The Needs of Inuit Offenders in Federal Correctional Facilities

2004 N^o R-142

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

Shelley Trevethan John-Patrick Moore Leesie Naqitarvik Autumn Watson and Daisy Saunders PREPARED FOR: Correctional Service of Canada, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association Research Branch Correctional Service of Canada

June 2004

—————— Research Report——————

This report is also available in French. Ce rapport est également disponible en français. Veuillez vous adresser à la direction de la recherche, Service Correctionnel du Canada, 340, avenue Laurier ouest, Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0P9. Should additional copies be required they can be obtained from the Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada, 340 Laurier Ave. West, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0P9.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Inuit needs project was a joint effort of Correctional Service Canada (CSC), Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) and Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association to examine the institutional and community reintegration needs of Inuit federal offenders. The research consisted of three components: interviews with 75 Inuit offenders incarcerated in federal correctional facilities across Canada; interviews with 34 family members of Inuit offenders; and interviews with 73 staff in federal correctional facilities.

Similar to the situation for First Nations and Métis people, Inuit are over-represented within the federal correctional system. Although Inuit represent about 0.1% of the Canadian population (Statistics Canada, 2001), they represent about 1% of offenders incarcerated in federal correctional facilities (approximately 99 offenders) (Correctional Service Canada, 2003a). In addition to their over-representation, the experience of Inuit, both during and after incarceration, indicates the need for targeted services and programs. Upon entry into federal institutions, Inuit are identified as "Aboriginal". Unfortunately, the use of this generic term tends to refer to the "First Nations" population. Consequently, there are minimal programs and services geared towards the specific and unique needs of Inuit inmates. Because of the lack of knowledge and/or understanding of these distinct needs, Inuit inmates are provided with programs and services that include practices and beliefs that are not part of Inuit culture or way of life. For example, although there are sweat lodges, sweet grass ceremonies, Elders, and healing programs, these programs and services are based upon, or only include, First Nations culture, and do not take into consideration the unique cultural differences between Canada's Aboriginal populations. Without some understanding of cultural differences between First Nations, Métis and Inuit cultures, the appropriate services and supports for Inuit during their incarceration will continue to be unmet. Programs and services that address Aboriginal offenders as a whole, rather than focusing on the diverse needs within each Aboriginal culture, can hamper successful reintegration of Inuit offenders back into the community.

Through the development of strong and meaningful partnerships with ITK and Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association, the CSC Research Branch and various other branches within CSC have recognized that Inuit face unique challenges within the correctional system. Through the development of this relationship, various recommendations, initiatives and projects have evolved, one being the Inuit institutional needs assessment.

To date, research available on Inuit offenders indicates that Inuit offenders may require different interventions than the programs and services designed strictly for non-Aboriginal and First Nations offenders. Therefore, it is necessary to examine in more depth what institutional programs and services are currently in place, and what services are required to ensure the safe, timely, and successful reintegration of federally sentenced Inuit offenders. The present research project attempts to answer this, by addressing the following questions:

1. Do Inuit federal offenders differ from Métis and First Nations offenders?
2. What are the needs of Inuit offenders when inside the institution and upon release to the community?
3. What are the needs of the family members of Inuit offenders?
4. What knowledge and experience do CSC institutional staff have regarding Inuit offenders?

Profile of Inuit Offenders

As with other Aboriginal offenders, differences exist between the profiles of Inuit offenders and non-Aboriginal offenders. However, some differences also exist among Inuit, Métis, and First Nations offenders. Inuit offenders tend to be young, single, have low levels of education and high unemployment, circumstances that are fairly similar to Métis and First Nations offenders. The only major differences are that a larger proportion of Inuit offenders were single and a smaller proportion unemployed at the time of admission. In terms of most serious current offence, a larger proportion of Inuit are incarcerated for sexual offences compared with Métis and First Nations offenders, and a smaller proportion are incarcerated for robbery. In addition, smaller proportions of Inuit offenders are incarcerated for drug-related and property offences than Métis offenders. Furthermore, larger proportions of Inuit than other Aboriginal offenders are rated as high risk to re-offend and high need for programming. They are rated as having "some or considerable" need in the areas of personal/emotional issues, substance abuse, criminal associates, and attitude. However, Inuit offenders tend to receive shorter sentences than Métis and First Nations offenders.

