Abstract
Indigenous youth in Canada face disproportionately high rates of criminal justice involvement, rooted in colonial history. This paper uses the Integrated Indigenist Ecological Systems Model (IIESM) for a scoping review of literature on Indigenous youth justice involvement. By mapping studies onto the IIESM framework, this review identifies gaps and provides insights into often-overlooked socio-ecological and historical contexts. Findings show most research focuses on individual-level risk factors, neglecting broader ecological and historical dimensions. The review suggests a wholistic approach which integrates Indigenous knowledge systems and emphasizes culturally relevant research and interventions. The IIESM offers a valuable framework for future studies addressing the multifaceted nature of Indigenous youth criminal involvement, promoting more effective, culturally sensitive policy and practice.
Introduction
Indigenous Peoples 1 in Canada are the decedents of diverse nations that have occupied the lands between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans for thousands of years. While these groups, generally referred to as First Nations, Inuit, and Métis (FNIM) within the Canadian context, do share cultural similarities, their diversity should not be underestimated. Each nation has a unique history and unique systems of governance, education, healthcare, spiritual and cultural practices. There are more than 1.8 million Indigenous peoples, speaking over 70 distinct languages, across 692 recognized First Nations reserves, Inuit communities, and Métis settlements in Canada (Government of Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, 2024; Government of Canada, Statistics Canada, 2024). The arrival of European settlers and the subsequent implementation of colonial policies and practices such as the Indian Act and the residential school system have had devastating effects on Indigenous communities. These policies aimed to assimilate Indigenous peoples and eradicate their cultures, leading to widespread trauma. The legacy of these historical injustices is evident today, as Indigenous communities continue to face significant social, economic, and health disparities. In addition to being the fastest growing population in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2018), Indigenous children and youth hold a myriad of disturbing statistical records which tell of a disproportionate burden of negative health, social, and educational outcomes. For example, Indigenous youth are two-times more likely to be the victims of abuse and neglect (Bigfoot & Shmidt, 2010); three-and-a-half times more likely to be violently assaulted (Scrim, 2011); two-times more likely to be the victims of sexual abuse (Collin-Vézina et al., 2009); seven-times more likely to be the victim of homicide (Brzozowski, 2007); are more likely to suffer from substance related illnesses (Firestone et al., 2015); and two to four times more likely to die by suicide (Harder et al., 2012). Indigenous youth are also grossly over-represented at all stages of the criminal justice system (Latimer & Foss, 2005). Although only accounting for approximately 8% of the youth population in Canada, Indigenous youth account for 48% of secure custody admissions and 39% of the open-custody youth population (Department of Justice Canada, 2019). Indigenous youth are more likely to be incarcerated (Wiley et al., 2020); are more likely to be arrested for substance-related offences (Sittner Hartshorn et al., 2015); are rated higher on actuarial assessments of risk and recidivism used throughout the youth justice system (Stockdale, 2008); are more likely to obtain harsher punishments at sentencing (Heo, 2019); are eight-times more likely to be sentenced to prison (Yessine & Bonta, 2009), and are more likely to receive longer sentences than their non-Indigenous peers (Latimer & Foss, 2005).
These statistics and the causal relationships they imply do not tell the whole story however. They provide only a key-hole’s glimpse into an issue of massive complexity with transactional networks of historical and contemporary realities that exist across personal, interpersonal and cultural/socioecological domains which modern research has failed to effectively account for. At best, these correlations provide an incomplete assessment of the challenges faced by Indigenous youth while prompting a patch-work of policy and program initiatives which typically produce underwhelming results. At their worst, this constricted view of Indigenous youth as statistics breeds discriminatory practices, erases historical injustices, perpetuates colonial harms, and desensitizes the public to a crisis that costs young lives in real time (Ansloos, 2017).
