance from offending (Dellar et al., 2022; Hamilton et al., 2020).
There are several factors contributing to the disproportionate incarceration of Indigenous
youth in settler colonial countries (Sittner & Estes, 2023; Webb, 2022). These include the
abandonment of traditional lifestyles and the presence of systemic and institutional
discrimination and racism (Hautala & Sittner, 2019). It is essential to acknowledge the
vulnerability of justice-involved youth who are often struggling with mental health disorders,
conduct disorders, substance abuse and self-harming tendencies (Haysom et al., 2023).
Studies worldwide have established a strong correlation between mental health problems and
criminal behavior, particularly among Indigenous youth, who exhibit higher rates of
neurocognitive and intellectual disabilities, including FASD and PTSD (Haysom et al., 2023; He
et al., 2023; Lockwood et al., 2018).
Youth incarceration, in general, has devastating effects on a youth's transition to
adulthood (Hautala & Sittner, 2019; McCuish & Corrado, 2018). Utilizing the life course
perspective, we can begin to understand the negative consequences Indigenous youth face at a
critical turning point in their lives that come from being involved in the criminal justice system

12
(O’Brien et al., 2023). In a study conducted by Sittner and Estes (2023), the researchers found
that youth justice involvement critically affects later family stability, mental and physical health,
socio-economic status and employment. In their sample of 735 Indigenous youth, 45% of the
sample reported being arrested at least once between the ages of 10 and 19. Sittner and Estes
(2023) found that being arrested once in adolescence was correlated with lower rates of
full-time employment and income later on in life. This can be, in part, related to the lack of
education the average Indigenous youth obtains (Rudolph, 2021).
According to Heo (2019), the overrepresentation of Indigenous youth is a “perplexing
and complicated issue” that generally boils down to two hypotheses; differential involvement and
differential treatment (p. 8). The former suggests that minority youth are overrepresented in the
system due to their higher involvement in crime; the latter posits that decision-making processes
operate differently for members of different ethnicities at various stages of criminal justice
processing (Heo, 2019). Although the plausible answer in explaining the overrepresentation
would be in support of the differential involvement hypothesis. Heo (2019) concludes, through
various studies conducted by researchers, that involvement alone cannot explain the
overincarceration because non-Indigenous youth commit the same offenses, but come into
contact with the police far less compared to Indigenous youth.
Similarly, in a study conducted by McCuish and Corrado (2018), the researchers found
that Indigenous youth faced a higher number of social adversities compared to their White
counterparts. While, in theory, this could lead to a higher likelihood of persistent offending
among Indigenous youth, there was no significant difference between Indigenous and White
youth in terms of their association with a specific offending trajectory measured between the
ages of 12 and 29 (McCuish & Corrado, 2018). Similar findings have been concluded within the
Australian research context (Cunneen et al., 2021; Dellar et al., 2022; He et al., 2023; O’Brien,
2021; Warner et al., 2022).

13
Upon reviewing the international literature on factors contributing to Indigenous youth
incarceration, it is worth noting that discrimination is a significant contributing factor to the
overincarceration paradigm (Mackenzie, 2020; O’Brien et al., 2023). Discriminatory policies and
practices have been observed across youth justice organizations, courts and police
(Samuels-Wortley, 2022). As the first point of contact for Indigenous youth who have engaged in
offending behavior, the police have garnered substantial attention from researchers examining
the impact of bias on frontline officers' decision-making (Brown, 2019; Samuels-Wortley, 2022).
Canada’s Inherent Issues
Studies suggest that Indigenous youth in Canada are subject to disproportionate levels
of arbitrary searches, stops, arrests and unnecessary use of force and violence. Canada’s
history of colonialism has left Indigenous communities in states of disrepair, wherein Indigenous
youth are exposed to social conditions that are conducive to crime (Cesaroni et al., 2019; Heo,
2019). Once they encounter the justice system, they are then confronted with discriminatory
assessments that increase their likelihood of arrest (Ferguson et al., 2021). Under the Youth
Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), police are obliged to handle minor offenses through diversion.
However, studies have demonstrated that non-Indigenous youth are more frequently diverted
from the justice system compared to their Indigenous counterparts due to contextual factors, like
previous failure of extrajudicial measures (Heo, 2019; Pfeifer et al., 2018).
The YCJA was established in 2003 to govern the treatment of Canadian youth aged 12
to 17 within the criminal justice system (Heo, 2019; Pfeifer et al., 2018). The YCJA recognizes
that young people possess a diminished level of moral culpability and therefore provides a
separate justice system based on the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness (Jackson,
2015). The YCJA acknowledges the unique risks and needs of Indigenous youth and includes
special provisions to address them (Cesaroni et al., 2019). While sections 4 and 5 of the YCJA
do not specifically target Indigenous youth, several provinces have used them as a basis to
create Indigenous-specific programs (Cesaroni et al., 2019; Heo, 2019). Section 38 of the

14
YCJA, which mirrors section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, places greater emphasis on the
needs of Indigenous youth and directs courts to consider their unique circumstances when
sentencing offenders (Heo, 2019; Pfeifer et al., 2018). These provisions were created in
response to the overincarceration crisis amongst Indigenous youth (Barmaki, 2023).
For centuries, the Canadian police force has been charged with moving various culturally
assimilative and destructive policies into action, yielding a long history of distrust and contempt
(O’Brien et al., 2023). Today, Canadian police officers are accorded substantial discretionary
power in how best to maintain order on the street. However, the viewpoint that Indigenous
peoples are violent and criminal still exists (Barker et al., 2015; Nichols, 2018). Prior research
has found that Indigenous young people are more likely to be dealt punitive punishments as
opposed to warnings compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts, independent of other
practices, such as drug use patterns (Lockwood et al., 2018; Mackenzie, 2020; Nichols, 2018;
Samuels-Wortley, 2022).
Currently, Indigenous youth are overrepresented in custody and the numbers are
increasing. Indigenous youth accounted for one-half (50%) of youth admissions to custody in
2020/2021, while representing about 8% of the youth population (Statistics Canada, 2022).
Among the eight jurisdictions that have reported correctional admissions consistently over the
last decade, the proportion of Indigenous youth admissions to correctional services increased
from 26% in 2007/2008 to 43% in 2017/2018 (Statistics Canada, 2022). Indigenous youth are
overrepresented in both custody and community supervision, making up 48% of custody
admissions and 39% of community admissions. Compared to Indigenous adults who accounted
for 30% of admissions to provincial/territorial custody and 29% of admissions to federal custody,
while representing 4% of the Canadian adult population (Statistics Canada, 2022).
Australia’s Failure
Research examining the myriad of challenges facing Indigenous people throughout the
world indicates that, for many, the issue of colonization is an important and salient contributing

15
factor (Hamilton et al., 2020; Barmaki, 2023). In Australia, the fabric of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait law and society was disrupted by the intrusion of white settlers, who advanced
assimilationist policies and practices like the forced removal of children from their families and
compulsory land relinquishment (Brown, 2019). This resulted in a pattern of incarceration, which
is a situation that increases the likelihood that colonization-informed trauma will recommence
(Cunneen, 2020; Webb, 2022).
In 2022, the average rate of Aboriginal young people aged between 10-17 years in
detention per day at the national level was 29.8 out of 10,000 young people in the population,
which is higher than the previous three years (Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, 2022).
Among the 2,182 youth under supervision on an average day, 1,649 were aged 14-17. Notably,
almost 8 in 10 Aboriginal youth under supervision were males, which comprised 78.5% of the
total population (Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, 2022). Between 2021-2022, Aboriginal
youth were 17 times more likely than non-Aboriginal youth to be under community-based
supervision per day (93.9 compared to 5.4 out of 10,000 young people) and 24 times more likely
to be in detention (28.3 compared to 1.2 out of 10,000 young people) (Australian Institute of
Health & Welfare, 2022).
An interrelated and dynamic set of factors contribute to the overincarceration of
Indigenous youth in Australia and these factors can be traced back to colonization (Cooper et
al., 2016; Dellar et al., 2022). Although highly diverse in dialect, social structures, and cultural
practices, before colonization, Indigenous communities across Australia were self-governing
groups with well-established systems of law and order (Pfeifer et al., 2018). As part of the
colonization process, Westernized justice systems were adopted, leaving Indigenous
Australians in the difficult position of being expected to abide by the newly imported foreign laws
despite having a limited understanding of their parameters (Brown, 2019; Gillfeather, 2019).
As is the case with Australia and most other countries colonized by Europeans,
Indigenous peoples in Canada had a rich and varied history dating back well before the arrival

16
of European settlers (Heo, 2019; Nichols, 2018) Although practices varied among Indigenous
peoples, their legal practices and customs focused on communal values and peoples
relationships with their world (Nichols, 2018). Commentators in New Zealand also recognize the
effect of colonization on Indigenous people and the relationship this has to a variety of
challenges concerning youth crime (Paine et al., 2022; Stanley & Froidville, 2020).
The New Zealand System
The legal and criminal justice system in New Zealand has been heavily influenced by
settler-colonial institutions and the cultural values of Pakeha (non-Māori) settlers, resulting in the
exclusion and denigration of Māori understandings, values, and concepts (Stanley & Froideville,
2020). Assimilation policies have weakened Māori social control, which has marginalized
collective community responses to social harm and crime (Toki, 2018). As a result, Māori youth
have been historically distanced from their concepts of behavior, as well as the authority that
comes with them (Webb et al., 2023). This is due to the deliberate undermining of Māori social
and cultural structures, which emphasize collective norms (Paine et al., 2022; Webb, 2022).
One explanation for Māori overrepresentation is that there are differential patterns of
offending and such patterns stem from the ongoing effects of structural disadvantage (Pfeifer et
al., 2018; Toki, 2018). Although the effects of colonization continue to affect Indigenous
experiences in both the adult and youth justice systems, the issue is far more pronounced for
Māori adults, with historical decreases seen in youth incarceration rates (Cook, 2023). New
Zealand’s primary piece of youth justice legislation, The Childrens, Young Persons and their
Families Act (CYPFA), enacted in 1989 and recently renamed to the Oranga Tamiriki Act (OTA)
in 2017, outlines principles of diversion, decarceration, victims’ rights and the empowerment of
whānau (families) (Deckert & Sarre, 2017; Doolan, 2017).
In 2010, the government passed an amendment to the OTA, which introduced a further
principle that any interventions instituted in response to a young person’s offending must
address its underlying causes. The OTA legislates a robust and evidence-based response to