Unlike other Aboriginal offenders, in particular Métis offenders, Inuit offenders typically live in rural settings. They also tend to follow Inuit traditions, and most speak an Inuit language. However, unlike many First Nations offenders who seem to re-establish their First Nations cultural links during incarceration, Inuit offenders attachment to Inuit culture appears to diminish during incarceration, while their attachment to First Nations culture increases. This is likely because there is greater access to First Nations than Inuit culture in federal institutions. Since most Inuit offenders plan to go to Inuit communities upon release, it is unfortunate that their cultural links are weakened during incarceration.

As with other federal offenders, many Inuit offenders had difficult home environments during childhood, including exposure to violence and substance abuse in the home. As with First Nations and Métis offenders, approximately two-thirds of the Inuit offenders had been involved in the child welfare system while growing up. However, unlike many First Nations and Métis offenders, a large proportion of Inuit offenders interviewed said that they had a stable and happy childhood.

Unlike First Nations and Métis offenders, many Inuit offenders said they had little contact with their spouse or children during their incarceration. Further, any contact tended to be by telephone or letter. This is not surprising given the distance that separates most Inuit offenders from their family members. However, it indicates the difficulties that Inuit offenders face in maintaining contact with, and receiving support from, loved ones.

Needs of Inuit Offenders

Inuit offenders clearly have a broad range of criminogenic needs when entering the federal correctional system and upon release to the community. Programs in place are attempting to address these issues. A large proportion of Inuit offenders have participated in programs aimed at addressing their diverse criminogenic needs. Further, those interviewed tend to feel that the programs have been useful. However, they also note that the most useful programs were ones that were designed specifically for Inuit offenders (such as the Tupiq program, an Inuit sex-offender program). For other programs, they tended to feel that the cultural aspect was missing. It is not clear whether all programs meet Inuit offenders' cultural or spiritual needs to the same extent. Although the programs target criminogenic needs identified at intake, the offenders may not respond fully to the programs unless they are given in an appropriate cultural context and in a way that is meaningful to the lives of Inuit offenders.

Differences in offence characteristics, needs, home environment and cultural characteristics point to a need for different methods of intervention for Inuit offenders.

Needs of Family

The needs of family members of Inuit offenders are similar to the needs of family members of offenders in general. For instance, they say they need contact with the offender, financial support, emotional support, and counselling. However, because of the distance which typically separates them from the offender, it is difficult for the family members of Inuit offenders to visit. Furthermore, to make the services most effective, they need to be provided in the locations where family members live (often remote locations), and by people who understand the culture and language.

Staff Knowledge

Educating staff and allowing them to acquire experience with Inuit culture is clearly an important area that requires further attention. The interviewed staff said that they possess little knowledge of Inuit culture. For instance, although 77% said they had received training about Aboriginal issues, only 15% had been given any training on Inuit issues. Furthermore, approximately three-quarters of the staff interviewed said they had no current knowledge about Inuit offenders. Information sessions for staff on Inuit culture could aid in fostering a better understanding of differences between Inuit offenders and other Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders.

It would also be beneficial to develop recruitment and retention strategies for Inuit staff, so that Inuit offenders have access to Inuit staff, facilitators, and Elders. Inuit staff know the offenders' culture, understand their way of life in the north, may speak their dialect, and maintain a host of community links. All of these characteristics would better serve Inuit offenders.

Summary

It seems clear from the research that Inuit-specific programs and services would be beneficial for Inuit offenders. Although Inuit represent a very small proportion of the offender population served by CSC, they are substantially over-represented, as is also the case with Métis and First Nations offenders. Furthermore, a substantially larger proportion of Inuit offenders are incarcerated for sexual offences compared with other offender groups, indicating that a program focusing on sexual offending is particularly necessary for Inuit offenders. Offenders, family members and staff all noted the need for Inuit-specific programs. CSC currently has an Inuit-specific program in place for sex offenders at Fenbrook Institution. The "Tupiq" program follows universally accepted relapse prevention theory, but integrates Inuit culture by incorporating Inuit delivery staff, healing therapy and cultural references. Another service currently available at Fenbrook Institution is a carving shack that allows Inuit offenders to learn carving skills that they can utilize upon release.