Ansloos (2017) rejects the assumption of individual culpability which dominates the criminal justice system in the absence of a discourse on the intergenerational dynamics of colonial oppression; that high rates of violent victimization among Indigenous youth “cannot be detached from the colonial context” (p. 6). As such, any research program or psychosocial intervention aimed at understanding or promoting positive change within the lives of Indigenous youth, especially those impacted by criminal justice system, must begin with an understanding of the colonial experience. While the effects of colonization have been largely ignored in mainstream criminological research and practice (Cunneen & Tauir, 2016), a number of scholars have made the connection between the disproportionate rates of incarceration of Indigenous youth and the destructive force of colonization (Czyzewski, 2011; Muir et al., 2020). Sittner and Estes (2023) argued that bias in the criminal justice system has been viewed as compounding “the intergenerational effects of colonization, and itself is a consequence of colonization” (p. 17). From this perspective, colonization has contributed to the development of risk factors which increase the probability of Indigenous youth contacting the criminal justice system including substance and mental health issues, adverse community environments, and family and peer involvement with the criminal justice system. Lockwood et al (2018) argue that these risk variables can be “linked to the legacy of colonization and the attendant confiscation of Indigenous lands, devastation of Indigenous economies and political structures, fragmentation of Indigenous families, and suppression of Indigenous worldviews and traditions” (p. 2).
The colonial experience of Indigenous Peoples in North America includes open warfare and mass killings (Wilson, 2004); assimilative policy such as Canada’s Indian Act (Lavoie et al., 2010); non-consensual medical experimentation (Talaga, 2018); forced sterilization of Indigenous women (Dhaliwal, 2019), criminalization of ceremony (MacDonald, 2020), biological warfare through the intentional spread of disease and the withholding of vaccinations and medical treatment (Patterson & Runge, 2002); dispossession of lands, movement controls, discriminatory child welfare and social programs (Blackstock, 2016); mass apprehensions/adoption programs (Johnston, 1983); physical and sexual abuse in church-run government-supervised residential schools (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015), discriminative and lethal policing practices (Chartrand, 2019; Drache et al., 2016; Linden, 2005), disproportionate exposure to environmental contaminants (Fernández-Llamazares et al., 2020); and the destruction of existing political and economic infrastructures (Cunneen & Tauir, 2016). These destructive colonial tactics were designed to permeate all levels of Indigenous social ecology, or as Cunneen and Tauir (2016) point out, “every part of Indigenous society was attacked during the colonial process” (p. 54), and continue to profoundly impact Indigenous youth today. Hautala et al. (2016) suggest that “weakened family and school systems may lead to delinquent peer involvement and behaviors, which reciprocally interact with individual and other meso-level (e.g., community, family, school) systems to heighten gang risk” (p.13), and that: These factors, in turn, may be considered the fundamental causes which propel Indigenous youth into gangs and links history with contemporary proximal risk factors. As such, we argue that future inquiries into Indigenous delinquency and gangs require a more focused understanding of the historical, contemporary, and cumulative processes stemming from the legacy of historical cultural losses. (p. 13)
A culturally-responsive and wholistic 2 framework that captures the complexity of the lives of Indigenous youth who interact with or who are at risk of interacting with the criminal justice system is required to fully comprehend and respond to the challenges faced by Indigenous youth. While the use of risk and protective factors in assessments of children and youth within the criminal justice system remains a common practice in Canada and several other jurisdictions, it is not without controversy. Critiques often focus on the potential reductionism of these models and their alignment with outdated penal philosophies that may not adequately reflect the complexities of individual cases, especially in culturally diverse contexts. Despite these criticisms, these frameworks continue to play a pivotal role in guiding interventions and policy decisions. Of particular concern in a modern account of youth risk and need, is the frequent absence of considerations unique to Indigenous culture, identity, spirituality and history; including an account of the ongoing impact of colonization, the current injustices faced by Indigenous Peoples, and a wholistic perspective of wellness are underrepresented in the youth justice literature. This oversight presents both ethical and methodological challenges. Ethically, by neglecting these dimensions, risk models may perpetuate a one-size-fits-all approach that overlooks the systemic biases and unique challenges faced by Indigenous communities. Methodologically, missing contextual variables may result in incomplete and potentially inaccurate formulations of risk.