17
youth offending. Initiatives such as the Policing Excellence Initiative and subsequent Prevention
First Model shifted police towards a more proactive and prevention-focused approach to youth
offending (Webb et al., 2023). In 2010, the New Zealand Police Service (NZPS) implemented
various community-based initiatives as part of its Policing Excellence Initiative. NZPS upholds
the principle of addressing young offenders who require more than a verbal warning through a
specialized division (Youth Aid Division) (Webb et al., 2023). New Zealand remains the only
country in the world to have a specialized aid division of the police force to deal with young
offenders (Toki, 2018).
This division, comprised of a team of experts (Youth Aid Officers), possesses the
authority to handle cases informally by implementing alternative resolutions, such as meeting
with the offender's family, attending a drug and alcohol program, or enforcing a curfew. Iwi
(tribal) justice panels are some initiatives that provide viable alternatives to formal court
proceedings. These panels operate in Gisborne, Auckland, Christchurch and Lower Hutt
(Gordon, 2019) with the objective to address the root causes of offending (Keddell et al., 2019).
The NZPS views these community-based justice panels as a proactive approach to crime
prevention and an opportunity to strengthen relationships between the police and the
communities they serve (Gordon, 2019; Stanley & Froideville, 2020).
This section summarized the current state of the overincarceration paradigm as evident
in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The prevailing dichotomies inextricably prevalent in all
three countries in the form of colonizing policies and practices that have overridden the
historical models of justice followed by Indigenous communities were explored. Although
Western youth justice systems internationally accredit various narratives, these narratives
overwhelmingly favour punitive models that embody discipline and control without regard for the
contextual vulnerabilities plaguing Indigenous youth as a result of neocolonial processes
(Cunneen et al., 2016). Although laws are embedded within the jurisdictional landscapes of the
Canadian and Australian systems, they are limited in their scope and connection to Indigenous

18
needs. Although the influence of settler-colonial institutions was paralleled in all three countries,
the OTA comprehensively reformed the New Zealand response to offending behaviour of youth
in a culturally responsive manner that was not considered in Canada and Australia (Webb et al.,
2023). In highlighting this, the following section will provide an overview of the culturally
responsive interventions that are in place in Canada and Australia.

Review of the Culturally Responsive Interventions
Canada’s Call to Action 38
As per the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Report (2015), the
overrepresentation of Indigenous youth in Canada's criminal justice system has reached crisis
levels (Department of Justice Canada, 2021; MacDonald, 2020). In acknowledging this, the
Government of Canada has prioritized the restoration of its relationship with Indigenous peoples
and is making efforts to advance reconciliation with Indigenous communities based on
recognition of “rights, respect, and partnership” (Department of Justice Canada, 2021, p. 4). The
response begins with addressing Call to Action 38 of the TRC’s report, which urges the federal,
provincial, territorial, and Aboriginal governments to take concrete steps towards reducing the
overrepresentation of Aboriginal youth in custody by the end of 2025 (MacDonald, 2020).
In March 2019, three roundtable discussions (sharing circles) were held to promote open
discussions on program development (Department of Justice Canada, 2021). Each focused on
a specific Indigenous group, the first roundtable (held on March 19th) was centered around First
Nations, followed by a Métis discussion on March 20th and an Inuit circle on March 21st
(Department of Justice Canada, 2021). The approach was distinction-based, recognizing that
pan-Indigenous solutions cannot address each culture's unique needs and challenges
(MacDonald, 2020). The discussions were centered around topics related to restorative justice,
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD), Gladue Reports, and culturally responsive
programming (MacDonald, 2020).

19
In speaking to the centrality of culture in establishing identity and inner resilience, some
of the participants highlighted the issue of inadequate culturally appropriate support for
Indigenous youth as a significant challenge in preventing recidivism (Department of Justice
Canada, 2021). Other participants delved into the unintended consequences and challenges of
Gladue reports, which have the potential to label youth and exacerbate their difficulties leading
to vulnerability and trauma (Department of Justice Canada, 2021). Furthermore, the importance
of a distinctions-based approach to restorative justice was emphasized, one that acknowledges
and integrates the unique cultures and daily realities of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit
communities (MacDonald, 2020). Overall, there was a shared narrative for longer-term
assistance and sufficient culturally informed services (Department of Justice Canada, 2021).
In order to address the unique needs of Indigenous youth who are involved in the justice
system, Justice Canada provides funding to various non-profit and Indigenous organizations, as
well as provincial and territorial governments (Ferguson et al., 2021). Justice Canada will
provide approximately $1 million over three years (2023-2026) to the Community Youth
Reintegration Program (CYRP) (Department of Justice Canada, 2023). For the communities
under the Saskatoon Tribal Council (STC), this program offers intensive mentorship to youth,
culturally responsive programming and guidance from knowledge keepers (elders). The
program offers a holistic inter-agency approach, with the aim to connect youth with appropriate
resources and create supportive connections in the community (Jewell & Mosby, 2023).
Approximately $11 million in funding for Budget 2021 was set aside until March 2024 to
facilitate Indigenous-led community engagement with select Indigenous groups and the
government (Department of Justice Canada, 2023). There is also a provision for $216.4 million
over the next 5 years, commencing from 2022 and an ongoing $43.3 million for the Youth
Justice Services Funding Program (YJSFP) (Jewell & Mosby, 2023). This funding aims to
increase funding for provinces/territories to support diversion programming and help curb the

20
overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples and racial minorities specifically in the youth justice
system (Department of Justice Canada, 2023).
As of April 2021, a total of $10.5 million in federal funding had been approved through
the Youth Justice Fund to support multi-year projects focusing on Indigenous youth (Department
of Justice Canada, 2023). In March 2021, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice
announced the Government of Canada's support to Ryerson University for its National
Indigenous Court Workers: Indigenous Youth-Centered Justice Project (IYCJP). The goal of this
project is to improve outcomes for Indigenous youth who are involved in both the child welfare
and youth justice system. A total of nearly $2.5 million over 5 years is also being provided in
support of this project (Department of Justice Canada, 2023). The IYCJP will conduct individual
casework with Indigenous youth from both the criminal justice and child welfare systems, with
the goal of reducing overrepresentation and recidivism (Jewell & Mosby, 2023).
On March 17, 2021, Justice Canada announced a total of $587,000 over four years to
support the Empower Project (Wong, 2021). This program supports vulnerable Indigenous
young women who are justice-involved and diagnosed with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
(FASD) (Wong, 2021). Programming will include culturally informed substance abuse
counseling, mental health support, as well as skill-building, social and recreational activities
(Wong, 2021). Additionally, to improve Indigenous Family Courtwork services, Justice Canada
announced $1.2 million in funding for regions where these services currently exist, including
Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Ontario, and the Northwest Territories (Department of Justice
Canada, 2023). The 2023 Fall Economic Statement proposed investments of $14 million over a
five year period for the ongoing development of Gladue reports, with an emphasis on availability
and delivery models in order to implement Gladue principles throughout the criminal justice
system (Department of Justice Canada, 2023).
Although there seems to be a series of culturally responsive interventions underway,
funded and supported by the federal government. It is evident (just like the TRC recognized)

21
that there is a magnitude of ways to address the issue and many of these efforts are tied to
other Calls to Action which will all contribute to the achievement of Call to Action 38
(MacDonald, 2020). The Department of Justice (2021) reports that Canada is actively
collaborating with Indigenous governments, organizations and communities to develop an
Indigenous Justice Strategy (IJS). A first round of 26 engagement sessions have been
conducted between November 2022 and March 2023, with over 700 Indigenous participants
from diverse backgrounds (Department of Justice Canada, 2023).
Despite the mass funding supporting select initiatives, the scope of the government's
response has been limited and leisurely (Passafiume, 2023). According to the Yellowhead
Institute, which is the only Indigenous-led policy think tank in Canada, “the federal government
has more than proven an unwilling partner in meaningful reconciliation” (Jewell & Mosby, 2023,
p. 6). With zero Calls to Action completed in 2023 and 81 Calls remaining unfulfilled since the
TRC’s final report in 2015, Yellowhead Institute has decided to stop publishing its annual report
due to lack of action from the government (Passafiume, 2023). Although the federal government
seems to be treading in the right direction by including Indigenous voices in program design.
There is a long ways to go to address the inherent issues that lie beneath the surface and focus
on aspects related to health, education and employment opportunity, which are issues that the
Australian government could also work more comprehensively on. The following section will
seek to explore this perspective, specifically focusing on the Closing the Gap framework as a
parallel response to Canada’s current approach to the overincarceration paradigm.
Australia’s Closing the Gap Outcome 11
In 2020, all Australian governments and the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Peak Organisations signed the National Agreement on Closing the Gap (NACG). This
marked the first time a non-government party signed as a partner in a national agreement
(Productivity Commission, 2024). This landmark agreement called for a structural shift in the
way governments collaborate with Aboriginal groups to achieve better outcomes (Productivity