The journey of federally sentenced Inuit offenders is fraught with challenges that cannot be overcome until some of the obvious obstacles to their rehabilitation are addressed. CSC needs to better understand Inuit culture and communities in order to develop more effective strategies for reintegrating Inuit offenders back into their communities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was made possible through the combined efforts of a working group comprised of representatives from the Correctional Service of Canada (Shelley Trevethan, John-Patrick Moore, Leesie Naqitarvik), as well as representatives from Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (Valerie Nicholls, Autumn Watson) and Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association (Daisy Saunders). The working group members helped to guide the research and provided valuable expertise and advice on the project. In addition, the National Inuit Justice and Corrections Technical Working Group, comprised of representatives from Nunavut (Kivalliq, Kitikmeot and Qikiqtani Inuit Associations), Labrador (Labrador Inuit Association), Nunavik (Makivik Corporation) and Inuvialuit (Inuvialuit Regional Corporation) provided valuable comments on the approach, instruments and report.

This project was partly funded by the Aboriginal Initiatives Branch of CSC. In particular, the authors would like to thank Lisa Allgaier and Paul Sonnichsen for their support and assistance in initiating this project.

A special thanks to other CSC staff who contributed to this project, including Amey Bell, Nicole Crutcher, Nicole Mulligan, Michael Jeffery, Vicki Brunet and Collette Cousineau. The authors would also like to thank outside contractors who contributed to this survey: Jeela Palluq, Pitsula Akavak and Ellen Hamilton — qujannamiik angijumik.

The authors would also like to thank the staff from the federal institutions in the Atlantic region (Dorchester Penitentiary), Ontario region (Collins Bay, Fenbrook, Joyceville, Kingston Penitentiary, Millhaven Assessment Unit, and Regional Treatment Centre), Quebec region (La Macaza) and Prairie region (Bowden, Drumheller, Regional Psychiatric Centre, and Saskatchewan Penitentiary) for all of their assistance. This project could not have been completed successfully without the help of the Assistant Wardens of Correctional Programs, the Inuit/Native liaison officers, Healers and other staff. Furthermore, we would like to thank the institutional staff interviewed for discussing their experiences and providing valuable insight. Thank you to our contacts in Regional Headquarters.

A great appreciation goes to the family members who took the time to take part in the interviews. Without your input, readers would not have a complete picture of the issues facing families of Inuit offenders. Thank you for your thoughts, concerns and openness.

Finally, we would like to thank the Inuit offenders who took the time to be interviewed on sensitive aspects of their lives. Without your participation, this survey would not have been possible — qujannamiik angijumik. We appreciate your candour and eagerness to tell us about your institutional and community needs.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

In May, in an Arctic community, all is very quiet. It seems that every family with a skidoo or dog-team has piled onto a qamutik (or sled) and is bouncing on caribou skin mattresses over the rough sea ice as they venture out to hunt seals or jig for fish. After midnight, with the sun barely grazing the horizon, a red sky washes from sunset to sunrise, reflected on the vast sparkling expanse of frozen ocean. Out on the ice, several skidoos have stopped; people gather around one of the qamutiks where a camp stove roars and tea boils. Laughing children play tag to warm up, while the adults share jokes and anecdotes. One of the hunters offers fresh seal meat; there may be talk of a person they all know, someone who has been away a long time, who had trouble a while back, but who is finally coming home. One could almost believe that very little has changed in this place — Inuit still travel, hunt and camp with the seasons, and in so many ways their culture endures. This is a good thing: never have they needed their culture more. Never has their culture been under such great attack, as Canadian Inuit face the devastating effects that social and cultural upheaval has wrought (Hamilton, 2003).

Due to the uniqueness of the Inuit population in Canada, Inuit offenders face distinct issues and challenges that may be quite different from other Aboriginal, as well as non-Aboriginal offenders. To gain a better understanding of Inuit culture, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) developed strong and meaningful partnerships with Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) and Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association. This partnership has helped to create various recommendations, initiatives and projects relating to Inuit offenders. One of these initiatives is this Inuit institutional needs assessment, the results of which are presented in this report.

This section provides an overview of Inuit communities across the Arctic. This review of communities located thousands of miles away is meant to allow the reader to glance into the Arctic and begin to grasp some of the challenges that Inuit and their respective communities face daily in relation to corrections.

Inuit Culture¹

For more than four thousand years, Inuit — a founding people of what is now Canada — have occupied the Arctic land and waters from the Mackenzie Delta in the west to the Labrador coast in the east and from Hudson's Bay Coast to the islands of the High Arctic. Thule Inuit are the ancestors of today's Canadian Inuit. Before Europeans arrived, Inuit handcrafted their own tools from resources found on the land and in the animals they harvested. This way of life was practiced for thousands of years until the arrival of European explorers, whalers, traders and finally, settlers, who brought a new world and indeed, a new way of life with them (ITK, 2003a).