The current review applies an adaptation of the Integrated Indigenist Ecological Systems Model (IIESM; Lavallée & Lévesque, 2013) in the analysis of research on justice-involved Indigenous youth in Canada. Data extracted from a scoping review of the literature on the justice involvement of Indigenous youth will be analyzed to explore (a) the nature of the studies and their samples, (b) their research designs, (c) at which levels of social ecology the dependent variables and associated factors are situated, and (d) whether spiritual, physical, emotional, or mental domains are represented by factors in each study. In doing so, this study will attempt to demonstrate that a wholistically integrated Indigenist ecological systems model can be applied to understand the complexity of the interaction of Indigenous youth with the criminal justice system. Such an approach may be useful as an evaluative tool in examining future research and preventative or responsive programming for Indigenous youth.
Ecological Systems Theory and Indigenous Knowledge Systems
Bronfenbrenner’s (1974, 1979) socio-ecological model of development—comprised of the individual, micro-, meso-, exo-, macro- and chrono-systems—was intended to demonstrate that “the person exists in a system of relationships, roles, activities, and settings, all interconnected” (Shelton, 2019, p. 10). This concept is congruent with Indigenous knowledge systems and has been recognized as such by Indigenous researchers. For example, Burnette and Figley (2016) applied a nested eco-systemic framework to explore the historical oppression, resilience, and transcendence of Indigenous Peoples. In addition to exploring individual, family, community, cultural, and societal dimensions, they point to a definition of Indigenous resilience as “emphasizing the interrelatedness and harmony of the mind, body, context, and spiritual aspects of all things” (p. 39). The authors suggest that leveraging an eco-systemic framework “enables the examination of the interactions and interconnections among risk and protective factors” (p. 39).
Indigenous concepts of wellness often center the theme of balance across domains of experience. In making a comparison between Western and Indigenous conceptualizations of trauma, Linklater (2014) shares that “wholistic approaches consider equally the spiritual, emotional, mental and physical aspects of the person” (p. 21). The Medicine Wheel serves as a symbol of interconnectivity, balance, and wholeness in the culture, philosophy, and spirituality of many Indigenous nations. Ansloos (2017) suggests that “as an ethical praxis, both the integrated tradition and practices of medicine wheels help to form Indigenous youth identity in terms of holistic relationally that is holistic, balanced, harmonious and healing.” (p. 85). The Medicine Wheel is often represented by four quadrants, encapsulated within a circle, and meeting within the center. The quadrants, identified by different colors hold different meanings and teachings. While Medicine Wheel teachings are complex and differ from nation to nation, they are frequently used to represent the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual aspects of wellness, within the context of self, family, community, and nation.
Lavallée and Lévesque (2013) advanced a two-eyed seeing approach applying both a socioecological systems model and the teachings of the Anishinaabek Medicine Wheel to explore and promote physical activity, sport and recreation. They pointed to the impact of colonization on the physical health of Indigenous people, and specifically implicated the criminalization of gatherings and ceremonies, like the Potlach that provided communities with opportunities to engage in physical activities like dancing and to play games of endurance and dexterity that often in sports like lacrosse. The authors explained that “overall wellbeing stems from balance and harmony among these four aspects” and that “the interconnectivity of the medicine wheel teachings implies that if one aspect is out of balance or unhealthy, it impacts the entire system” (p. 213).
