Female offenders in Canada

View the most recent version.

by Rebecca Kong and Kathy AuCoin

Introduction

Women and girls have historically accounted for a small minority of offenders in Canada, a reality that remains today. Research has consistently shown that females are much less likely to commit crimes than males.¹ At one time, their scant numbers meant little was known about female offenders and their needs. It also meant that women and girls who committed crimes faced a Canadian criminal justice system designed for the predominantly male offender population.

It is precisely the relatively small number of women and girls who commit crimes that creates a need to regularly monitor trends in offending patterns among females, trends that become masked by the larger male population if not examined separately. Such information can be used in crime prevention strategies and to assess responses by the justice and social systems to females who offend or who are at risk of offending. Information may also serve to improve public understanding of crimes committed by women and girls.

The first part of this Juristat presents information on the prevalence of crime by females, as well as the nature of their criminal behaviour. This first part uses data from a non-representative sample of police services reporting to the Incident-based Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR2) Survey and includes females who are either charged by police or who are not charged for various reasons (e.g., diversion), but against whom a charge could otherwise be laid due to sufficient evidence. Because the UCR2 data are not available consistently over time, the second part of this report examines trends in the number of females charged by police relative to their representation in the general population to inform the question of whether or not there have been any changes over time in female offending. These trends are based on the Aggregate Uniform Crime Reporting Survey. The third part examines the processing of cases through the adult and youth court systems to illustrate the responses of the judicial system and the representation of females in it. The final part of this report provides information on the number and characteristics of female adult offenders in the provincial/territorial and federal correctional systems.

Prevalence and nature of crime by females

Rate of offending low among females²

Relative to males, the rate at which females come into contact with police is low. According to data from a subset of 122 police services in 9 provinces, females aged 12 years and older accounted for 21% of persons accused of a Criminal Code offence in 2005 (see Text box 1). These police-reported data indicate that the overall rate of offending among females that year was almost one-quarter that of males (1,080 versus 4,193 per 100,000 population). This difference in rates was evident across all crime categories (Chart 1). The only type of crime for which females and males were apprehended by police at an equal rate was prostitution (19 females and 20 males per 100,000 population) (Table 1). This is likely because counts of offenders include both prostitutes and clients.

Chart 1
Females apprehended by police for crimes against the person at a rate 5 times lower than males, selected police services, 2005

Note: Excludes incidents where the sex and/or age of the accused was unknown. Data are not nationally representative. Based on data from 122 police services representing approximately 71% of the population of Canada in 2005. Rate per 100,000 population for the geographic areas policed by the UCR2 respondents, based on populations provided by Demography Division, Statistics Canada. Populations as of July 1^st: preliminary postcensal estimates for 2005.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Incident-based Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR2) Survey.

Fifteen year-old girls had the highest rates of female offending

Research has found that the teenage and young adult years are times when individuals are most at risk of getting involved in criminal activity (Piquero et al., 2003). This is true for both females and males, although rates of offending are considerably lower for females. Data from the subset of 122 police services indicate that among females aged 12 years and older, rates of property-related crime peaked at age 15 (1,714 per 100,000 population), and declined considerably thereafter (Chart 2). The overall pattern among males was similar, with property crimes peaking at age 16 (4,517 per 100,000 population). In terms of violations against the person committed by females, girls aged 15 demonstrated the highest rates (854 per 100,000) whereas among males, rates peaked among 17-year-olds (2,476 per 100,000).

As with males, female youth aged 12 to 17 displayed higher rates of offending than female adults. According to the 2005 data from the non-representative sample of 122 police services, the rate at which female youth were accused by police of Criminal Code offences was three and a half times higher than the rate for female adults (Table 1). Fraud and prostitution were the only crimes where rates were higher among female adults. This is likely because youth lack the means to commit fraud (e.g. credit cards, chequing accounts, etc.) and, if working as prostitutes, they are often regarded as youth in need of protection rather than offenders.

Almost half of female accused were accused of a property crime

Compared to their male counterparts, a greater proportion of female accused were in contact with police for property crimes than for other types of crimes. Overall, 47% of females accused of a Criminal Code offence were accused of a property crime and 28% were accused of violations against the person (Table 2). In comparison, proportions for males were 39% and 34%, respectively. An additional 17% of females were in conflict with the police because of offences against the administration of justice³ and 7% for ‘other Criminal Code offences’ (e.g. weapons offences, prostitution, etc.).

When females commit a violation against the person, it is most frequently common assault

Generally, the rate at which females are accused of violations against the person is about one-fifth the rate for males. Despite differences in the overall likelihood of offending, there are some commonalities in the most prevalent types of crimes committed by females and males, as well as some important differences. For instance, common assault is the most prevalent type of violation against the person among both females and males (Table 1). In 2005, 122 police services reporting to the Incident-based Uniform Crime Reporting Survey reported that females were accused of common assault at a rate of 155 per 100,000 females. The rate for males stood at 594 per 100,000 males. For both males and females, major assault and uttering threats were the next most prevalent crimes. For each of these, the rate at which females were accused was about one-quarter the rate for males. Greater differences emerge, however, with respect to homicide, attempted murder, robbery and sexual offences. The participation of females in these types of violations against the person is far less likely. For example, the rate at which females were accused by police of robbery was eight times lower than the rate for males (13 per 100,000 females versus 110 per 100,000 males). Female rates for homicide, attempted murder and sexual assault were negligible.

Chart 2
Among females, 15-year-olds have the highest rates of offending for violations against property and violations against the person, selected police services, 2005

Note: Excludes incidents where the sex and/or age of the accused was unknown. Data are not nationally representative. Based on data from 122 police services representing approximately 71% of the population of Canada in 2005. Rate per 100,000 population for the geographic areas policed by the UCR2 respondents, based on populations provided by Demography Division, Statistics Canada. Populations as of July 1^st: preliminary postcensal estimates for 2005.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Incident-based Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR2) Survey.