¹ Portions of this section were drawn from Hamilton (2003).

According to the Census of Population (Statistics Canada, 2001), of the 976,305 people who identified themselves as Aboriginal in 2001, about 5% (45,070) reported that they were Inuit. Canadian Inuit currently occupy Canada’s northern provinces and territories in 53 distinct Inuit communities. The community populations range from approximately 100 in Grise Fiord to 5,000 in Iqaluit. According to Statistics Canada, out of the total Inuit population Nunavutmiut make up 50%, Nunavummiut, 21%, Labradormiut, 10% and Inuvialuit, 9%. The remaining 10% are scattered throughout Ontario and the rest of Canada.

Inuit are located in four regions: Nunatsiavut (Labrador), Inuvialuit (Northwest Territories), Nunavik (Quebec) and the newly established territory of Nunavut.

The Inuit region of Labrador is called Nunatsiavut. Approximately 4,500 Inuit live along the Labrador coast in five communities. Nain, with a population of 1,200, is the biggest Inuit community in Labrador and is also the administrative centre. Land and sea wildlife harvesting continues to be the main diet and often the mainstay of Labrador's economy (ITK, 2003a). The Labrador Inuit Association (LIA) is a non-profit organization that was formed in 1973 and incorporated under Newfoundland law in 1975 (Labrador Inuit Association, 2003). In 2001, LIA signed an Agreement in Principle with the governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador for a comprehensive land claim. LIA represents all Nunatsiavut Inuit.

The Inuvialuit region comprises the north-western part of the Northwest Territories. It is home to approximately 3,900 Inuit who live among six of the western Arctic communities, the largest regional centre being Inuvik. In 1984, the Inuvialuit negotiated a comprehensive land claims settlement with the Government of Canada, marking a milestone in the Northwest Territories. The Inuvialuit Final Agreement described approximately 1.2 million square kilometres of surface ownership, including certain mineral, petroleum and natural gas rights (Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, 2003). Hunting, fishing, and trapping carry on the traditional economy of the Inuvialuit, while mineral and gas exploitation, tourism, arts, and crafts are currently featured in the larger regional centres. The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC) was established in 1985 as part of the Inuvialuit land claim. IRC represents all Inuvialuit.

The area in northern Quebec inhabited by Inuit is known as Nunavik (meaning "a place to live"). Nunavik covers more than 560,000 square kilometres and is home to approximately 9,340 Inuit. The largest community in the region is Kuujjuaq, with a population of approximately 1,500. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Quebec government gradually took over the various services that had originally been supplied by the federal government. At the same time, the Inuit themselves were developing a yearning to rediscover their identity, and to take charge of their own destiny once more. These parallel developments culminated in 1975 in the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement which gave the Inuit extensive responsibilities in the areas of economic and social development, education, the environment, and territorial management (Avataq Cultural Institute, 2003). Traditional hunting and fishing is a crucial food source for the Inuit of Nunavik. Transportation and service industries, tourism and mining are important components of the local economy (ITK, 2003a). Makivik Corporation was established in 1978 after the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Makivik Corporation represents all Nunavummiut in the 14 communities along the Ungava Bay, Hudson's Straight, and Hudson's Bay coasts.

On April 1, 1999, Nunavut became Canada’s third and newest territory. The area, once part of the Northwest Territories, is one-fifth of Canada's landmass. Some 25,000 Inuit reside in 26 communities, with Iqaluit as the capital. Nunavut is divided into three regions: Qikiqtaaluk (Baffin) in the east, Kivalliq (Keewatin) in the central Arctic along the western coast of Hudson's Bay, and Kitikmeot in the west. The official language of the government is Inuktitut, although French, English, and Inuinnaqtun are also recognized and widely used (ITK 2003a). Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated was established in 1992 as part of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, and represents all Nunavumiut.

Many Inuit still live off the land, following the traditional Inuit practices of hunting, trapping, and fishing. Increasingly, carving, jewellery making, and printmaking are becoming a larger sustainable economic sector throughout much of the north.