McMurtry and Curling (2008) argued that “an integrated approach recognizes that crime is a complex, multidimensional phenomenon with multiple causes. By integrating a variety of ecological, socialization, psychological, biological, and economic factors into a coherent structure, such theories overcome the shortcomings of older theories that may be criticized on the grounds of reductionism” (p. 197). Extending the research on Indigenist-ecological systems (Fish et al., 2022; O’Keefe et al., 2022; Lavallée & Lévesque, 2013), this study will apply an adapted version of the IIESM (see Figure 1) to examine research on Indigenous youth involved with the criminal justice system in Canada, and to answer the following questions: (a) what peer-reviewed literature exists involving Indigenous youth involved in the criminal justice system as participants? (b) what research methods are applied? (c) at which levels of social ecology do researchers situate youth justice issues and their associated factors? and, (d) can an integrated Indigenist ecological systems model be applied to understand the complexity of Indigenous youth violence in a culturally relevant way?
Integrated indigenous-ecological systems model.
Methods
A mixed-study scoping review of peer-reviewed research was conducted in accordance with the scoping review methodology outlined by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and the reporting procedures outlined by the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR; Tricco et al., 2018). This approach was adopted as scoping reviews can summarize research, identify research gaps and indicate research directions. It is of particular use to map existing research when the methodologies are diverse (Munn et al., 2018; Peters et al., 2015). In the present study, a scoping review was applied to map research on Indigenous youth and the criminal justice system onto an integrated Indigenist ecological systems model in an effort to identify gaps and future directions.
Search Strategy and Results
A comprehensive search included the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to December 2020; APA PsycInfo 1806 to December 2020; Social Work Abstracts 1968 to December 2020; Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text; CINAHL Plus with Full Text 1937 to December 2020; and Google Scholar. Search strategies were adapted to conform to the unique operators and search requirements of each database. Ten combinations of the search terms were applied in Google Scholar, with the first 10-pages of results for each study added to for screening. The search strategy applied in MEDLINE is displayed in Table 1.
Scoping Review Search Strategy.
Note. Search terms and Boolean operators adapted as necessary for alternate databases.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Studies were included if they were (a) written in English language, (b) were published within peer-reviewed scholarly journals prior to 2021 (c), were situated in Canada (or included Canadian participants), (d) contained a participant sample of First Nations, Inuit, or Métis youth between the ages of 12 and 18 years old (as defined by the Youth Criminal Justice Act in Canada), (e) and included a criminal justice topic as the primary study topic, dependent variable, factor, or outcome measure. Studies were excluded if (a) they were not written in English, (b) did not include Canadian participants, (c) all participants were under the age of 12 or over the age of 24, or (d) included a primary focus on medical conditions, accidents or unintentional injuries, or violence against self (suicide or self harm). Studies were limited to Canada as research suggests that criminogenic risk and associated variables are specific to each country’s unique context (Hoffman & Summers, 2001). Gray literature, graduate dissertations, and book chapters were excluded.
Selection Process
A total of 11,311 references were imported for screening from all databases, with 5,381 duplicates removed automatically by Covidence™. Next, 5,930 studies were screened against title and abstract with 5,703 studies excluded, and 227 studies assessed for full-text eligibility. Full text eligibility assessment resulted in a further 200 additional studies excluded (54 wrong patient population, 43 wrong indication, 27 wrong study design; 20 adult population; 17 no participants; 17 wrong setting; 16 duplicate; 4 gray literature; 2 literature review). A hand-search of the reference sections of the included items resulted in no further additions for full text screening. A total of 27 studies met the inclusion criteria for analysis. The process is outlined in Figure 2.
PRISMA-ScR study selection process flow diagram.
Data Extraction and Analysis
REDCap, an electronic survey system, was used to facilitate the extraction of data from the included articles. Variables collected are listed in Table 2. Ecological levels were selected based on the descriptions provided within the previous section (pp. 36–39) and differentiated between primary focus (the dependent variable or focus of the study) and secondary focus (any content within the introduction or discussion sections of the articles which could be classified within any ecological system level). Content corresponding with the domains of the Medicine Wheel were chosen based on the presence of elements aligning with each distinct facet of well-being. These include (a) the physical realm, encompassing factors such as biomedical health and biological processes, genetics, medication usage, and the management of chronic illnesses; (b) the spiritual domain including religious or non-religious belief systems, the nature of one's relationship with the creator, connections to ancestors and the land, and active participation in ceremonial practices; (c) the mental sphere encompassing intellectual and cognitive functioning, critical thinking, rational observations, and problem-solving abilities; and (d) the emotional domain including an individual's range of emotions such as joy, sorrow, fear, love, or anger, and how those emotions are expressed, including the stress or emotional pain associated with traumatic experiences. The selection criteria were designed to comprehensively capture and address the multifaceted dimensions of human health and well-being within the Medicine Wheel teachings.