Theft of something other than a motor vehicle is the most typical crime by a female

When females offend, they are most likely to commit a theft other than theft of a motor vehicle. At 291 accused per 100,000 females, this violation was not only the most prevalent property crime among females, but the most prevalent crime overall (Table 1). Moreover, theft by shoplifting was much more commonplace among females than males. Two-thirds (66%) of theft incidents involving a female accused were incidents of shoplifting compared to half (51%) of incidents involving males. Fraud is another property crime that is characteristic of female offending (84 per 100,000 females). For both theft and fraud, rates were about half the rates for males. With respect to breaking and entering, motor vehicle theft and mischief, the likelihood that an offender is female is considerably less. While the female rate for breaking and entering was one-tenth the rate for males, the rate for motor vehicle theft was eight times lower and the rate for mischief was almost seven times lower.

The infrequent involvement of females in serious violent crimes, breaking and entering, and motor vehicle theft are echoed in recent studies of self-reported delinquency among youth (Fitzgerald, 2003; Savoie, 2007).

Regardless of sex of the offender, acquaintances most often victimized⁴

Who offenders victimize appears to be more a function of the offender’s age rather than their sex. Youth, regardless of their sex, tend to victimize people outside of the family, most notably casual acquaintances. Police–reported data from 2005 indicate that 67% of female youth accused of violations against the person and 63% of their male counterparts victimized friends or acquaintances (Table 3). While the proportions of female adults and male adults who victimized friends or acquaintances were also high (45% and 41%, respectively), sizeable proportions of adult accused had victimized family members (38% and 37%, respectively) with most of these being spouses. Female youth accused of a violation against the person were those least likely to have victimized a stranger (13%), followed by female adults (17%), male youth (19%) and male adults (22%).

Little difference in levels of injury inflicted by female accused and male accused⁵

One indicator of the seriousness of a violent crime is the level of injury sustained by the victim and the use of weapons to cause injury. As demonstrated earlier, relative to males, it is rare for females to commit violent crimes. When they do, however, it appears that there is little difference in the proportion of victims who are injured when compared to victims of maleperpetrated violence. According to data from a subset of 121 police services, half (51%) of victims of female-perpetrated violence sustained no injury. A further 43% experienced a minor injury requiring no professional medical treatment or only some first aid and a further 2% experienced a major physical injury (requiring professional medical treatment at the scene or transportation to a medical facility) or death.⁶ It is notable that this pattern did not differ between victims of female youth or female adults. In comparison to females, just over half of victims of male-perpetrated violence were uninjured (54%) while 38% experienced a minor injury and 4% suffered a major injury or death.

Although uncommon, when women inflict injury, they are just as likely as males to use weapons

Although few women commit violent crimes and inflict injury, police-reported data suggest that when they do, females are as likely as males to use weapons. Data from a subset of 121 police services indicate that, overall, 21% of victims of female-perpetrated violence who experienced an injury were injured with a weapon and 76% were harmed through physical force.⁷ This distribution was almost identical for victims injured through male-perpetrated violence with 20% being harmed by weapon use and 77% harmed through physical force.⁸

Differences in weapon use emerge, however, when examining victims of violence perpetrated by female youth compared to female adults. While 23% of victims who sustained an injury at the hands of a female adult had a weapon used against them, the same is true of 15% of victims injured by a female youth. In fact, the proportion of victims harmed by a female adult as a result of weapons (23%) was slightly greater than the proportion who suffered the same at the hands of a male adult (19%).

Multiple charges and criminal history less common among females than males

Serious crimes and repeat offending are indicators of the extent to which an individual is committed to, or engaged in, crime. Police and court data indicate that female offenders have a tendency for weaker engagement in crime than male offenders. For instance, according to data from the Adult Criminal Court Survey from 2003/2004, a smaller proportion of female accused than male accused were before the courts with multiple charges (45% versus 52%). Other research has demonstrated that females are less likely than males to offend more than one time (Carrington, 2007; Carrington, 2005). They are also less likely to be persistent offenders, meaning they are less likely to commit offences both prior to and after their 18th birthday (Carrington, 2005). Finally, a study of self-reported offending by grade 7, 8 and 9 students in Toronto shows that female youth commit less serious crimes than male youth and are more likely than male youth to offend one time only (Savoie, 2007).

Seriousness of female offending does not seem to increase over time for most repeat and chronic offenders

When females commit crimes more than once, their crimes do not appear to escalate in severity in most cases. According to a police-reported data file covering the 11-year time period of 1995 to 2005⁹, 72% of the just over 422,500, females offenders in the file were one-time offenders. Repeat offenders, meaning those who had 2 to 4 police contacts, accounted for 21%, and chronic offenders (5 or more police contacts) were infrequent at 7%. Although few, chronic offenders were responsible for as many criminal incidents as one-time offenders (36% and 37%, respectively). Repeat offenders committed 27% of incidents.

Three in ten offences (29%) involving chronic offenders were offences against the administration of justice (Chart 3). These include bail violations, failure to appear in court, unlawfully at large, breach of probation, obstruct public or peace officer and escape custody.

Where police-reported data showed females going on to commit additional crimes, the severity of these subsequent crimes did not appear to escalate for the majority (71%). To attribute a level of seriousness to each violation, a scale of seriousness was constructed by first categorizing violent violations as more serious than other violations and then ranking seriousness according to the maximum penalty for violations as per the Criminal Code. To examine crimes that are not related to the judicial intervention of existing offences, offences against the administration of justice were removed from the analysis. According to this scale, it was found that 39% of chronic and 35% of repeat female offenders had no change in the level of seriousness between their first and last offence. For 31% of chronic and 38% of repeat offenders, there was a decrease in the level of seriousness. An increase in seriousness was found among 28% of repeat and 31% of chronic offenders.