22
Commission, 2024). NACG was put into effect with specific targets for youth justice set by the
Australian Government (NIAA, 2024). Target 11 is especially noteworthy and will be our focus as
it parallels Call to Action 38. Target 11 outlines a commitment to decreasing the rates of
Aboriginal youths in detention by a minimum of 30% by 2031 (Maxwell, 2024). The Indigenous
Advancement Strategy (IAS) is the mechanism through which the Australian Government funds
and delivers programs for Indigenous Australians (NIAA, 2024). In the 2021-22 Budget, the
Australian Government allocated $5.7 billion to the IAS for grant funding processes and
administered procurement activities, spanning up to 2024-25 (Australian Government, 2024).
Through the IAS, The Commonwealth has provided funding for youth diversion and
support activities, totaling approximately $12 million in 2022-2023 (NIAA, 2024). These efforts
are designed to complement those being made by states and territories to enhance justice and
community safety outcomes (Australian Government, 2024). The activities are specifically
geared towards Indigenous youth aged 10-24 who are either in contact with or at risk of
encountering the justice system (Butler, 2024; Lowitja Institute, 2024). The goal is to promote
positive behavior through various means, such as diversionary activities and intensive case
management (NIAA, 2024). The Commonwealth plays a pivotal role in collaborating with
communities and state governments to facilitate positive change and aid Indigenous
community-controlled organizations in executing effective solutions (Lowitja Institute, 2024).
The IAS is committed to supporting diversionary and early intervention programs, while
the Justice Policy Partnership (JPP) represents a collective effort involving representatives from
the Coalition of the Peaks and all Australian governments (Butler, 2024; Lowitja Institute, 2024).
Their aim is to take a cohesive approach to Indigenous justice policy, with a view to expediting
progress towards Outcomes 10 and 11, which are reported together by the Productivity
Commission (NIAA, 2024). Building on the JPP Work Plan from 2021-22, the JPP continues to
strengthen strategic partnerships and holistically consider Indigenous policies and their potential
impacts (NIAA, 2024). This includes a focus on understanding the complex socio-economic

23
drivers that increase the risk of Indigenous people's contact with the criminal justice system
(Australian Government, 2024).
The Commonwealth’s First Nations justice commitment, announced in the 2022-23
federal budget, represents a significant step towards Closing the Gap and improving the lives of
Indigenous people (NIAA, 2024). This includes $81.5 million over four years in new and ongoing
funding for community-led justice reinvestment projects, as well as a national independent
justice reinvestment unit to assist communities in developing and evaluating justice
reinvestment initiatives (NIAA, 2024). The aim is to ensure that lessons learned are collectively
shared nationwide (Australian Government, 2024).
The implementation of justice reinvestment has proven to be an effective approach to
addressing the root causes of incarceration within Indigenous communities (Australian
Government, 2024). By working collaboratively with all levels of government and the wider
community, Indigenous communities have been able to curb crime and reduce interactions with
the criminal justice system (NIAA, 2024). In 2023, the Commonwealth provided an additional
$17.5 million to strengthen the leadership potential of Indigenous community-controlled
organizations and enhance access to culturally sensitive legal and non-legal assistance for First
Nations peoples (NIAA, 2024). This funding will enable Indigenous communities to improve their
capability to tackle incarceration rates within their locality and achieve better outcomes for their
communities (Lowitja Institute, 2024).
The 2022-23 State Budget has provided an allocation of $40.4 million towards
community-based programs that aim to support vulnerable youth and reduce their involvement
with the justice system (NIAA, 2024). Western Australia currently has the highest rate of youth
detention in the country, which has made it a top priority for the government to work
collaboratively with Aboriginal youth, their families and communities, and non-government
organizations to improve outcomes (Western Australian Government, 2024). To this end, the
Kimberley Juvenile Justice Strategy (KJJS) has been developed in the Kimberley region to

24
provide location-specific initiatives that steer youth away from the formal justice system, and
towards more positive outcomes (Western Australian Government, 2024).
The Kimberley region has undertaken several initiatives to improve youth justice
outcomes. These efforts comprise a wide array of interventions, including night patrols,
structured activities, skills programs, cultural camps, and after-school activities (Western
Australian Government, 2024). The Joint Policy Program (JPP) has allocated $11.1 million
towards the Target 120 program, which offers early intervention support customized to the
specific needs of at-risk youth and their families, focusing on factors that contribute to offending
and antisocial behavior (Western Australian Government, 2024). Furthermore, the JPP has
earmarked $15 million towards a residential facility for young offenders in Kimberley, as well as
other initiatives to provide safe residential accommodations (NIAA, 2024).
In Australia, the current policy for youth justice prioritizes early intervention and diversion
from the criminal justice system, acknowledging the unique care and protection that young
people require based on their age (Cunneen et al., 2021; Dale et al., 2023). Nevertheless, youth
justice systems are managed by individual state and territory governments, resulting in
significant variation in diversionary practices, particularly in Indigenous communities (Cunneen
et al., 2021; Garner et al., 2023). The Commonwealth acknowledges that states and territories
have the authority to address disparities in their respective systems and policies that
disproportionately impact Indigenous peoples and their communities (NIAA, 2024).
The latest Closing the Gap annual data, released on July 14, 2023, presents a mixed
picture of progress towards achieving the targets set by the Closing the Gap commission
(Australian Government, 2024; Maxwell, 2024). While there have been some gains in reducing
the rate of incarceration and improving early childhood education enrollment rates among
Indigenous youth, there are still areas of concern (NIAA, 2024). According to the 2023 Closing
the Gap Annual Data Compilation Report (ADCR), only five of the 19 targets are on track

25
(Maxwell, 2024). While target 11 is one of the five on track (with no evidence to back the claim),
target 10 (which is inherently tied to 11) is worsening (NIAA, 2024).
According to the Productivity Commission, in a report published on February 7, 2024, the
federal governments overall progress towards its targets has been slow and uncoordinated, with
disregard for Indigenous needs (Butler, 2024). It is clear that there is much work to be done to
close the gap and achieve all 19 targets by 2031 (Maxwell, 2024). Nonetheless, the Australian
government is not without guidance, the Productivity Commission has provided a list of
recommendations for progress to recommence and many of these will be explored later in this
paper. First, however, we must explore a different perspective and identify what seems to be
working for New Zealand in their approach to Indigenous youth overrepresentation.

Recommendations for a Path Forward
What is Working for New Zealand
The youth justice system in New Zealand has prioritized restorative justice through the
implementation of Family Group Conference (FGC) and heavily emphasizes diversion for young
offenders (Pfeifer et al., 2018). The approach is founded on the principles of restorative justice
and diversion, which were incorporated into the CYPFA in 1989 (Webb, 2022). These provisions
had been developed before ideas about restorative jurisprudence had been widely
disseminated. The New Zealand system, and in particular FGCs, have become restorative in
practice in an evolutionary way, rather than as a result of any theoretical or legislative
prescription to do so (Toki, 2018). The Act promotes a hybrid justice-welfare approach for youth
offenders, where the community plays a central role in addressing offending behavior (Pfeifer et
al., 2018). As per Section 208 of the Act, criminal proceedings are considered only as a last
resort to discourage the police's over-reliance on arrest powers (Webb, 2022).
In the context of restorative justice, scholars have argued that conflict resolution should
be left to those directly involved or affected by the crime (Gordon, 2019; Hamley et al., 2023;

26
Tauri, 2022). However, the traditional justice system often relies on legal professionals to speak
on behalf of victims, offenders, and their communities, often marginalizing the voices of those
most impacted (Tauri, 2022; Toki, 2018). To address these issues and promote a more
empowering process, restorative justice, including restorative conferencing, has been
developed (Paine et al., 2022; Toki, 2018). Restoration necessitates bringing together all
stakeholders affected by a particular offense to collectively determine how to address the
aftermath of the crime and its future implications (Gordon, 2019). Although restorative justice
was only introduced to New Zealand in 1993, its underlying principles have been present since
the implementation of Family Group Conferencing (FGC) under the CYPFA in 1989 (Nordstrom
& Stanfield, 2021).
The FGC process in New Zealand draws from the Māori tradition of collaborative
decision-making to address conflicts and incorporates Māori traditions and protocols (Doolan,
2017). Approximately 75% of youth offending doesn’t result in a formal charge. According to
Section 208(a) of the OTA, measures should empower family groups to identify and implement
their own solutions for dealing with youth offenses, with sanctions being the least restrictive and
instead promoting the growth of the young person involved (Gordon, 2019). Despite being
replicated worldwide, the FGC remains unique to New Zealand's youth court as the primary and
mandatory decision-making process. Successful execution of the FGC plan results in the
withdrawal of proceedings, with the young person avoiding criminal charges and a criminal
record (Deckert & Sarre, 2017). However, if the plan fails to materialize, another FGC is
convened, or the matter is referred to the youth court for further review (Grey et al., 2023).
The OTA further emphasizes parental responsibility and accountability. A youth court
judge can summon a parent to the court, and failure to appear may result in a punitive sanction
(Gordon, 2019). The court can also impose a parenting education order requiring the parent to
participate in a specialized program that promotes positive family relationships (Pfeifer et al.,
2018). There are additional therapeutic interventions available to foster better communication

27
and familial relationships. Functional Family Therapy is meant to change communication and
interaction patterns by supplying parents with proactive parenting tools (Toki, 2018). Multi
systemic therapy identifies the underlying causes of a young person's offending and works with
the whole family to address the specific risk factors. Both interventions have resulted in positive
behavioral changes in the families of many young offenders (Stanley & Froideville, 2020).
In 2008, the Ngā Kōti Rangatahi initiative was established in response to the recognition
that the youth justice system could do more to meet the specific needs of young Māori (Hamley
et al., 2023). The principle behind these courts is the notion that criminal conduct often stems
from a loss of identity and self-esteem. As such, the main objective is to assist the young person
in regaining these qualities (Paine et al., 2022). The proceedings of the Rangatahi courts and
the Pasifika courts are held on the Marae, where it is imperative to observe and respect
customary practices. In addition to promoting the use of Te Reo (Māori language), the
Rangatahi courts also aid young Māori in reconnecting with other aspects of their cultural
heritage (Doolan, 2017). According to a recent court evaluation, it was found that young Māori
who attended Ngā Kōti Rangatahi felt valued, understood the court proceedings, perceived the
monitoring process to be just, and enjoyed positive relationships with the youth justice experts
(Gordon, 2019). However, it is important to note that while this court system, similar to the Koori
court in Australia, has many strengths, it does not address the underlying causes of crime, such
as poverty and systemic biases (Webb et al., 2023).
.According to reviews of successful interventions for Indigenous youth offending, there
are several key components that should be included (Gordon, 2019; Webb, 2022).These
components include a whānau family approach, recognition of identity, cultural knowledge,
connectivity, addressing educational/vocational needs, ensuring social and economic well-being,
and employing individuals (preferably Māori) who have a strong sense of authority that young
people can relate to (Deckert & Sarre, 2017). It has been suggested that interventions that focus