Data Extraction Form.
Results
The 27 included studies are listed in Table 3. The studies ranged in dates between 1992 and 2020. Eight of 27 studies included participants from the United States. Twenty-two (81.5%) of the studies were conducted between 2010 and 2020, three (11.1%) of the studies were conducted between 2000 and 2010, and two (7.4%) of the studies were conducted between 1990 and 2000. Of the Canadian studies, a large proportion of studies were conducted in Ontario (40.7%), followed by British Columbia (25.9%), Manitoba (18.5%), Alberta (14.8%), Nova Scotia (11.1%), Quebec (7.4%), Saskatchewan (7.4%), Nunavut (3.7%), Prince Edward Island (3.7%), New Brunswick (3.7%), Newfoundland and Labrador (3.7%), Northwest Territories (3.7%), and Yukon (3.7%); several studies took place in more than one province. Two studies presented national samples (7.4%) while the province was not identified in five studies (18.5%). Participants were recruited from their homes/communities (40.7%), schools (11.1%), youth detention center (18.5%), mental health centres (3.7%), probation offices (18.5%), and other settings (4, 14.8%). Two studies did not identify the recruitment setting (7.4%). A total of 17,518 Indigenous participants were included in the 27 studies, although 10 of the 27 studies examined the same longitudinal dataset, resulting in an estimated 11,743 unique participants across all studies. Fifteen of 27 studies reported on participant gender, with the majority of participants reported as male (64%). Indigenous participants were identified as First Nations (55.6%), Métis (22.2%), and Inuit (14.8%). Twelve studies identified participants as Indigenous, Aboriginal, or Native, but did not specify further (44.4%). Thirteen studies (48.1%) made reference to cultural approaches, while seventeen (63.0%) studies made reference to the impact of colonization.
Overview of Included Studies.
Twenty-four studies applied quantitative designs (88.9%), while three studies applied qualitative designs (11.1%). No studies applied mixed-methods designs. Research methods included cross-sectional designs (37.0%), longitudinal design (33.3%), cohort studies (11.1%), descriptive designs (7.4%), action research design (3.7%), qualitative case study (3.7%), and Indigenous research method (3.7%).
Twenty studies identified factors which could be classified within the Medicine Wheel framework. Of those studies, content was sorted into the physical realm of the (37.0% of studies); the spiritual realm (3.7%); the mental realm (51.9%); and the emotional realm (55.6%). The percentage of concepts mentioned out of all 40 indications are presented are presented in Figure 3.
Medicine wheel concepts identified in selected studies.
The majority of studies included a primary focus (e.g., independent and dependent variables) on phenomena within the micro system (81%), followed by macro system phenomena (11%), nano system (4%) and exo system (4%). No studies primarily focused on meso system or chrono system phoneoma. The break down of primary socioecological focus is presented in Figure 4.
Primary focus of selected studies. Number of studies are indicated as circulating bars between 0 (top) and 25 (right).
When examined for discussion of any content at any level of social ecology, micro system phenomena were the most commonly discussed (89%), followed by macro system (78%), nano system (74%), chrono system (44%), meso system (30%), and exo system (19%). The data for socioecological levels present in the studies is displayed in Figure 5.
Secondary focus of selected studies. Number of studies are indicated as circulating bars between 0 (top) and 25 (right).