Trends in charging by police

Long-term trend data from police count the number of persons actually charged by police, not the number of persons against whom a charge could have been laid. Using data on persons charged as a measure for trends in offending can pose a challenge since the counts can be a reflection of changes in police practices, legislation and charging policies rather than changes in offending. And, as with all police-reported crime statistics, changes in the number of persons charged may also be influenced by the public’s willingness to report crimes to the police. As more serious crimes (e.g., homicides, assaults resulting in injury or involving the use of weapons, and motor vehicle thefts) are less likely to be influenced by such changes, they may serve as a better means for informing the question of whether or not criminal behaviour among females has increased.

Chart 3
Offences against the administration of justice account for almost 3 in 10 offences among chronic female offenders, selected police services, 1995 to 2005

Note: Repeat offenders are those who had 2 to 4 police contacts between 1995 and 2005 and chronic offenders are those who had 5 or more contacts. Excludes incidents where the sex and/or age of the accused was unknown. Data are not nationally representative. Based on data from 64 police services representing approximately 44% of the population of Canada in 2005.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Incident-based Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR2) Survey, Linked 11-year file.

The following section examines changes over time in the number of females charged by police relative to their number in the general population, meaning the charge rate. It presents data for female youth and adults, and provides comparisons with their male counterparts. Violent and property offences have been grouped into categories of ‘serious’ violent and property offences, based on their maximum penalty (see Text box 2). Data are also presented for assault level 1 (common assault) and ‘theft of an item other than a motor vehicle’ as these are the most prevalent, yet less serious offences that dominate the overall violent crime and property crime categories.

Overall rate of females charged by police has been declining

Overall, the rate at which females aged 12 and older have been charged by police for Criminal Code offences has fallen 28% since peaking in 1992 (Chart 4). That year, for every 100,000 females in Canada, 929 were charged by police, compared to a rate of 666 per 100,000 in 2005. Similar decreases have also been seen within the male population and these trends in charging mirror overall trends in the national crime rate.

Rate at which female youth and adults charged with serious violent crime¹⁰ higher than 20 years earlier

For both female youth and female adults, charge rates for ‘serious violent crimes’ have increased since the mid-1980s. However, rates remain substantially lower than rates for their male counterparts. Compared to 1986¹¹, the rate for ‘serious violent crime’ among female youth aged 12 to 17 years has more than doubled, growing from 60 per 100,000 that year to a rate of 132 per 100,000 in 2005 (Chart 5). This difference is not a result of recent growth, but stems from a steady rise that occurred from the 1980s to the early 1990s. In fact, since 2001 the rate at which female youth were charged with serious violent crimes has slowly been moving downward. With respect to assault level 1 (the least serious form of assault), charge rates soared upward from 88 to 299 per 100,000 population between 1986 and 1993 and continued upward until 2002. A downward trend began after 2002 with the implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The rates for male youth for ‘serious violent crimes’ and assault level 1 show similar patterns, with the exception of showing decreases between the mid- and late-1990s.

Chart 4
Rate at which females charged by police with Criminal Code offences has been declining since 1991, as has the rate for males, Canada, 1986 to 2005

Note: Rates are based on population estimates provided by Statistics Canada, Demography Division. Populations as of July 1^st: revised intercensal estimates for 1986 to 1995, final intercensal estimates for 1996 to 2000, final postcensal estimates for 2001 and 2002, updated postcensal estimates for 2003 and 2004, and preliminary postcensal estimates for 2005.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Uniform Crime Reporting Survey.

Chart 5
Rate at which female youth charged with serious violent offences still low, but has grown during past two decades, Canada, 1986 to 2005

Note: Rates are based on population estimates provided by Statistics Canada, Demography Division. Populations as of July 1^st: revised intercensal estimates for 1986 to 1995, final intercensal estimates for 1996 to 2000, final postcensal estimates for 2001 and 2002, updated postcensal estimates for 2003 and 2004, and preliminary postcensal estimates for 2005. For the purpose of this analysis, ‘serious violent crime’ was constructed by grouping UCR Survey codes for violent offences that carry a maximum penalty of 10 years or more. Specifically, the category comprises: 1^st and 2^nd degree murder; manslaughter; attempted murder; sexual assault levels 1, 2 and 3; assault levels 2 and 3; unlawfully causing bodily harm; discharge of a firearm with intent; abduction of a person under 14; and, robbery.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Uniform Crime Reporting Survey.

Between 1986 and 2005, the rate of serious violent crime among female adults moved from 25 to 46 per 100,000 population, with most of the change occurring before 1994 (Chart 6). Despite a few dips over the years, the rate at which women were charged with assault level 1 more than doubled from 1986 to 2005, growing from 44 to 93 per 100,000 population. Rates among male adults, however, have taken a very different path during the last decade and a half with rates sliding downward since the early 1990s. Between 1991 and 2005, the charge rate for male adults for serious violent crime dropped 30%, moving from 412 to 290 per 100,000. From 1993 to 2005, the charge rate for assault level 1 for male adults fell 25% (from 606 to 455 per 100,000 population). A consequence of these shifts is the narrowing gap between the number of female adults charged with violent crime and the number of male adults charged: in 1986, there were 9 men charged for every woman charged. In 2005, this ratio stood at 5 to 1.

Charge rates for property crimes are decreasing

In keeping with the steady decline in property crimes since 1991, the number of females charged with property crimes has been decreasing, as has the number of males charged. As was identified earlier, when female youth and adults commit a property crime, it tends to consist of a theft other than theft of a motor vehicle. Females tend not to commit offences of breaking and entering or motor vehicle theft, both of which are relatively serious crimes as the former carries a maximum penalty of 25 years and the latter one of 10 years. This pattern of offending is illustrated by the fact that, for both female youth and female adults, charge rates for ‘theft of an item other than a motor vehicle’ consistently exceed rates for ‘serious property crime’ over time, and that the reverse is true among both male youth and male adults (Charts 7 and 8).