The way of life in the north is significantly different than in the south. Some southern Canadians, through their television sets, have seen glimpses of the rugged yet beautiful landscape that expands over the Arctic, and the wildlife that roams its surface. Soft lichen, arctic flowers, and plants extend over the tundra — florae that offer traditional medicines, heat for cooking, snacks for eating, flavour for tea, and beauty for the soul. Selected few have had the opportunity to experience 24 hours of daylight/darkness and extreme temperatures that accompany seasonal change. One's eyes cannot open wide enough to take in the vastness of land and sea that Canada's Arctic has to offer — just imagine no obstacles in your view above the tree line.

Some of the other unique differences and challenges of living life in the north include community structure, transportation systems, housing and the economy.

In the four regions, Inuit communities are relatively small (with the exception of regional centres). Each community has a municipal building, an "everything" store (groceries, hardware, clothing, etc.), a school, an arena, a police station, and a health centre.

The airport and loading dock are two of the most vital and important features of each Inuit community. The communities rely heavily on scheduled air services for regular supplies and passenger travel. During the summer months, construction material, bulk goods, and heavy machinery are delivered by sealift. High freight rates result in increased prices at local stores. Few communities have road access to southern points, or even to neighbouring villages. There are, however, roads in and around each community. Most businesses and some families own vehicles such as vans or trucks, or the occasional car with which to drive around town. More people — particularly those in the smaller communities — rely on snowmobiles in winter and ATVs in the summer, as they are more versatile and travel off-road as well (ITK, 2003a).

Housing is a big concern in the Arctic. In most communities, housing is provided and maintained by regional and federal governments. The high cost of living, combined with high unemployment rates, force Inuit to depend on public housing. Inuit usually do not have a choice over what type of house they want to live in; houses are simply allocated based on the size of the family. Most communities have long waiting lists for housing, so there are often three generations living under the same roof (ITK, 2003a). Using 1996 Census data, an ITK report indicated the need for 8,800 new social housing units for the 53 Inuit communities in Canada (Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, 2001). According to the most recent Census, the Inuit population increased from 40,220 in 1996 to 45,070 in 2001. With an increase of 12% in population over five years and without a corresponding increase in social housing construction, it is clear that the housing crisis still exists (ITK, 2003b).

Unemployment rates in Inuit communities have always been high. As with housing and roads, jobs have also been in high demand, but in short supply. From the establishment of government agencies and industries in the North up until the 1990s, employees were imported from outside the Arctic to deliver programs and services to Inuit (ITK, 2003a).

Canada’s Inuit are survivors in the truest sense of the word: a people who have thrived for generations in the harshest climate on earth, who have successfully negotiated advanced land claims agreements, and who are committed to preserving their unique culture — including one of the last remaining Aboriginal languages in a modern world that seems bent on cultural homogeneity. More than 50 Canadian Inuit communities are huddled on the shores of the Arctic Ocean, spanning the width of this country and sharing a common culture, lifestyle, and history. But today, it is not the cold, the wind or the brutal uncertainty of nature threatening their survival; it is the spectre of dire social problems hitherto unfathomable that presents itself as the greatest challenge yet to Canada’s Inuit. The future promise for Inuit communities lies in the hope and belief that today’s generation will be able to summon the emotional strength, wisdom, and tenacity of their ancestors, those masters of culture and of survival.

During most of the 1900s, Inuit communities were small, seasonal, family-based camps scattered across the vast expanse of the Arctic, where the land and sea provided a hard-won lifestyle of subsistence. Early 18^th century explorers and whaling expeditions provided the first contact between the Inuit and modern European cultures, but it was not until the mid-20^th century that these interactions forever changed the structure of Inuit society. In the late 1950s and 1960s, the federal government pursued an aggressive policy to centralize Canadian Inuit into permanent communities, establishing federal day schools and registering Inuit as citizens, effectively bringing an end to centuries of nomadic life. When faced with losing their children to student residences, most Inuit families chose to move into the government-run communities.

There were many reasons why life in these communities made sense to a northern hunting people whose lives faced the constant threat of starvation and sickness. The community provided a social lifeline that included subsidized housing, health care, and the ready availability of food, supplies or even financial assistance. It meant education for the young, a chance at waged employment, and easy access to modern-day amenities. However, life in settled communities also meant the replacement of social structures, institutions, and a lifestyle that had served Inuit well for thousands of years. It further exposed them to alcohol, disease, and dietary changes among other things, and resulted in a loss of cultural values and creation of dependency on — and control by — southern-based interests including the federal government and commercial enterprises.