Discussion
The results of this scoping review and its analysis provide insights into the state of criminogenic research in Canada involving Indigenous youth. First, most of research has only occurred within the last decade. This suggests an increasing research interest in the population and issue. Second, many studies took samples from Ontario, in spite of the relatively low percentage of Indigenous youth incarcerated in the province compared to provinces like Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan (10% Indigenous compared to 40%, 75%, and 60% respectively; Wiley et al., 2020). These results are surprising as one might assume that research would be concentrated in the regions most severely impacted by disproportionate incarceration.
One encouraging finding is that while none of the studies completed between 1990 and 2009 made reference to the impact of colonization, approximately 77% of the studies completed between 2010 and 2020 did; in fact, all studies after 2016 made a connection to the negative impacts of colonization. This may reflect the increasing influence of national initiatives like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s (TRC, 2015) report on residential schools and cultural genocide in Canada.
Although less than half of the studies made reference to applying cultural practices in addressing the challenge of youth justice issues, a similar encouraging trend is observed with more studies identifying cultural-relevant practices overtime (e.g., 0% of studies conducted between 1990 and 2000 and 59% of studies conducted between 2010 and 2020).
Most studies focused primarily on micro-level phenomena (81%) such as the influence of delinquent peer groups, school success or failure, interactions with family and community, and the influence of assorted community-level social variables on interpersonal violence. Several studies focused primarly on macro-level phenomena (11%) such as the influence of systemic discrimination, legislative policy, or the impact of a strong connection with one’s culture. Suprisingly few studies focused primarly on nano-level factors like biological or psychological influences of crime. When exploring the presence of any pheonmenon identified anywhere within the study as a contributing factor or important consideration, micro-level variables were still the most frequently identified but nano-, chrono- and marcro-level content was also common. In the introduction and discussion sections, a number of studies explored cultural values, historical events, changes over time, and the interaction of various systems (e.g., child welfare system and the criminal justice system).
Of note is the relative homogeneity of the research methods used. Most of the studies applied quantitative research methods with cross-sectional designs, longitudinal designs, and cohort studies comprising 81.4% of the total designs utilized. Few studies applied qualitative designs that included Indigenous youth as participants, and only one study could be classified as applying an Indigenous research design.
Finally, while exploring the number of studies which included content that might be implicated as encompasing the domains of the Medicine Wheel, a relatively even distribution of content was divided between the emotional, mental and physical realms with emotional issues (e.g., anger, depression, anxiety) mentioned most frequently followed by mental (e.g., intellegence, cognitive functioning) and then physical (e.g., history of medications, chronic disease). As may have been anticipated, spiritual content (e.g., connection to ancestors and the land, ceremony, guidance by Elders or medicine people, spirtual teachings or traditions) was only identified in a single study (Cesaroni et al., 2019).
Neal and Neal (2013) suggest that socioecological systems are networked, rather than nested (i.e., with one ecological domain fitting within the other), producing an “overlapping arrangement of structures, each directly or indirectly connected to the others by the direct and indirect social interactions of their participants” (p. 722). By applying the Integrated-Indigenous Socioecological Systems Model as a networked system, we can evaluate the breadth of research and programming. For example, Lockwood et al. (2018) examined the applicability of the risk-need-responsivity framework for use with Indigenous justice-involved youth by examining differences in the risk assessments of Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants in Ontario. The study focused primarily on micro system variables such as relationships with parents and family, prior criminal offences, quality of education attachment, employment, availability of leisure and recreational activities, and the positive or negative influence of peers. As such, the study was situated primarily in the micro level of the socioecological model, represented by the large blue node in Figure 6. In their introduction and discussion sections however, Lockwood et al. (2018) also reference personality, attitudes, emotional problems, gender, substance use, psychological distress (mental realm, physical realm, emotional realm); public policy challenges, systemic racism, disconnection from culture, economic barriers (macro system); disconnection from spirituality (spiritual realm), intergenerational trauma and changes over time (chrono system), relationships between probation-related psychosocial supports, housing, and family dynamics (meso system); this distribution is represented by the smaller blue nodes connected to the larger blue node in Figure 6. In another example, Sittner and Hautala (2016) describe correlates of aggressive delinquency in a longitudinal study of 646 Indigenous youth residing in the US and in Ontario, Canada. The study focuses primarily on micro-system factors such as school adjustment, relationships with parents, presence of delinquent peer groups, and early dating. As such, the study is situated primarily within the micro-system, as represented by the large green node in Figure 6. In the introduction and discussion, the study also described sex differences and the influences of substances in aggressive behavior (physical realm) and changes in aggression over time (chrono system); these are presented by the smaller green nodes connected to the larger green node in Figure 6.