For both female youth and female adults, charge rates for ‘serious property crimes’ have decreased slowly since the mid-1990s. The charge rate for female youth declined gradually from 1993 to 2002, moving from a charge rate of 384 per 100,000 to 341 (-11%) (Chart 7). Decreases since 2003 are consistent with alternatives to charging available under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The rate at which female adults were charged with ‘serious property crimes’ declined between 1993 and 2005, from 137 per 100,000 to 101 per 100,000 (-26%) (Chart 8). Charge rates for both female youth and adults females for the more prevalent offence of ‘theft of an item other than a motor vehicle’ have fallen more drastically than rates for ‘serious property crime’. This offence, however, is more susceptible to non-reporting by the public to police, particularly if the offence is minor or the dollar value lost is below the victim’s insurance deductible.

In comparison to their male counterparts, the rates at which female youth and female adults are charged with ‘serious property crimes’ have declined at a more conservative pace (Charts 7 and 8).

Chart 6
Although lower than the rate for men, rate at which women charged with violent offences has increased, Canada, 1986 to 2005

Note: Rates are based on population estimates provided by Statistics Canada, Demography Division. Populations as of July 1^st: revised intercensal estimates for 1986 to 1995, final intercensal estimates for 1996 to 2000, final postcensal estimates for 2001 and 2002, updated postcensal estimates for 2003 and 2004, and preliminary postcensal estimates for 2005. For the purpose of this analysis, ‘serious violent crime’ was constructed by grouping UCR Survey codes for violent offences that carry a maximum penalty of 10 years or more. Specifically, the category comprises: 1^st and 2^nd degree murder; manslaughter; attempted murder; sexual assault levels 1, 2 and 3; assault levels 2 and 3; unlawfully causing bodily harm; discharge of a firearm with intent; abduction of a person under 14; and, robbery.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Uniform Crime Reporting Survey.

Chart 7
Rates for both female and male youth charged with property crimes are declining, Canada, 1986 to 2005

Note: Rates are based on population estimates provided by Statistics Canada, Demography Division. Populations as of July 1^st: revised intercensal estimates for 1986 to 1995, final intercensal estimates for 1996 to 2000, final postcensal estimates for 2001 and 2002, updated postcensal estimates for 2003 and 2004, and preliminary postcensal estimates for 2005. For the purpose of this analysis, ‘serious property crime’ was constructed by grouping UCR Survey codes for violent offences that carry a maximum penalty of 10 years or more. Specifically, the category comprises: breaking and entering; fraud; arson; motor vehicle theft, and; possession of stolen goods. Although the offence of ‘theft of an item worth $5,000 or more’ carries a maximum penalty of 10 years, the threshold dollar amount for this offence has changed in 1985 and again in 1995 making comparisons over time invalid. All thefts other than a motor vehicle have therefore been grouped together to enable comparisons over time.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Uniform Crime Reporting Survey.

Chart 8
Charge rate for adult females for serious property crimes much lower than in the early 1990s, but has levelled off in recent years, Canada, 1986 to 2005

Note: Rates are based on population estimates provided by Statistics Canada, Demography Division. Populations as of July 1^st: revised intercensal estimates for 1986 to 1995, final intercensal estimates for 1996 to 2000, final postcensal estimates for 2001 and 2002, updated postcensal estimates for 2003 and 2004, and preliminary postcensal estimates for 2005. For the purpose of this analysis, ‘serious property crime’ was constructed by grouping UCR Survey codes for property offences that carry a maximum penalty of 10 years or more. Specifically, the category comprises: breaking and entering; fraud; arson; motor vehicle theft, and; possession of stolen goods. Although the offence of ‘theft of an item worth $5,000 or more’ carries a maximum penalty of 10 years, the threshold dollar amount for this offence has changed in 1985 and again in 1995 making comparisons over time invalid. All thefts other than a motor vehicle have therefore been grouped together to enable comparisons over time.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Uniform Crime Reporting Survey.

Charges growing for offences against the administration of justice

Despite decreases in the overall rate of females charged, rates for offences against the administration of justice have been climbing. Such offences under the Criminal Code of Canada include bail violations, breach of probation and failure to appear in court. For instance, the rate at which female adults were charged with bail violations tripled between 1986 and 2005, moving from 33 to 103 per 100,000 population. Among youth, the rate rose from 61 to 236 per 100,000 population. Increases have also occurred for males. The charge rate for bail violations among male adults grew 82% over this time period, and it has tripled for male youth. While these offences may not directly affect the public’s safety, they place a strain on Canada’s justice system because individuals charged with such offences must reappear before the courts for reasons unrelated to new criminal activities (Taillon, 2006). Further, convictions for these offences are high and offenders are frequently sentenced to custody. An additional cost in both dollars and the efficiency of the justice system is therefore incurred.

Females in the court system

As women account for a small proportion of persons charged with crimes, they also make up a small proportion of adults processed through the court system. In 2003/2004, 16% of adults before the criminal courts were women. Women were most often in court for property offences (32%), crimes against the person (23%) and offences against the administration of justice (18%).

Conviction rates lower for women¹²

In the adult court system women had their cases stayed or withdrawn¹³ more frequently than their male counterparts and were less frequently found guilty. For instance, in 2003/2004, 51% of all cases against women ended in a finding of guilt, compared to 59% for men (Table 4). A further 44% were stayed or withdrawn while the same was true for 34% of cases against men. Differences in conviction rates may be attributable to the fact, compared to males, that a smaller proportion of cases against females involve multiple-charges (45% versus 52%). Typically, cases involving multiple charges have higher conviction rates than cases with single charges because an accused is more likely to plead guilty on at least one charge when he or she is facing multiple charges. In addition, some jurisdictions have adult diversion programs that result in first-time offenders avoiding conviction. As indicated earlier, data suggest females are more frequently one-time offenders than males (Carrington, 2007; Savoie, 2007; Carrington et al., 2005; Thomas et al., 2002).

Across the different types of offences, conviction rates for women were either lower or comparable to rates for men, with two exceptions: attempted murder (17% conviction rate for women versus 12% for men) and prostitution (59% for women versus 31% for men) (Table 4). For prostitution, the proportion of multiple-charge cases against women was higher than for men (27% versus 11%).