28
on the important community and familial aspects of Indigenous youth, rather than punitive
measures, are more effective (Grey et al., 2023).
New Zealand’s system is quite unique globally, in that, the legal framework prioritizes
families when it comes to decision making and aims to empower families and ensure their full
participation (Polglase & Lambie, 2023). The OTA’s commitment to handling young offenders
within the context of their families is one of the highest standards set by international
instruments and conventions (Webb, 2022). The legislation upholds nearly all the principles of
the Beijing Rules and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC)
(Polglase & Lambie, 2023). The Beijing Rules' emphasis on family involvement can be observed
at every stage of the youth justice process in New Zealand, from interactions with police youth
aid at the point of charge or alternative action, to the decision to impose a formal youth court
order (Pfeifer et al., 2018). Although UNCROC was not considered during the drafting of the
legislation, the OTA incorporates nearly all of the convention's protective rights.
The youth justice system of New Zealand has gained significant recognition from the
global criminal justice community for its innovative approach (Paine et al., 2022; Stanley &
Froidville, 2020; Toki, 2018). The system places substantial emphasis on diversion,
decarceration, victims' rights and family participation, which have proven to be instrumental in
reducing the criminogenic risks for young individuals entering the justice system. The
effectiveness of these measures is a testament to the system's adeptness in tackling challenges
related to youth justice, that are not seen in other parts of the world (Gordon, 2019). This
section aimed to explore the various principles and practices unique to New Zealand's approach
to youth justice, which will be useful in our discussion on a path forward for Canada and
Australia later on. However, the various recommendations and viability of select measures
offered to the Canadian government to prevent youth overincarceration are explored in the
following section.

29
What Can Canada do to Improve
It is imperative to consider that the Canadian government's responses to crime are
predominantly systemic rather than restorative in nature (Tauri, 2022). The focus is on adjusting
the criminal justice system rather than addressing the root causes of youth crime by involving
victims, engaging offenders, and consulting community leaders (Barker et al., 2015; Lockwood
et al., 2018). This critique of the governments response was especially emphasized by Douglas
Sinclair (of Indigenous Watchdog) in an interview for the Yellowhead Institute (Jewell & Mosby,
2022). Sinclair stressed the year after year narratives around funding, in that, the government
touts the many millions going into program design and implementation with a lack of
transparency in provincial funding, program effectiveness and overall results (Jewell & Mosby,
2022). According to Canada’s correctional investigator Ivan Zinger, in a press conference
highlighting the travesty that is Indigneous overincarceration, “organizational paternalism”
coupled with the “incapacity for self-reflection” are inherently evident in the correctional system
resulting in an unconscionably Indigenized prison population (Forester, 2023, p. 1).
Zinger also stressed that Correctional Services Canada (CSC) is "playing a game of
recognition politics, where it has learned to talk the talk of reconciliation to increase its resource
base, quell the concerns of detractors and advocates, and stall for yet more time” (Forester,
2023, p. 1). In his 2022-2023 Annual Report, Zinger lists key findings for reform upon engaging
with various Indigenous organizations, leaders and stakeholders. A general consensus agreed
that interventions like the Pathways Initiatives have no meaningful impact because they serve
very few people, the contributions of elders (knowledge keepers) are undervalued and the
pan-Indigenous approach to corrections erases relevant cultural differences between First
Nations, Metis and Inuit populations (Forester, 2023).
Although these findings apply to Indigenous peoples more generally, they are
inextricably linked to concerns expressed in relation to youth incarceration and parallel the
concerns expressed elsewhere. For instance, a consensus of youth engaged in the 2019

30
Indigenous Youth Roundtable Discussions (IYRD) expressed concerns related to service
delivery and cultural programming. Specifically highlighting that the pan-Indigenous cultural
programming provided at various stages of the criminal justice system did not cater to their
cultural requirements (Department of Justice Canada, 2021). Several Inuit participants
emphasized the necessity for community-based youth-centered activities to deter young people
from engaging in high-risk conduct (Department of Justice Canada, 2021). It was identified that
the primary reasons surrounding minor offenses committed by Inuit youth in their communities
were correlated with the absence of appropriate activities and the resulting boredom from not
having access to community-based sports which were perceived as critical to fostering
community cohesion (Department of Justice Canada, 2021).
Indigenous youth in Canada face higher rates of preventable chronic disease compared
to their non-Indigenous counterparts, making effective health promotion programs critical
(Ferguson et al., 2021). To ensure these programs meet the needs of Indigenous youth, it is
essential to center their voices and experiences (Lopresti et al., 2020). Given that children and
youth spend a significant amount of their day at school, school-based health promotion
programs offer a promising strategy to improve health and wellness (Ferguson et al., 2021). A
growing body of evidence supports Indigenous peer-led programs as beneficial for Indigenous
youth. For instance, a systematic review by Vujcich et al. (2018) found that peer-led health
promotion programming in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States improved
health-related knowledge and behaviors among Indigenous youth. In addition, the programs led
to increased use of health services, decreased alcohol use, increased awareness of sexual
health issues and enhanced self-esteem (Vujcich et al., 2018).
Many healthy living interventions are implemented annually for youth, but few are
tailored to the specific needs of Indigenous youth (Vujcich et al., 2018). Out of the interventions
that have reached multiple Indigenous communities in Canada, only five have made an impact,
and one of them is the Indigenous Youth Mentorship Program (IYMP) (Lopresti et al., 2020).

31
This program is community-led and based on Indigenous values with a focus on promoting
healthy lifestyles among children and youth (Ferguson et al., 2021). It involves multi-age
mentoring and incorporates physical activity, healthy eating, and cultural teachings (Lopresti et
al., 2020). Unlike other Indigenous health promotion programs, the IYMP uniquely integrates
Indigenous values to promote healthy lifestyles among children and youth (Ferguson et al.,
2021). The program's non-hierarchical, communal mentoring approach ensures that learning is
not just peer-led but is multi-directional (Vujcich et al., 2018).
The IYMP has been successfully implemented in over 20 communities across Canada,
with each program tailored specifically to the needs of its community (Ferguson et al., 2021). By
embracing and incorporating the unique knowledge and experiences of each community, the
IYMP takes a strengths-focused approach. Research has demonstrated that the program has a
positive impact on health outcomes, including reducing body mass index and increasing dietary
self-efficacy (Ferguson et al., 2021; Vujcich et al., 2018). In a study conducted in two rural
community schools in Alberta, traditional cultural activities and teachings were integrated into
the program design (Lopresti et al., 2020). Activities include the Seven Grandfather Teachings,
language revitalization (Stoney or Cree), ceremonies (prayer or smudging) and Medicine Wheel
(Lopresti et al., 2020). The study concluded that connecting youth with cultural traditions and
revitalizing language were important initiatives for promoting wellness and strengthening youth
resilience (Lopresti et al., 2020). While more research is needed to understand Indigenous
youth-focused health promotion programs in Canada, the IYMP serves as a model for related
programs that seek to adopt a communal-led, multi-directional, and distinctions-based approach
that is highly favored amongst youth (Vujcich et al., 2018).
In order to achieve true efficacy, cultural programming must be customized to
acknowledge and address the unique distinctions of each community (Department of Justice
Canada, 2021; Mackenzie, 2020). Unfortunately, the lack of support for Indigenous peoples
extends beyond cultural matters (Mackenzie, 2020). First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities

32
face dynamic challenges related to their history and geography, which directly impact their social
determinants of health (Cesaroni et al., 2019). During roundtable discussions, participants
emphasized the critical need to address these determinants (Department of Justice Canada,
2021). Doing so can prevent their initial interaction with the justice system and promote
successful rehabilitation to respond to these challenges comprehensively and promote social
equity (Department of Justice Canada, 2021).
It is imperative to enhance collaboration and information exchange among social service
providers, criminal justice personnel, community leaders, and elders to strengthen support for
Indigenous youth throughout all stages (Department of Justice Canada, 2021). Notably, despite
the presence of mental health services, their efficacy is impeded by a lack of cultural sensitivity
and high staff turnover (Department of Justice Canada, 2021; Prince et al., 2021). To overcome
these challenges, it is recommended to foster better communication between service workers
and policymakers at every level by educating them on Indigenous culture and contemporary
social realities (Department of Justice Canada, 2021; Prince et al., 2021).
In recent years, the adoption of a public health approach towards addressing youth
involvement in criminal activities has gained considerable attention (Cooper et al., 2016; O’Brien
et al., 2023). This approach aims to prevent offending and victimization by incorporating
strategies into a broader population-level framework that targets early risk factors for
delinquency and violent behavior, such as housing and health (Prince et al., 2021). By
prioritizing the intricate causal system underlying youth offending, this approach recognizes that
social structures, access to criminogenic commodities, and exposure to situations that
encourage offending can play a role (Prince et al., 2021). This approach is in contrast to the
purely criminal justice-centered perspective of youth offending that concentrates solely on
individual motivations and intentions (O’Brien et al., 2023).
Clearly, the issues at hand are complex and multifaceted, requiring significant
investment of time and resources to implement effective solutions (Tauri, 2022). However, the