A comparison of the social ecological networks presented in studies by Lockwood et al. (2018) represented by blue nodes and links and Sittner and Hautala (2016), represented by green nodes and links.
The analysis of these two studies within the proposed integrated-Indigenous socioecological systems model provides some insight into its potential for evaluating research and programing. While both studies examine factors associated with criminal justice involvement, Lockwood et al. (2018) explore a wider breadth of intrapersonal, interpersonal, community-level, cultural, and time-based phenomena. Sittner and Hautala (2016) focus primarily on social interaction, community-level organizations, and age-based changes, while providing little to no attention to other mental, emotional, or spiritual domains, or the impact of interactive systems (meso/exo), or broader cultural factors (macro).
The data extracted from this scoping review allowed for mapping of study variables onto the Integrated-Indigenous Socioecological Systems Model. While the majority of studies examine relationships between the individual offender and their immediate micro systems (family, school, peers, community), the factors contributing to the overrepresentation of Indigenous youth within the criminal justice system transcend the influences of a single individual’s body or community. It seems that the complex facets of colonial structures are only just beginning to be understood for their impact in the lives of Indigenous Peoples. It is unlikely that linear models of risk prediction or disciplinary-specific theories of crime or violence will be able to account for these relationships without trivializing or neglecting important aspects of Indigenous experience historically and currently. To effectively tackle the enduring economic and social challenges faced by Indigenous youth and their families across generations, comprehensive, multi-tiered, and community-centered solutions are required (Corrado et al., 2014). In assessing social programs, Ansloos (2017) argued that focusing solely on individual-level interventions is insufficient for fostering lasting change. Instead, he advocated for approaches that comprehend the impact of violence within intricate social frameworks and can implement interventions that systematically permeate the diverse networks of community life. As a traditional healer might say when supporting someone in their healing journey, the studies lack balance.
In light of the proposed analytical framework, it becomes evident that existing studies, while valuable in their examination of micro-system factors, often fall short of providing a comprehensive understanding of the intricate dynamics influencing the criminalization of Indigenous youth. The model applied in this study serves as a tool not to dismiss the value of past research but to illuminate limitations and encourage a more nuanced approach in future research. For example, the relationship between the risk factor paradigm and colonial structures and processes presents a critical area for discussion, particularly concerning its broader implications in international contexts. The risk factor paradigm tends to overlook the socio-historical and cultural dynamics that contribute to youth involvement in justice systems. This is especially relevant in post-colonial/neo-colonial societies where such frameworks can perpetuate colonial legacies by prioritizing surveillance and control over more holistic, rehabilitative approaches. Internationally, there is growing scrutiny regarding the efficacy and ethics of risk management strategies, as they often fail to address the broader causes of delinquency, such as social inequality and historical trauma. In the context of the Canadian youth justice system, risk management does play a significant role; however, its effectiveness and alignment with the needs of Indigenous youth remain contentious. More context on how these models are applied within Canada and internationally, and their impacts on Indigenous populations could improve understanding and prompt a re-evaluation of current practices. Researchers can leverage this framework to critically assess existing studies, identifying gaps in analysis and points of oversight, and to plan future studies, policies, and interventions. Moreover, the framework encourages a wholistic consideration of the socioecological landscape and important cultural factors found within the quadrants of the Medicine Wheel, providing a roadmap for more inclusive research designs. This shift should prompt researchers to delve deeper into the interconnection of factors, exploring the multifaceted dimensions of Indigenous experiences and developing interventions that resonate with the lived realities of Indigenous communities. As we move forward, a collective commitment to refining our analytical approaches can contribute significantly to a more comprehensive and culturally sensitive understanding criminalization within Indigenous youth populations.