Some of the highest conviction rates for women were for being unlawfully at large (78%), impaired driving (71%), breach of probation (70%), fraud (58%), theft (56%), disturbing the peace (54%), fail to comply with an order (53%) and robbery (52%).

Women less likely to be sentenced to prison and receive shorter sentences

Women found guilty in adult criminal court are less likely than men to receive a prison sentence and are more likely to receive probation. Females found guilty of crimes against the person in 2003/2004 were half as likely as their male counterparts to receive a prison sentence (19% versus 38%) (Table 5). The same was true for crimes against property with 24% of women and 45% of men being sentenced to custody.

In comparison to men, the lower proportion of women sentenced to custody held true regardless of the severity of the crime. For instance, in cases of major assault, meaning assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, prison sentences were handed down to one-quarter of women and nearly half of men who were found guilty (48%) (Table 5). Differences in sentencing were found with most other serious crimes such as robbery (62% versus 76%), break and enter (41% versus 61%) and fraud (20% versus 40%).

In addition, when custody was ordered, median sentence lengths were usually longer for males than females. For instance, the median sentence length for female adults found guilty of crimes against the person and sentenced to custody was 30 days compared to 60 days for males. For property offences, median terms of custody for females were also lower (30 days versus 45 days).

The lower incarceration rates and median sentence lengths for women may be attributed in part to the fact that, as mentioned above, a larger proportion of male offenders than female offenders were before the courts with multiple charges. In addition, prior criminal behaviour is a factor taken into consideration when sentences are imposed and, as previously mentioned, research indicates that female offenders are more likely than male offenders to be one-time offenders.

For prostitution and drug possession, women were more frequently incarcerated than men

Just as female offenders were more frequently found guilty of prostitution than male offenders, they were also more likely to receive a prison sentence for this offence. In 2003/2004, just under one third (32%) of female adult offenders found guilty of prostitution were sentenced to custody (Table 5), compared to 9% of male adults. Although the rate of conviction for drug possession among women and men were similar, women were more likely to be sent to prison. In 2003/2004, 26% of women found guilty of drug possession were sentenced to custody compared to 20% of men.

Except for property crimes, conviction rates of female and male youth were similar¹⁴

Girls were the accused in 21% of the cases that flowed through Canada’s youth courts in 2003/2004, a proportion that has fluctuated very little over the previous 10 years. In 2003/2004, female youth were as frequently before the courts for crimes against the person (33%) as they were for crimes against property (34%).¹⁵ The three most common offences among females appearing in youth court were level 1 assault (18%), theft other than a motor vehicle (17%) and offences against the Youth Criminal Justice Act (13%), which are largely offences against the administration of justice.

With the exception of property-related offences, there was little difference in conviction rates between female and male youth in 2003/2004. Overall, slightly more than half of young females accused of an offence were found guilty (53%) and 45% had their cases stayed, withdrawn or dismissed. Unlike their adult counterparts, conviction rates for crimes against the person differed little between the sexes, with the courts finding 55% of girls and 58% of boys guilty of such offences. While conviction rates were similar for most other crime categories, findings of guilt for property crimes were less frequent for girls than boys (46% versus 59%).

Sentences to custody less common for female young offenders¹⁶

Regardless of the crime, sentences to custody were less common among female than male young offenders. Overall, in 2003/2004, 16% of girls found guilty in youth court received a term of custody, compared to 24% of boys, with differences apparent across all crime categories (Table 6). In addition, when sentenced to custody, girls received, on average, a shorter sentence. For instance, girls who were sentenced to custody in 2003/2004 due to a violation against the person were, on average, sentenced to 48 days. In comparison, boys received an average of 71 days. Girls received shorter terms for virtually all violations against the person, except for assault level 1 where the average term for girls was just 3 days less than the term for boys (47 versus 50 days). With respect to property offences that resulted in a sentence of custody, average sentence lengths for girls were consistently lower than sentence lengths for boys.

Offenders can receive more than one type of sentence (e.g., a term of custody with a term of probation) and the Youth Court Survey counts all sentences handed down, not just the most serious sentence. Non-custodial sentences, such as community service, probation and fines were handed down to girls and boys at equal proportions (Table 6).

Female offenders in corrections¹⁷

Number of women in remand¹⁸ has grown

Given the relatively small number of women charged with and found guilty of criminal offences, women have historically accounted for a small proportion of the corrections population in Canada. In 2004/2005, female offenders accounted for 6% of offenders in provincial/territorial custody, 4% of offenders in federal custody, 6% in remand (a court-ordered detention of a person while he/she is awaiting further court appearances). Further, 16% of offenders on probation, parole or serving a conditional sentence in 2004/2005 were women.

Compared to men, women in the provincial/territorial correctional system are more often under community supervision (93% versus 82% for males in 2004/05) and less frequently under custodial supervision (7% versus 18% for males), a finding which stems from both offending and sentencing patterns.

Since 1995/1996, the number of women serving a sentence in a provincial/territorial institution has declined 8% while the number in remand has more than doubled and has pushed the total number of women in provincial/territorial custody up 30%. This growth in remand is not unique to the female population, but is a trend within the entire provincial/territorial corrections system.¹⁹

Federally sentenced women serving time for violent and drug offences

In 2006, just over half (55%) of federally sentenced women were serving time for a violent offence and one-quarter were in for drug offences. Over the 10-year period of 1997 to 2006, these proportions have changed little. In comparison, men have always predominantly been incarcerated in the federal system for violent offences. This was true for 70% of federally sentenced male offenders in 2006.

According to data from the provincial correctional systems in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, in 2004/2005, women were almost as frequently under supervision for violent offences as they were property offences (31% and 34%, respectively). In comparison, proportionally, men were more often under supervision for violent offences than property offences (32% and 24%, respectively).