33
Canadian government has a wealth of recommendations and potential solutions at its disposal.
Many of these recommendations coming from the TRC Final Report in 2015 which, according to
Ivan Zinger, “remain relevant but mostly unfulfilled” (Forester, 2023, p. 1). The recommendations
include; developing culturally appropriate parenting programs for Indigenous families, creating
education curricula that are respectful of Indigenous cultures, providing cultural training to
judges and lawyers and establishing traditional healing centers that are culturally sensitive to
the physical and mental health concerns of Indigenous peoples (O’Brien et al., 2023). By taking
decisive action and implementing many of the solutions proposed in this report, the Canadian
government can make considerable progress in resolving the social issues that have long
plagued Indigenous communities (Sittner & Estes, 2023).
Moreover, the Commission calls on the government to collaborate with Indigenous
communities to develop community-based sanctions that address the underlying causes of
offending, proactively prevent crime, and reintegrate offenders post-incarceration (O’Brien et al.,
2023). These measures are necessary to address the specific social needs of Indigenous
peoples with the input of those who are most aware of them (Lockwood et al., 2018). It is worth
mentioning that the Canadian government has already initiated programs to address the social
causes of crime within inner-city neighborhoods. Implementing the recommendations of the
Truth and Reconciliation Commission will require a concerted effort from the government,
Indigenous communities, and the judicial system itself (O’Brien et al., 2023). Adopting these
measures will ensure that Indigenous peoples receive fair treatment within the criminal justice
system while also addressing the root causes of crime.
It is recommended that future endeavors prioritize the development of specialized early
intervention programs that prioritize the empowerment and expressed needs of Aboriginal
families (Cesaroni et al., 2019). Additionally, expanding the use of restorative justice programs
that align with traditional Indigenous values is key. Research has shown that community-based
alternative measures, designed and operated by self-governing Aboriginal nations, can mitigate

34
the postcolonial framework within which the current criminal justice system exists (O’Brien et al.,
2023). These alternative measures are a fundamental tenet of reform. Indigenous communities
have identified the need for upstream interventions to help at-risk Indigenous youth connect with
their communities, traditions and promote positive self-worth (Prince et al., 2021). For instance,
a study conducted by Barker et al. (2015) calls for the implementation of culturally-tailored
addiction prevention programs that target youth, in addition to programs that promote healthy
family dynamics and conflict resolution.
It has been recommended that approaches to addressing issues like crime should be
comprehensive and should take into account the intricate cultural dynamics and rich historical
background of Indigenous communities (Prince et al., 2021). Unfortunately, many individuals in
the media and the general public tend to view youth delinquency solely through the lens of
criminal justice, disregarding the impact of contextual factors like trauma, social and economic
disparities, and other environmental influences on the development of antisocial behavior. As a
consequence, media and political reactions to youth delinquency tend to have a primarily
punitive nature (Gordon et al., 2021; Pratt, 2017).
In order to address the issue of overrepresentation, it is essential to bring about a
fundamental shift in approach. Merely altering sentencing schemes or employing diversionary
measures that lack cultural responsivity are unlikely to remedy the underlying issues of
marginalization and discrimination that Indigenous youth face (Barker et al., 2015). By utilizing
successful programs as models, the government can increasingly collaborate with Indigenous
leaders and communities to address persistent social issues on reserves and to effectively
resolve overrepresentation. The Canadian government should ultimately invest in
evidence-based interventions, focused on education initiatives, because as Murray Sinclair
rightfully emphasized, education is what got us into this mess and education must be the driving
force that will help get us out. Therefore, the Canadian government must display a willingness to

35
extend beyond the confines of the criminal justice system and tackle the multilateral issues that
have plagued Indigenous communities for decades (Tauri, 2022).
How Australia Can Move in the Right Direction
The Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations and the
Australian governments have collaboratively commissioned the Productivity Commission to
conduct an extensive review of progress and provide recommendations to ensure the objectives
of the NACG are met (Productivity Commission, 2024). The Commission has highlighted that
adhering to business-as-usual practices will not bring about significant change (Butler, 2024).
Although minor adjustments have been made nationwide to comply with the NACG, genuine
progress necessitates a profound analysis of systems, departments, and public servants (Butler,
2024). It is crucial for government decision-makers to acknowledge their limited comprehension
of the needs of Aboriginal people. Unfortunately, key government systems, such as
policy-making processes, funding, and contracting rules, have not changed substantially
(Productivity Commission, 2024). This can be attributed to entrenched government cultures,
attitudes, and risk aversion that have not evolved to share power. Furthermore, insufficient
cultural capability and a lack of cultural safety persist (Milroy & Bandler, 2021).
The lack of a cohesive strategy for system-wide change has impeded progress, as there
is no clear roadmap for how the multitude of small actions outlined in implementation plans will
lead to significant transformation (Butler, 2024). Ironically, there are still cases of governments
making decisions that contradict their commitments in the agreement, such as the alterations to
bail laws in Queensland that will result in more Aboriginal youth being incarcerated for longer
periods (Productivity Commission, 2024). To achieve tangible progress, the government must
act on the four recommendations provided by the Productivity Commission and priority reforms
already in place. The first recommendation underscores the need for governments to share
power and prioritize Aboriginal rights to control decisions that impact their lives (Butler, 2024).

36
The success of community transformational processes hinges on the transfer of power
from government to the community, which must occur through culturally sensitive/safe
decision-making processes (Butcher et al., 2022). In Australia, cultural safety is a growing topic
in government sectors and originates from Maori nursing practices in New Zealand as an
Indigenous knowledge construct (Butcher et al., 2020; Flemington et al., 2021). Its purpose is to
address power imbalances in relationships, promote understanding of the rights of others and
acknowledge the legitimacy of differences which provides communities greater control when
collaborating with non-Indigenous service providers (Flemington et al., 2021). Cultural safety's
influence is expanding and has now gone beyond nursing practices in New Zealand, with
acceptance in other research fields such as immigration (Butcher et al., 2020).
The second recommendation is related to recognizing Indigenous Data Sovereignty
(IDS). The NACG has garnered immense support from Aboriginal organizations to include IDS
(Productivity Commission, 2024). Accepting and implementing IDS in the agreement would lend
itself to a mandate for action, enabling more effective partnerships and disrupting negative
narratives surrounding data interpretation (Butler, 2024). This would ultimately foster increased
trust in data collection and better information for policy design and delivery (Productivity
Commission, 2024). The third recommendation relates to a fundamental overhaul of
government systems and culture for central agencies to update funding rules to incorporate
accountability for funders explicitly (Productivity Commission, 2024). It is vital for Aboriginal
Community Controlled Organizations (ACCOs) to be involved in negotiations from the outset, as
their expertise and knowledge are indispensable (Productivity Commission, 2024).
One potential national accountability mechanism for Closing the Gap goals and
monitoring processes is to incorporate statistics on Indigenous incarceration and recidivism
rates (Battams et al., 2021). Since these figures are linked to other monitored objectives, they
could provide a meaningful way to track progress. Collaboration between the justice sector and
other industries could facilitate the allocation of necessary resources, such as public housing

37
and justice reinvestment strategies (Battams et al., 2021). The heavily favored justice
reinvestment approach redirects resources used for prisons toward dysfunctional communities.
Justice reinvestment is simply a proactive approach to alleviate social disadvantages, like the
lack of education and employment. According to Bratanova and Robinson (2017), justice
reinvestment would require a change of approach from a reactive to a proactive testament. For
instance, public spending on prisons has led to less spending on other areas within the justice
system (Battams et al., 2021). While spending on policing is higher than spending on prisons,
prison spending is increasing faster than spending on policing (Battams et al., 2021).
Independent evaluations have concluded that justice reinvestment initiatives build local capacity
and empower communities to develop local solutions to local issues. Education has been
brought to the forefront as a vehicle for social change in reducing poverty and crime while
increasing future employment and economic status (Warner et al., 2022).
The fourth recommendation by the Productivity Commission highlights the need for
stronger accountability in monitoring and reporting progress toward driving behavior change
(Butler, 2024). Although the NACG does not provide a comprehensive list of measures required
to address the entrenched inequality experienced by Aboriginal people, such measures can be
found in other intergovernmental agreements, including those relating to schools, health, skills,
and housing (Milroy & Bandler, 2021). As these agreements are revised, governments must
ensure they reflect their commitments (Butler, 2024). It is recommended that every government
include a statement in its annual report detailing the substantive activities it undertook to
implement the recommendations (Productivity Commission, 2024). Moreover, governments
should publish stocktakes, partnership agreements, transformation strategies, and other
relevant documents (Productivity Commission, 2024). The aim is to enhance socio-economic
outcomes by prioritizing Aboriginal knowledge, reinforcing leadership in program design and
creating culturally safe and responsive programs (Productivity Commission, 2024).

38
In 2019, a cohort of 65 Indigenous Australian youth convened for the Imagination
Declaration youth forum (Shay et al., 2019). The forum's principal aim was to encourage the
Prime Minister and education ministers to incorporate the views of young people in shaping
future policies (Smallwood et al., 2023). The youths implored the ministers to perceive
Indigenous youths as founts of brilliance, leadership, and imagination in lieu of a challenge. By
expressing their desire to be heard, Aboriginal youths made it unequivocally clear that they
wanted a voice in the decision-making process (Shay et al., 2019). Despite enduring negative
stereotyping and racism, the youths involved in a project conducted by Shay et al. (2019) under
the Lowitja Institute (Australia’s only national Aboriginal community-controlled health research
institute) demonstrated remarkable resilience and adeptness in navigating complex issues.
Researchers on the ground reported that high schools in Queensland and Western Australia
were discussing the value of integrating Indigenous cultural perspectives into their curriculum
(Lowitja Institute, 2019). The youth also underscored the significance of pride, respect for
elders, success, family and collective work, as well as their hope for inclusion in devising
solutions (Lowitja Institute, 2019).
In a similar study conducted by Smallwood et al. (2023), the researchers explored
Aboriginal young people’s health and well-being experiences through their perspective. The
results of the project's findings were conclusive, as determined by Shay et al. (2019). Despite
finding a voice, young people still face significant issues of not being heard. This occurred
predominately in the colonized systems, whether it be the education, health or justice systems;
young Aboriginal people highlight the reoccurring oppression of their voice (Smallwood et al.,
2023). Youth recognized the importance of engaging with the healthcare and education systems
to avoid the correctional system, however, the lack of cultural safety and support were burdens
on these experiences, a trend that the researchers parallel to the stereotyping of Indigenous
populations in Canada (Smallwood et al., 2023). What has been identified in other colonized
Indigenous populations, as well as Australia, is the need for the improvement of culturally