Limitations and Future Directions
As the current scoping review only included studies with Indigenous youth as participants, many conceptual studies, policy analyses, and program descriptions were excluded which may have provided a broader picture of the literature. Likewise, the exclusion of gray literature and academic documents (i.e., texts, reports, and dissertations) may have yielded more comprehensive results for analysis. While this review primarily relies on quantitative studies to map the existing research on justice-involved Indigenous youth in Canada, it is recognized that these methods, while robust in many respects, may not fully capture the nuanced experiences and cultural contexts of Indigenous populations. Quantitative research provides essential data-driven insights but can benefit from integration with qualitative methodologies that offer deeper contextual understanding. Future research should consider employing mixed-methods approaches that combine the empirical strength of quantitative methods with the detailed, culturally informed perspectives gained through qualitative research. This approach would enhance the comprehensiveness and applicability of findings in addressing the complexities of Indigenous youth involvement in the justice system. The study is also limited by its geographic focus. The unique socio-historical context of Canada, marked by specific colonial policies such as the Indian Act and the residential school system, has significantly shaped the socio-economic conditions and criminal justice involvement of Indigenous youth. Research on criminogenic risk factors and justice system interactions must be contextualized within these distinct legal, social, and policy environments to develop culturally relevant and context-specific interventions. While the Integrated Indigenist Ecological Systems Model (IIESM) may also be beneficial within international contexts, it would require careful consideration of the histories, cultures, and socio-political contexts of the Indigenous Peoples of those territories. Future research should explore the utility of Indigenous knowledge systems in understanding the complex interaction of Indigenous youth with the criminal justice systems in other jurisdictions. The analysis did not code studies for the specific purpose of each analysis. Doing so might provide more nuanced insights into how different types of studies (e.g., prevalence, predictive models, intervention) differentially apply or omit components the IIESM, and could lead to more design-specific research recommendations. Finally, as the review only covered content up to the year 2020, it also excludes the most recent research on the subject. Future studies should include the latest research, address the methodological limitations listed above, and explore the potential of systems science and complexity theory in further refining the proposed analysis.
Conclusion
Indigenous knowledge systems present a unique opportunity to dismantle the colonial framework within the criminal justice system, allowing for a reimagined approach that captures the interconnected factors contributing to these issues. As neither a single factor nor a combination of factors can fully predict or explain the justice involvement of Indigenous youth in Canada, it's crucial to adopt an approach that acknowledges the dynamic and transactional interaction of systems impacting Indigenous life, leveraging the strengths of Indigenous knowledge systems. It is important for researchers to consider embracing frameworks that reflect the distinct circumstances of Indigenous Peoples, prioritize research methods that include communities as co-researchers, and ensure cultural specificity to counteract the effects of colonization (Hautala & Sittner, 2019). While a broader focus, that employes community-based research methods and extends subject matter beyond micro-level risk factors would likely be beneficial for research on justice involvement for all youth, the IIESM may be a particularly relevant framework for evaluating research and programming aimed at preventing the criminalization of Indigenous youth as it uniquely addresses their specific socio-cultural, historical, and political contexts. This model not only enriches the analysis by incorporating Indigenous perspectives often overlooked by mainstream frameworks but also aligns closely with participatory action research methodologies, valuing lived experiences and community involvement. The IIESM's emphasis on culturally sensitive paradigms enhances the relevance and effectiveness of interventions, supporting broader human rights and social justice goals by addressing systemic inequities affecting Indigenous populations. Utilizing this model, researchers and practitioners can work toward a more equitable justice system, supporting the resilience and rights of Indigenous youth and fostering environments that respect their cultural identities and unique needs.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