Female adult offenders are more likely to be younger, single and Aboriginal than women in the general population

Compared to women in the general population, federally sentenced female offenders are more likely to be younger, single and Aboriginal. While the average age of women serving a federal sentence was 37.7 years in 2006, the average age among females aged 18 years and older in the general population has 48.1 (Statistics Canada, 2006 census). Almost half (47%) of federal female offenders were single and just over one-third (35%) were married or living in a commonlaw relationship prior to their incarceration. In the general population, women aged 18 years and older are much more likely to be married or living in a common-law relationship (62%) than single (21%) (Statistics Canada, 2007). While only 3% of female adults in Canada are Aboriginal, one-quarter of women serving a federal sentence were Aboriginal.

The data available from three provincial systems indicate that women in these systems were 32 years old on average, suggesting women in the provincial system are younger than those in the federal system. Further, these data also suggest they were more likely to be single (55%) and less likely to be married or living in a common-law relationship (30%). Other data indicate that about 3 in 10 female offenders admitted to provincial/territorial sentenced custody in 2004/2005 were Aboriginal.²⁰

Aboriginal female offender population growing

While Aboriginal people in general are over-represented among offenders sentenced to provincial/territorial custody, over-representation is even greater among female prisoners. In 2004/2005, 30% of women serving a custodial sentence in the provincial/territorial system were Aboriginal, compared to 21% of males. Among federally sentenced women, the representation of Aboriginal women has increased steadily and significantly over the past decade rising from 15% in 1997 to 25% in 2006.

Among federally sentenced Aboriginal female offenders, there is a significant proportion who have committed violent offences. In fact, the proportion of violent offenders amongst Aboriginal females now exceeds the proportion among all male offenders serving a federal sentence. Three-quarters (75%) of Aboriginal females under federal custody have a current violent offence on record, compared to 70% of all males. Aboriginal females are more likely to be serving sentences for homicide, assault, or robbery offences, relative to non-Aboriginal women. As such, they were proportionally less likely to be serving sentences for drug offences or property-related offences.

Females in corrections are less likely than their male counterparts to have a history with the correctional system

Over the past decade, there has been a slow but steady increase in the proportion of federal female offenders with a previous federal sentence. While 10% of federal female offenders in 1997 could be classified as ‘repeat’ federal offenders, this was true for about 15% in 2006. Despite this growth, federally sentenced female offenders are still less likely than male offenders (30%) to have had a previous federal sentence.

Data also indicate that females in the provincial corrections system are less likely than their male counterparts to have served a provincial sentence in the past. According to data from Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, 23% of females who were released from adult correctional supervision in 2002/2003 returned to the same jurisdiction’s correctional services system within 2 years. The same was true for 32% of males (Beattie, 2006). As mentioned earlier, other research shows that females were less likely than males to have previous adult and/or youth court convictions (Carrington, 2005).

Federal female offenders were more likely than males to have treatment needs in the areas of family/marital relationships and education/employment

Since 2000, there has been a significant change in the overall proportion of federally sentenced females who are at ‘high risk’ of re-offending and who have ‘high needs’, according to standard evaluations that are conducted regularly while they are in custody.²¹ Part of the intake assessment process for federal offenders involves the identification of the offender’s criminogenic ‘needs’. More specifically, the assessment tool considers a wide assortment of case-specific aspects of the offender’s personality and life circumstances. This information is then grouped into seven domains: employment/education, marital/family, associates/social interaction, substance abuse, community functioning (e.g., housing, financial management), personal/emotional orientation (e.g., victimization history, mental health), and attitude. At intake and at approximate six month intervals throughout the offender’s sentence, assessors rate the offender’s level of need in these domains.

Overall, the proportion of females in federal corrections categorized as ‘high needs’ has doubled from 26% of the population in 1997 to 50% in 2006. Differences between the genders exist with respect to needs. Females were significantly more likely to have treatment needs in the areas of employment/education (63% versus 57%) and marital/family (52% versus 43%), while males had more intervention needs in the areas of associates/social interaction (66% versus 61%), attitudes (64% versus 35%), substance abuse (69% versus 62%), and personal/emotional orientation (87% versus 79%).²²

Proportion of federal female offenders at risk of reoffending reached one-third

The proportion of federal female offenders categorized as ‘high risk’ of re-offending increased from 19% to 33% during the same 10-year period. Scores for estimating levels of risk are based on prior criminal behaviour and other indicators of compliance, such as failures while on parole or mandatory supervision.

Data sources

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey

The UCR Survey was developed in 1962 with the cooperation and assistance of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. UCR survey data reflect reported crime that has been substantiated through police investigation from all separate federal and provincial and municipal police services in Canada. There are currently two levels of detail collected by the UCR Survey:

Aggregate UCR Survey

The aggregate UCR survey includes the number of reported offences, actual offences, offences cleared by charge or cleared otherwise, persons charged (by sex and by an adult/youth breakdown) and those not charged. It does not include victim or incident characteristics. Coverage of the UCR Survey in 2005 was at 99.9% of the caseload of all police services in Canada.

Incident-based Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR2) Survey

The incident-based UCR2 survey captures detailed information on individual criminal incidents reported to police, including characteristics of victims, accused persons and incidents. Police services switch over from the aggregate to the incident based survey as their records management systems become capable of providing this level of detail. In 2005, 122 police services in 9 provinces supplied data for the complete year to the UCR2 survey and represent approximately 71% of the population of Canada. The coverage provided by these services in the 2005 database is distributed as follows: 47.5% from Ontario, 33.0% from Quebec, 8.0% from Alberta, 3.8% from British Columbia, 2.8% from Manitoba, 2.0% from Saskatchewan, 1.4% from Nova Scotia, 0.9% from Newfoundland and Labrador, and 0.6% from New Brunswick. With the exception of Ontario and Quebec, the data are primarily from urban police services. The reader is cautioned that these data are not geographically representative at the national or provincial level. Continuity with the UCR aggregate survey data is maintained by a conversion of the incident-based data to aggregate counts at year-end.