39
relevant approaches to healthcare delivery and education. “Where the promotion of relational
approaches is integral, with the need for delivery and interactions to be centered around cultural
values…to empower indigenous people to be self-efficient and self-determined” (Smallwood et
al., 2023, p. 2098).
Battams et al. (2021) conducted a study to evaluate how Australian justice sector
policies prioritize crime prevention and address social determinants of health that overlap with
social determinants of incarceration. The study revealed that most crime prevention strategies in
Australia focus on tertiary prevention methods such as diversionary courts and rehabilitation
programs (Battams et al., 2021). On the other hand, there is a lack of emphasis on primary and
secondary crime prevention strategies that aim to modify environments before crimes occur or
provide early interventions for individuals (Battams et al., 2021). Additionally, there is a paucity
of measures to address social determinants of incarceration, such as housing, employment and
income, with inadequate accountability monitoring of justice sector strategies. Instead of heavy
investment in private providers, better-funded strategic intersectoral collaboration, with specific
coordination roles and cross-sectoral accountability mechanisms, is required. A shift towards a
human rights discourse on incarceration is necessary to address the increasing rates of
Aboriginal youth incarceration amid the "tough on crime" public debates (Battams et al., 2021).
Recent research by O'Brien and Trudgett (2020) has shed light on the correlation
between Indigenous youth exclusion from school and their overincarceration in custody. The
authors argue that real change is needed within the education system to ensure that cultural
competence and capacity are prioritized for Indigenous youth before it's too late. This can start
with decolonizing the relationship between Indigenous youth and the criminal justice system.
Law enforcement must prioritize efforts to avoid arrest when addressing youth misbehavior and
always weigh the detrimental consequences of incarceration against the promising future that
young individuals hold for themselves and society (Sittner & Estes, 2023). As emphasized by
the Productivity Commission, “we cannot afford to waste the opportunity that this agreement

40
presents. All Australians should expect that in three years time, the Commission will be
providing a very different assessment” (p. 3).

Discussion
What has become clear is that the governments in both Canada and Australia have
historically prioritized systemic, punitive, pan-Indigenous approaches to program creation
without much consultation with distinct Indigenous groups. The process has been to create
interventions without cultural consideration, inject millions of dollars into them and send them off
hoping that something might change (Gillfeather, 2019; O’Brien et al., 2023) Canada’s
correctional investigator (Ivan Zinger) has noted that the game is one of recognition politics,
where reconciliation is touted everywhere but practiced hardly anywhere (Forester, 2023).
Similar findings were explored in Australia, as emphasized by the government's own
Productivity Commission, key government systems, policy-making processes and funding have
not changed substantially due to inherent political punitive attitudes embedded within the
system (Productivity Commission, 2024).
Despite these stagnant approaches, I argue that both Canada and Australia are
beginning to move in the right direction. Reconciliation will ultimately be achieved when
governments have prioritized the restoration of their relationship with Indigenous peoples in a
continuous effort to eliminate their overincarceration (McGuire & Murdoch, 2022). The overall
findings indicate that the recommendations offered to both the Canadian and Australian
governments parallel in their scope. As the Productivity Commission (2024) emphasized, it is
crucial for decision-makers to acknowledge their limited comprehension of the needs of
Indigenous peoples. There must be a sharing of power and increased emphasis on the voices
and perspectives of those experiencing the interventions. The Government of Canada has
begun working on this through Indigenous roundtable discussions which take unique
perspectives into account for program development. There is also consensus for stronger

41
accountability in monitoring and reporting progress of programs that already exist (Productivity
Commission, 2024; Pfeifer et al., 2018).
Certain programs being funded today have existed for decades, but lack conclusive
testing in their overall effectiveness (Ferguson et al., 2021; He et al., 2021). There is also a
general consensus that the underlying issues (related to health, education and employment)
must be addressed to alleviate broader social structures disadvantaging Indigenous peoples.
Despite the positive initiatives being undertaken, it must be recognized that there is no one type
of Indigenous culture, nor one type of issue confronting Indigenous youth (Swartz, 2021). As
such, it has been suggested that any proposed responses to issues such as crime should be
multi-faceted and distinction-based, reflecting the cultural complexity and historical legacy of
Indigenous people.
According to Cesaroni et al.'s (2019) research on the overrepresentation of Indigenous
young people and potential solutions, the researchers concluded that “the way forward seems
apparent” (p. 124). Through talking circles held with various Indigenous groups in Canada
(Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee and Metis communities), the researchers found a general
consensus that youth-centric programming for Indigenous young people should be developed in
conjunction with key members of the Indigenous community (in particular, Elders and
knowledge keepers) and embedded in Indigenous history, tradition, culture and ceremony.
Programming should include young people as participants, developers and leaders with their
own input. Indigenous youth are more likely to engage in programming and initiatives if they are
anchored in history, tradition, culture and ceremony (Cesaroni et al., 2019).
Although the New Zealand system is far from perfect, with overrepresentation still
prevalent, there are countless initiatives outside of the justice system funded by the Ministry of
Māori Development through Te Puni Kōkiri that support local, community-based projects
focused on health, education, economic development, and housing (Hamley et al., 2023).
Today's young Māori face a world that is more enabling than what their parents and

42
grandparents experienced at the same age. Māori communities at the levels of Iwi, hapu and
whanau have come together to drive legal, political and societal change (Swartz, 2021). This
collective strength has contributed to the increased visibility of Māori in commerce, community,
and public life, shaping social affairs across the country (Grey et al., 2023). Māori leadership
has expanded in critical areas such as health, housing, education, and Iwi, hapu and whanau
development, alongside greater constitutional, political and legal recognition of Māori (Hamley et
al., 2023; Pfeifer et al., 2018).
Successful interventions in New Zealand have been found to include a whānau family
approach, cultural connectivity and knowledge, addressing educational needs, social and
economic well-being and employing people (preferably Māori) who young people can identify
with (Paine et al., 2022). A holistic approach, involving whānau, community, iwi, police and other
agencies working collaboratively to provide support has been proven effective in addressing the
needs of at-risk youth (Paine et al., 2022). Parallel approaches should be adopted in Canada
and Australia, with a focus on involving as many stakeholders as possible. While restorative
approaches offer accountability and healing, it is important to prioritize a relational dynamic and
aim for balance - in line with Tikanga values and programs such as He Korowai Oranga (Maori
Health Strategy) which offers a framework to support Maori health status and promote whanau
ora (Maori family well-being). By working with iwi Maori providers and Maori communities, as
well as whanau, the health and government sectors can reduce the disproportionate health
statistics for Maori.
New Zealand has received widespread recognition for its pioneering work in evolutionary
restorative practices (Toki, 2018). Historically, criminal justice systems have relied on a
traditional approach, that sees crime as a violation against the state and authorizes the state to
determine and administer punishment (Hamilton et al., 2020). This must change to a shared
power approach in which the community determines and issues punishment. In order to do so,
Indigenous voices must be central to any discussion on program design and policy implications.

43
Indeed, modern justice systems are increasingly interested in harnessing restorative
mechanisms for their potential reformative power. This is in response to growing discontent with
conventional justice, which is blamed for high incarceration rates, skyrocketing prison costs, and
the disenfranchisement of both victims and offenders (Tauri, 2022). Restorative practices have,
as a result, proliferated throughout the world and can be realistically visualized as the path
forward toward reconciliation.

Conclusion
In understanding and addressing the various approaches taken by Canada, Australia
and New Zealand in reducing Indigenous youth overincarceration, this thesis seeked to fill the
gaps evident in the international standpoint by providing new insights and relevant
recommendations for a path forward. In utilizing a descriptive design with a multi-disciplinary
research approach, this study explored Canada’s current response toward addressing Call to
Action 38 in addition to Australia’s progress toward addressing Outcome 11 of Closing the Gap
followed by recommendations from various sources in order to address the issue. In carefully
exploring New Zealand’s restorative framework as a viable approach, this thesis drew parallels
between all three countries to explore relational frameworks for the future. The findings were
conclusive and allowed for a general understanding of the paradigm.
It was found that while culturally-specific initiatives are needed, the underlying solution of
incorporating Indigenous voices in program and policy design parallel in all three countries.
While we should not blindly assume that we can easily overcome the enormity and complexities
of this challenge, we must also resist defeatist attitudes that suggest the problem is
insurmountable. It is our principled and pragmatic obligation to keep striving for better outcomes
for young offenders and their families. Although this may be the most significant challenge
facing any youth justice system, it also represents the most promising opportunity for
meaningful and lasting change for serious young offenders.

44
Empirical insight into the issue of Indigenous youth crime is urgently needed. Given the
prevalence of the overincarceration paradigm, the current state of research remains inadequate.
Future studies must address the identified gaps in the literature and prioritize the specific needs
of Indigenous youth involved in the justice system because “although research relating to
Indigenous youth crime appears to be limited at best, there is a strong consensus that the
subject is one of importance to governments, youth justice agencies, and researchers
internationally” (Pfeifer et al., 2018, p. 273). To shed light on the contributing factors related to
Indigenous youth crime, studies should adopt an integrated approach that examines the
cumulative effects of these factors, rather than analyzing them in silos. Given the depth of
challenges that Indigenous youth face, a comprehensive approach is warranted because “much
more work is required in order to address the inherent biases and prejudices prevalent within
the criminal justice system (Sittner and Estes, 2023, p. 26).