UCR2 linked database

Using police-reported data from the Incident-based Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR2) Survey, criminal incident records for the same accused persons were linked over eleven reporting years (1995 to 2005). The file enables analysis of the sequence of police contacts by female offenders aged 12 years and older who had at least one violation against the Criminal Code or other federal statute. Coverage for the linked file includes 64 police services in 6 provinces. Police services included in this subset are primarily the major urban police services in New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia and most police services in Quebec. The file is not a representative sample of females apprehended by police. Combined, these 64 police services represent 44% of the national volume of crime. Because of recent transitions to the UCR2 Survey, the following major police services were excluded from the 11-year linked data file: the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Winnipeg Police Service.

Matching of records was done using four variables that together attempt to identify a unique individual: An encrypted code based on the accused person’s name, date of birth, sex and province of the offence. In order to reduce the instances of ‘false positives’, meaning matching of records where the records actually represent different individuals, methodologists at Statistics Canada conducted an analysis of the probability of false positives and constructed quality codes for each record based on ‘match efficiency’, meaning the expected absence of false positives. Records that had a match efficiency rates of 95% or greater were included in the analysis, meaning that among those, less than 5% of matches are expected to be false positives. These records that were selected as sufficient quality for use accounted for 89% of the total records.

Homicide Survey

The Homicide Survey collects police-reported data on the characteristics of all homicide incidents, victims and accused persons in Canada. It provides more detailed information than the UCR2.

Adult Criminal Court Survey

The purpose of the Adult Criminal Court Survey (ACCS) is to provide a national database of statistical information on the processing of cases through the adult criminal court system. The survey consists of a census of Criminal Code and other federal statute charges dealt with in adult criminal courts. The ACCS represents approximately 90% of the national adult criminal court caseload.

Some limitations on coverage of the survey should be noted. Manitoba is not included in the survey for any year. Data from Nunavut were included as part of the Northwest Territories prior to April 1, 1999; however, Nunavut has not reported to the ACCS since the creation of the territory. Also, some court locations in Quebec are not included. Information from Quebec’s municipal courts (which account for approximately one quarter of Criminal Code charges in that province) is not yet collected. Finally, with the exception of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Alberta, British Columbia and Yukon, no data are provided from superior courts.

The absence of data from all but six superior court jurisdictions may result in a slight underestimation of the severity of sentences imposed across Canada. The reason for this is that some of the most serious cases, which are likely to result in the most severe sanctions, are processed in superior courts.

The analysis in this report regarding offences in court is based on the most serious offence. When a case has more than one charge, it is necessary to decide which charge will be used to represent the case (since a case is identified by a single charge). In such multiple-charge cases, the “most serious decision” rule is applied. Decisions are ranked from the most to the least serious as follows: 1) guilty, 2) guilty of a lesser offence, 3) acquitted, 4) stay of proceeding, 5) withdrawn, dismissed and discharged 6) not criminally responsible 7) other, 8) transfer of court jurisdiction. In cases where two or more offences have resulted in the same decision (e.g., guilty), the “most serious offence” rule is applied. All charges are ranked according to an offence seriousness scale, which is based on the average length of prison sentence imposed on guilty charges between 1994/1995 and 2000/2001. If two charges are tied according to this criterion, information about the sentence type (e.g., prison, probation, and fine) is considered. If a tie still exists, the magnitude of the sentence is considered.

The most serious sentence rule applies where more than one sentence is associated with the Most Serious Offence in a case. Sentences are ranked from most to least serious as follows: Prison, conditional sentence, probation, fine, and other (restitution, absolute or conditional discharge, suspended sentence, other).

Youth Court Survey

The Youth Court Survey (YCS) is a census of Criminal Code and Other Federal Statute offences heard and completed in youth court for persons aged 12 to 17 years (up to the 18^th birthday) at the time of the offence.

Adult Corrections Surveys

With the exception of the analysis on female federal offenders, data in the Juristat on persons in the correctional system come from the Key Indicator Report (KIR) and the Adult Corrections Survey (ACS), two aggregate surveys conducted by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. The KIR is a census survey that collects monthly average counts of adults and youth in custody under the responsibility of provincial/territorial and federal correctional services as well as the month-end counts of offenders under the responsibility of provincial/territorial probation services. The ACS is also a census survey which collects data to provide indicators on the nature and characteristics of persons admitted to correctional services. Types of characteristics collected include sex, types of offences, age and ethnicity (i.e., Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal).²³ The ACS collects other types of data on corrections resources, expenditure and personnel, the number of correctional facilities and their capacity.

For more information on these and other justice-related surveys, visit and click Definitions, data sources and method > List by subject > Crime and justice.

Endnotes

1. See, for instance, Belknap, Joanne (ed). 2001. Women, Gender, Crime and Justice. Wardsworth/Thompson Learning: California.
2. The analysis of 2005 data is based on non-representative data from 122 police services reporting to the Incident-based Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR2) Survey. These police services represent 71% of the population of Canada (see the Data sources section of this report for more information). The analysis excludes offenders where the sex and/or age are unknown and where the age of the accused was coded as less than 12 years.
3. Offences against the administration of justice include failure to appear, breach of probation, unlawfully at large, bail violations and ‘other’ administration of justice offences.
4. To determine the relationship of the accused to the victim, this section analyses only victims who were victimized by a single accused. Victims victimized by more than one accused account for 64% of all victims.
5. The analysis of injury and weapon causing injury excludes Toronto as details on types of weapons use are unavailable. Consequently the analysis is based on data from a subset of 121 police services that represent 63% of the population of Canada.
6. For the remaining 4% of victims, the extent of injuries could not be determined by the attending police offi cer though weapons or physical force were used against the victim.
7. For 3% of victims, the type of weapon used, including whether or not it was physical force, was unknown.
8. For 3% of victims, the type of weapon used, including whether or not it was physical force, was unknown.
9. Methodological constraints exist that limit this analysis to females only and do not permit comparisons with males. For more information about the file used for this analysis, see the Data sources section.
10. For the purpose of this analysis, ‘serious violent crime’ was constructed by grouping aggregate UCR Survey codes for violent offences that carry a maximum penalty of 10 years or more. Specifically, the category comprises: 1st and 2nd degree murder; manslaughter; attempted murder; sexual assault levels 1, 2 and 3; assault levels 2 and 3; unlawfully causing bodily harm; discharge of a fi rearm with intent; abduction of a person under 14; and, robbery.
11. In 1983, changes to the Criminal Code affected the classification of assaults, sexual assaults and abduction. Further, in 1986, the Juvenile Delinquents Act was replaced by the Young Offenders Act, a change which altered the way police and the criminal justice system dealt with young offenders. Due to these two legislative changes, trend analysis begins at 1986 to ensure data are comparable from year to year.
12. Analyses of adult court data use counts that are based on the most serious offence in the case and the most serious sentence. See Data sources section for details.
13. Includes stay of proceedings, withdrawn, dismissed and discharged at preliminary inquiry. These decisions all refer to the court stopping or interrupting criminal proceedings against the accused.
14. This section provides data from the Youth Court Survey (YCS), a census of Criminal Code offences heard and completed in youth courts for persons aged 12 to 17 years of age at the time of the offence. Analyses of youth court data use counts that are based on the most serious offence in the case.
15. Analysis of police-reported data showed that, among female young offenders, a higher proportion had been apprehended by police for property offences than for crimes against the person. It is likely that the more similar proportions among female young offenders in court are due to police having diverted the less serious property crimes away from the court system.
16. Analysis of sentences are not based on the most serious sentence in a case, but examine all types of sentences because specific YCJA sentencing details (e.g., reprimands, deferred custody and supervision, intensive support and supervision) are not discernable from the Youth Court Survey data collection format (i.e., they are collected through the sentencing category ‘Other’). Therefore, comparisons with sentencing in Adult Criminal Court, which is based on the most serious sentence, should not be made.
17. The information on federally-sentenced women in this section was provided by Kelley Blanchette of Correctional Service Canada (CSC). Data in this section were drawn from CSC’s Offender Management System (OMS) on snap-shot day (March 1). Profile data are based on the 2006 snapshot day while time series analysis is based on a series of one-day snapshots for ten consecutive years (1997 to 2006). All analyses include women in federal custody, as well as those under federal supervision in the community (i.e., day or full parole, or statutory release). All differences are statistically significant unless otherwise stated.
18. Remand is a court ordered detention of a person while awaiting further court appearances.
19. For more information on the growth in the remand population, possible explanations for it and how it impacts the correctional services system see Johnson (2003) and Beattie (2006).
20. Includes all jurisdictions, except Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.
21. As a part of the comprehensive offender intake assessment process, all federal offenders are evaluated along a global continuum of risk and need (low, medium, or high). Re-assessments occur at approximate 6-month intervals thereafter, throughout the offender’s incarceration and his or her period of community supervision. As of the March 1, 2006 snapshot date, each offender’s most recent overall risk and need evaluation was drawn from the Offender Management System data base.
22. Presently, information on the needs of offenders in the provincial system is collected through Statistics Canada’s Integrated Correctional Services Survey, but the information is presently only reported by Saskatchewan. It is worth noting that, according to findings from 2004/2005, similar differences existed between the needs of females and males in Saskatchewan’s correctional system. A higher proportion of females in sentenced custody had medium to high needs in the areas of employment (65% versus 57%), family/marital (61% versus 55%), and personal/emotional (23% versus 14%).
23. The ACS is being replaced by the Integrated Correctional Services Survey (ICSS) which is a person-based survey that collects detailed information on each person admitted to correctional services. Information collected includes a variety of socio-demographic characteristics beyond age and sex, including education, marital and employment status. Data from the ICSS are currently available from Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC).

References

Beattie, K. 2006. “Adult correctional services in Canada.” Juristat. Vol. 26, no. 5. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-XIE. Ottawa.

Belknap, J. 2001. “The invisible woman: gender, crime and justice.” The Wadsworth Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice Series. Wadsworth Publishing Co. California.

Carrington, P. J. 2007. “The development of police-reported delinquency among Canadian youth born in 1987 and 1990.” Crime and Justice Research Paper Series. No. 009. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-561-MIE. Ottawa.

Carrington, P. J., A. Matarazzo and P. deSouza. 2005. “Court careers of a Canadian birth cohort.” Crime and Justice Research Paper Series. No. 006. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-561-MIE. Ottawa.

Fitzgerald, R. 2003. “An examination of sex differences in delinquency.” Crime and Justice Research Paper Series. No. 003. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-561-MIE. Ottawa.

Johnson, S. 2003. Custodial remand in Canada, 1986/87 to 2000/01.” Juristat. Vol. 23, no. 7. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-XPE. Ottawa.

Piquero, A. and Buka, S. 2002. “Linking juvenile and adult patterns of criminal activity in the Providence cohort of the National Collaborative Perinatal Project.” Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 30. p. 259-272.

Piquero, A.R., Farrington, D.P. and A. Blumstein. 2003. The Criminal Career Paradigm. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 30: p. 359-507.

Savoie, J. 2007. “Youth self-reported delinquency, 2006.” Juristat. Vol. 27, no. 6. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-XIE. Ottawa.

Statistics Canada, 2007. 2001 Census Data Table “Population by marital status and sex, by province and territory.” Available at . (accessed September 19, 2007).

Taillon, J. 2006. “Offences against the administration of justice” Juristat. Vol. 26, no. 1. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-XIE. Ottawa.

Thomas, M. 2004. “Adult criminal court statistics, 2003/2004.” Juristat. Vol. 24, no. 12. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-XIE, Ottawa.

Thomas, M., H. Hurley and C. Grimes. 2002. “Pilot analysis of recidivism among convicted youth and young adults, 1999/2000.” Juristat. Vol. 22, no. 9. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-XIE. Ottawa.