45
References

Anthony, T. (2018). “They Were Treating Me Like a Dog”: The Colonial Continuum of State
Harms Against Indigenous Children in Detention in the Northern Territory, Australia.
State Crime, 7(2), 251–277. https://doi.org/10.13169/statecrime.7.2.0251
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2022, December 13). Youth detention population in
Australia 2022. Australian Government.
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/youth-justice/youth-detention-population-in-australia-202
2/contents/understanding-youth-detention-in-australia/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islande
r-people
Barker, B., Alfred, G. T., Fleming, K., Nguyen, P., Wood, E., Kerr, T., & DeBeck, K. (2015).
Aboriginal street-involved youth experience elevated risk of incarceration. Public Health
(London), 129(12), 1662–1668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2015.08.003
Barmaki, R. (2023). Risky Justice of the Law: The Impact of Risk-Assessment Tools on
Aboriginal Offenders’ Overrepresentation in Canada’s Federal Prisons. The Prison
Journal (Philadelphia, Pa.), 103(1), 68–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/00328855221139866
Battams, S., Delany-Crowe, T., Fisher, M., Wright, L., McGreevy, M., McDermott, D., & Baum, F.
(2021). Reducing Incarceration Rates in Australia Through Primary, Secondary, and
Tertiary Crime Prevention. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 32(6), 618–645.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403420979178
Brown, L. (2019). Indigenous young people, disadvantage and the violence of settler colonial
education policy and curriculum. Journal of Sociology (Melbourne, Vic.), 55(1), 54–71.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783318794295
Burack, J. A., Gurr, E., Stubbert, E., & Weva, V. (2019). Personality development among

46
Indigenous youth in Canada: Weaving together universal and community-specific
perspectives. New Ideas in Psychology, 53, 67–74.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2018.04.002
Butcher, L., Day, A., Miles, D., Kidd, G., & Stanton, S. (2022). Developing youth justice policy
and programme design in Australia. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 81(2),
367–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12524
Butcher, L., Day, A., Kidd, G., Miles, D., & Stanton, S. (2020). Community engagement in youth
justice program design. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 53(3),
369–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865820933332
Butler, J. (2024, February 6). Closing the Gap will fail without “fundamental change”, scathing
report finds. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/feb/07/closing-the-gap-agreement-indi
genous-outcomes-update-reforms
Cesaroni, C., Grol, C., & Fredericks, K. (2019). Overrepresentation of indigenous youth in
Canada’s criminal justice system: Perspectives of indigenous young people. Australian &
New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 52(1), 111–128.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865818778746
Cook, L. (2023). Insights from Statistical Trends and Patterns relating to Youth Justice: 1911 –
2021. Aotearoa New Zealand Journal of Social Issues, 3(1).
https://ojs.aut.ac.nz/anzjsi/article/view/87
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
Cunneen, C., Russell, S., & Schwartz, M. (2021). Principles in diversion of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander young people from the criminal jurisdiction. Current Issues in Criminal
Justice, 33(2), 170–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2020.1813386

47
Cunneen, C. (2020). Youth justice and racialization: Comparative reflections. Theoretical
Criminology, 24(3), 521–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480619889039
Cunneen, C., Goldson, B., & Russell, S. (2016). Juvenile Justice, Young People and Human
Rights in Australia. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 28(2), 173–189.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2016.12036067
Dale, P. R., Meurk, C., Williams, M., Watson, M., Steele, M. L., Wittenhagen, L., Harden, S.,
Stathis, S., Scott, J. G., Kinner, S., & Heffernan, E. (2023). Our Ways, Your Ways, Both
Ways – a multi-disciplinary collaboration to develop, embed and evaluate a model of
social and emotional wellbeing care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young
people who experience detention – Phase 1. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14,
1207103–1207103. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1207103
D’Antoine, M., Malvaso, C., Delfabbro, P., & O’Connor, J. (2022). Suicidal behaviour in
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young men under custodial youth justice supervision:
understanding the role of adverse childhood experiences. Psychiatry, Psychology, and
Law, 29(6), 953–975. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2021.2003263
Deckert, A., & Sarre, R. (2017). The Palgrave Handbook of Australian and New
Zealand Criminology, Crime and Justice (1st edition.). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55747-2
Dellar, K., Roberts, L., Bullen, J., Downe, K., & Kane, R. (2022). Overrepresentation of Young
Indigenous Offenders: Differences in Criminogenic Risk/Needs and Implications for
Practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
306624-306624X221113525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X221113525
Department of Justice Canada. (2023, July 7). Delivering on Truth and Reconciliation
Commission Calls to Action. Government of Canada Website.
https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1524502695174/1557513515931
Department of Justice Canada. (2021, July 7). Indigenous Youth Roundtables.

48
Government of Canada Website.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/yj-jj/tools-outils/iyr-trja.html
Doolan, M. (2017). Practice Notes: understanding the purpose of youth justice in New Zealand.
Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 20(3), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswjEwenson, L., & Naylor, B. (2021). Protecting human rights in youth detention: listening to the
voices of children and young people in detention. Australian Journal of Human Rights,
27(1), 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2021.1961368
Ferguson, L. J., Girolami, T., Thorstad, R., Rodgers, C. D., & Humbert, M. L. (2021). “That’s
what the program is all about… building relationships”: Exploring experiences in an
urban offering of the indigenous youth mentorship program in Canada. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020733
Flemington, T., Lock, M., Shipp, J., Hartz, D., Lonne, B., & Fraser, J. A. (2021). Cultural Safety
and Child Protection Responses in Hospitals: a Scoping Review. International Journal on
Child Maltreatment : Research, Policy and Practice, 4(1), 5–33.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42448-020-00065-3
Gair, S., Zuchowski, I., Jebichii, D., O’Reilly, S., Rauwerda, R., & Savuro, N. (2023). At-risk
Youth Peer Researchers Highlight Safety and “The Bonds You Make With Staff and
Peers.” Australian Social Work, (ahead-of-print), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2022.2162943
Garner, C., Evans, J., & Friedlander, L. (2023). Some long-term positive trends in youth
detention in New South Wales (Australia). Safer Communities, 22(1), 15–27.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SC-06-2022-0023
Gillfeather, S. S. (2019). From pursuit to progress: Critical reflections on concepts of
young people and crime in Australia. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 31(1), 111–121.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2018.1556286

49
Gordon, G. (2019). “Wedded to the state’s requirements”: Restorative and community justice
processes in Aotearoa/New Zealand. New Zealand Sociology, 34(1), 27–50.
https://librarysearch.mtroyal.ca/permalink/01MTROYAL_INST/1qa1aqk/cdi_nlnz_indexnz
_999010639202837
Grey, R., Lambie, I., & Ioane, J. (2023). Aotearoa New Zealand adolescents with harmful sexual
behaviours: the importance of a holistic approach when working with Rangatahi Māori.
The Journal of Sexual Aggression, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2023.2165732
Hage, T., & Fellows, J. (2018). Combatting over-representation of indigenous youth in the
Queensland criminal justice system through “justice reinvestment.” James Cook
University Law Review, 24, 147–168.
https://libproxy.mtroyal.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true
&AuthType=ip,url,cookie,uid&db=a9h&AN=136765524&site=ehost-live
Hamilton, S. L., Maslen, S., Best, D., Freeman, J., O’Donnell, M., Reibel, T., Mutch, R. C., &
Watkins, R. (2020). Putting “justice” in recovery capital: Yarning about hopes and futures
with young people in detention. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social
Democracy, 9(2), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v9i2.1256
Hamley, L., Le Grice, J., Greaves, L., Groot, S., Lindsay Latimer, C., Renfrew, L., Parkinson, H.,
Gillon, A., & Clark, T. C. (2023). Te Tapatoru: a model of whanaungatanga to support
rangatahi wellbeing. Kōtuitui, 18(2), 171–194.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2022.2109492
Hautala, D., & Sittner, K. (2019). Longitudinal Mechanisms Linking Perceived Racial
Discrimination to Aggressive Delinquency among North American Indigenous Youth. The
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 56(5), 694–735.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427819834331
Haysom, L., Kasinathan, J., & Singh, Y. (2023). Youth custody is no place for mentally ill

50
children and young people. Australian Psychiatry : Bulletin of the Royal Australian and
New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, 31(3), 263–266.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10398562231155753
He, V. Y., Condon, J. R., Malvaso, C. G., Williams, T., Liddle, L., Blagg, H., & Guthridge, S.
(2023). Patterns of alleged offending amongst Aboriginal and non‐Aboriginal young
people in the Northern Territory of Australia, 1997–2019. The Australian Journal of Social
Issues. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.275
He, V. Y., Leckning, B., Malvaso, C., Williams, T., Liddle, L., & Guthridge, S. (2021).
Opportunities for prevention: a data-linkage study to inform a public health response to
youth offending in the Northern Territory, Australia. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1–1600.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11645-4
Heo, I. (2019). THE MISINFORMED VERSUS THE MISUNDERSTOOD: CONTINUED
OVERINCARCERATION OF INDIGENOUS YOUTH UNDER THE YCJA. The University
of Western Ontario Journal of Legal Studies. https://doi.org/10.5206/uwoils.v9il.6639
Jackson, N. (2015). Aboriginal youth overrepresentation in Canadian correctional services:
Judicial and non-judicial actors and influence. Alberta Law Review, 52(4), 927–947.
https://doi.org/10.29173/alr293
Jewell, E., & Mosby, I. (2023). Calls to Action Accountability: A 2023 Status Update on
Reconciliation. Yellowhead Institute. https://yellowheadinstitute.org/trc/
Jewell, E., & Mosby, I. (2022). Calls to Action Accountability: A 2022 Status Update on
Reconciliation. Yellowhead Institute. https://yellowheadinstitute.org/trc/
Keddell, E., Davie, G., & Barson, D. (2019). Child protection inequalities in Aotearoa New
Zealand: Social gradient and the ‘inverse intervention law.’ Children and Youth Services
Review, 104, 104383-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.06.018
Lockwood, I., Peterson-Badali, M., & Schmidt, F. (2018). The Relationship Between Risk,

51
Criminogenic Need, and Recidivism for Indigenous Justice-Involved Youth. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 45(11), 1688–1708. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818785404
Lopresti, S., Willows, N. D., Storey, K. E., Tara-Leigh McHugh, & IYMP National Team. (2020).
Indigenous youth mentorship program: A descriptive case study of implementation in
Alberta, Canada. Rural and Remote Health, 20(3), 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.22605/RRH5919
Lowitja Institute. (2024). Close the Gap: Voyage to Voice, Treaty, Truth and Beyond.
Melbourne: Lowitja Institute.
https://healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/key-resources/publications/48676/?title=Close+the+Gap
++voyage+to+Voice++Treaty++Truth+and+beyond&contentid=48676_1
Lowitja Institute. (2019). Our stories, Our way: cultural identities and health and wellbeing of
Indigenous young people in diverse school settings. Melbourne: Lowitja Institute.
https://www.lowitja.org.au/projects/our-stories-our-way/
MacDonald, D. B. (2020). Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Assessing context,
process, and critiques. Griffith Law Review, 29(1), 150–174.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2020.1868282
MacKenzie, K. (2020). Unsettling White Settler Child and Youth Care Pedagogy and Practice:
Discourses on Working in Colonial Violence and Racism. International Journal of Child,
Youth & Family Studies IJCYFS, 11(3), 80–107.
https://doi.org/10.18357/ijcyfs113202019701
McCuish, E. C., Mathesius, J. R., Lussier, P., & Corrado, R. R. (2018). The Cross-Cultural
Generalizability of the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version for Adjudicated Indigenous
Youth. Psychological Assessment, 30(2), 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000468
McCuish, E. C., & Corrado, R. R. (2018). Do Risk and Protective Factors for Chronic Offending

52
Vary Across Indigenous and White Youth Followed Prospectively Through Full
Adulthood? Crime and Delinquency, 64(10), 1247–1270.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717741616
McGuire, M. M., & Murdoch, D. J. (2022). (In)-justice: An exploration of the dehumanization,
victimization, criminalization, and over-incarceration of Indigenous women in Canada.
Punishment & Society, 24(4), 529–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745211001685
Milroy, T., & Bandler, L. G. (2021). Closing the Gap: where to now? Medical Journal of Australia,
214(5), 209–210. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.50959
Muir, N. M., & Viljoen, J. L. (2022). Adverse childhood experiences and recidivism in Indigenous
and white female and male adolescents on probation. Child Abuse & Neglect, 126,
105512–105512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105512
Nathan, S., Maru, K., Williams, M., Palmer, K., & Rawstorne, P. (2020). Koori voices: self-harm,
suicide attempts, arrests and substance use among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
adolescents following residential treatment. Health & Justice, 8(1), 4–4.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-020-0105-x
National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA). (2024). Commonwealth Closing the Gap 2023
Annual Report and 2024 Implementation Plan. Australian Government Website.
www.niaa.gov.au/resource-centre/indigenous-affairs/commonwealth-closing-gap-2023-a
nnual-report-and-2024-implementation-plan
Nichols, R. (2018). The colonialism of incarceration. In Legal Violence and the Limits of the Law
(1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 49–67). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315747699-4
Nordstrom, R., & Stanfield, D. (2021). Disrupting family group conference practice in Aotearoa
New Zealand: A learning project. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 33(4), 82–88.
https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol33iss4id916
O’Brien, G., Pan, P.-C., Sheikh, M., & Prideaux, S. (2023). Indigenous Emancipation: The Fight

53
Against Marginalisation, Criminalisation, and Oppression. Social Inclusion, 11(2),
173–176. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v11i2.7164
O’Brien, G. (2021). Racial Profiling, Surveillance and Over-Policing: The Over-Incarceration of
Young First Nations Males in Australia. Social Sciences, 10(2), 68-.
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10020068
O’Brien, G., & Trudgett, M. (2020). School House to Big House. The Australian Journal of
Indigenous Education, 49(1), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2018.13
Okpalauwaekwe, U., Ballantyne, C., Tunison, S., & Ramsden, V. R. (2022). Enhancing health
and wellness by, for and with Indigenous youth in Canada: a scoping review. BMC Public
Health, 22(1), 1–1630. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14047-2
Paine, S.-J., Neumann, D., Langridge, F., Peters, A., & Kingi, T. K. (2022). Kaitiakitanga principles for protecting and promoting tamariki and rangatahi wellbeing in Growing Up in
New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 52(3), 254–264.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2022.2066142
Passafiume, A. (2023, December 20). ‘Diminished’ hope: Yellowhead Institute to end reports on
TRC calls to action. Toronto Star.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/diminished-hope-yellowhead-institute-to-end-reports-ontrc-calls-to-action/article_0567e2ce-41a6-54d1-9cf3-69d17f4cb3be.html
Pfeifer, J.E., Winterdyk, J., Hutton, F., Monod de Froideville, S., Banks, C., Trounson, J.S.
(2018). Indigenous Youth Crime: An International Perspective. In: Miller, M., Bornstein,
B. (eds) Advances in Psychology and Law, vol 3. Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75859-6_8
Polglase, L., & Lambie, I. (2023). A sharp decline in youth crime: reviewing trends in New
Zealand’s youth offending rates between 1998 and 2019. Current Issues in Criminal
Justice, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2023.2236730

54
Prince, J., Lovatt, K., Stockdale, K. C., & Olver, M. E. (2021). Predictive Properties of a General
Risk-Need Measure in Diverse Justice Involved Youth: A Prospective Field Validity
Study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48(11), 1511–1535.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211004669
Productivity Commission. (2024). Review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap.
Australian Government. Vol. 1, p. 1-99.
https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/closing-the-gap-review/report
Rudolph, S. (2021). Ngaga-dji, a call to action: education justice and youth imprisonment.
Australian Educational Researcher, 48(3), 443–448.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-020-00408-6
Rumford-Rodgers, H., Giles, A. R., & Scobie, W. (2023). Christian summer camps for
Indigenous youth in Canada: a settler colonial analysis. Leisure = Loisir, 47(2), 159–179.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14927713.2022.2054457
Samuels-Wortley, K. (2022). Youthful Discretion: Police Selection Bias in Access to Pre-Charge
Diversion Programs in Canada. Race and Justice, 12(2), 387–410.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368719889093
Shay, M., Sarra, G., Proud, D., Blow, I.-J., & Cobbo, F. (2024). “Strive with pride”: the voices of
Indigenous young people on identity, wellbeing, and schooling in Australia. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 37(2), 327–341.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2023.2233939
Shay, M., Woods, A., & Sarra, G. (2019, August 13). The Imagination Declaration: Young
Indigenous Australians want to be heard - will we listen? The Conversation.
https://theconversation.com/the-imagination-declaration-young-indigenous-australians-w
ant-to-be-heard-but-will-we-listen-121569
Sittner, K. J., & Estes, M. L. (2023). Adult Outcomes of Justice Involved Indigenous Youth. Race
and Justice, 13(3), 279–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368720973442

55
Sittner, K. J., & Gentzler, K. C. (2016). Self-Reported Arrests Among Indigenous Adolescents: a
Longitudinal Analysis of Community, Family, and Individual Risk Factors. Journal of
Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 2(4), 494–515.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-016-0045-2
Smallwood, R., Usher, K., Woods, C., Sampson, N., & Jackson, D. (2023). De‐problematising
Aboriginal young peoples’ health and well‐being through their voice: An Indigenous
scoping review. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 32(9–10), 2086–2101.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.16308
Staines, Z., & Scott, J. (2020). Crime and Colonisation in Australia’s Torres Strait Islands.
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 53(1), 25–43.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865819869049
Stanley, E., & de Froideville, S. M. (2020). From vulnerability to risk: Consolidating state
interventions towards Māori children and young people in New Zealand. Critical Social
Policy, 40(4), 526–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018319895203
Swartz, S. (Ed.). (2021). The Oxford handbook of Global South youth studies.
Oxford University Press.
Tauri, J. M. (2022). What exactly are you restoring us to? A critical examination of Indigenous
experiences of state‐centred restorative justice. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice,
61(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12459
Toki, V. (2018). Māori and current criminal justice initiatives. In Indigenous Courts,
Self-Determination and Criminal Justice (1st ed., pp. 57–99). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351239622-4
Trotter, C., Baidawi, S., & Evans, P. (2015). Good Practice in Community-based Supervision of
Aboriginal Youth Offenders. Australian Social Work, 68(1), 5–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2014.940359
Vujcich, D., Thomas, J., Crawford, K., & Ward, J. (2018). Indigenous Youth Peer-Led Health

56
Promotion in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the United States: A Systematic
Review of the Approaches, Study Designs, and Effectiveness. Frontiers in Public Health,
6, 31–31. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00031
Warner, B., Spivak, B., Ashford, L., Fix, R., Ogloff, J., & Shepherd, S. (2022). The Impact of
Offender–Victim Cultural Backgrounds on the Likelihood of Receiving Diversion. Criminal
Justice Policy Review, 33(3), 298–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211046313
Webb, R., Blank-Penetito, A., & Tauri, J. (2023). Rangatahi Māori and Youth Justice in New
Zealand. In The Oxford Handbook of Indigenous Sociology (pp. 155–170). Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197528778.013.16
Webb, R. (2022). Building understandings of Maori and Samoan experiences of youth justice:
Navigating beyond the limits of official statistics. New Zealand Sociology, 37(1), 70–92.
https://librarysearch.mtroyal.ca/permalink/01MTROYAL_INST/1qa1aqk/cdi_proquest
Western Australian Government. (2024). Annual Report on Closing the Gap 2023.
https://www.wa.gov.au/government/publications/annual-report-closing-the-gap-2023
Willoughby, M., Young, J. T., Borschmann, R., Spittal, M. J., Keen, C., Hail-Jares, K., Patton, G.,
Sawyer, S. M., & Kinner, S. A. (2023). Violence-Related Death in Young Australians After
Contact With the Youth Justice System: A Data Linkage Study. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 38(17-18), 9923–9942. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605231169490
Wong, N. (2021, March 21). Young Indigenous women, girls supported through Empower
Project. Toronto Star.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/young-indigenous-women-girls-supported-through
-empower-project/article_5e722bea-0797-5007-aee3-d6ba6d9b98f9.html