Like elsewhere in Canada, Inuit community life is both simple and very complex, but is fundamentally based on relationships between people. It is about home, education, health, justice, and support to families and individuals. It is about work and leisure, and finding value in life. It is about communicating and getting along with others. Inuit communities now face the added challenge of providing these opportunities in a time of transition, a time of the rebuilding of institutions and services after the uprooting of traditional systems that supported their society for centuries. In addition to the high rate of crime and incarceration, the resulting raft of problems due to the social breakdown of traditional Inuit society includes youth suicide, teen pregnancy, learning disabilities, family violence, school dropouts, infant mortality, addictions — all staggering in scope compared with the relatively few formal support systems, the housing crisis and high unemployment rates.

One of the most notable features of Inuit communities is the large majority of youth. Sixty percent of the Inuit population is under 25, and there is expected to be a 35% population increase of youth and young adults aged 12 to 24 by the year 2006. This factor, at least in part, helps to explain the higher per capita crime rates in Inuit communities; the overall decrease in crimes in Canada since 1991 is related to a low growth rate of what is considered a high-risk age group. Statistically, most violent crimes in Canada are committed by people under the age of 30. If the growth rate is any indication, crime rates in Inuit communities can be expected to rise.

Being caught between traditional Inuit and mainstream Canadian expectations of them as youth has created unique challenges. Youth are experiencing a wide variety of physical, mental, social and emotional problems stemming from a variety of sources such as lack of recreational facilities, low self-esteem and depression, suicide risk, alcohol and substance abuse, and experiences of violence. Combined with geographic isolation and a lack of positive diversions and activities in the settlements, these factors create an environment in which the transition to adulthood holds few incentives for youth (Griffiths, Zellerer, Wood & Saville, 1995).

Inuit cherish their youth, Elders, and the generation between them. Elders are given the utmost respect in any community because of their knowledge and wisdom, which they in turn teach to younger generations. Their continuous contribution has kept the Inuit tradition alive (ITK, 2003a).

While statistics can help us to identify problems, they cannot accurately depict a community with all its nuances — the boisterous feasts and gatherings, the radio call-in shows where stories and jokes are exchanged in Inuktitut, the friendly gatherings on the beach as successful hunters proudly share fresh muktaaq, the voices of elders softly intoning centuries-old legends, the smiling children riding bikes on the sea ice, a crowd clad in colourful, hand-sewn parkas, the laughter of women scraping sealskins. Statistics cannot depict the pride, the joy and the heroism of living in an infinitely beautiful Arctic land.

Inuit Offenders

It is clear that Aboriginal persons are over-represented within the criminal justice system (e.g., Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996; Solicitor General of Canada, 1988; Task Force on the Criminal Justice System and its Impact on the Indian and Métis People of Alberta, 1991; Trevethan, Moore & Rastin, 2002; Trevethan, Tremblay & Carter, 2000). As reported by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996) "Reports and inquiries… have not only confirmed the fact of over-representation [of Aboriginal offenders in the criminal justice system] but, most alarmingly, have demonstrated that the problem is getting worse, not better."

The January 2001 Speech from the Throne illustrates the priority of addressing issues facing Aboriginal people. It says:

…it is a tragic reality that too many Aboriginal people are finding themselves in conflict with the law. Canada must take the measures needed to significantly reduce the percentage of Aboriginal people entering the criminal justice system, so that within a generation it is no higher than the Canadian average
(Government of Canada, 2001).

Similar to the situation for First Nations and Métis, Inuit are over-represented within the federal correctional system. Although Inuit represent about 0.1% of the Canadian population (approximately 45,070 people) (Statistics Canada, 2001), they represent about 1% of offenders incarcerated in federal correctional facilities (approximately 99 offenders) (Correctional Service Canada, 2003a). In addition to their over-representation, the experience of Inuit, both during and after incarceration, indicates the need for targeted services and programs (Evans, Hann & Nuffield, 1998; Faulkner, 1989; Nunavut Corrections Planning Committee, 1999). Upon entry into federal institutions, Inuit are typically identified as "Aboriginal". Unfortunately, the use of this generic term tends to refer to the First Nations population. Consequently, there are minimal programs and services geared towards the specific and unique needs of Inuit inmates. According to a 1988 report of the Task Force on Aboriginal Peoples in Federal Corrections:

Inuit offenders are in a unique, and very difficult situation. There are no Inuit-specific programs available for them within the institutions and their limited knowledge and understanding of either official language of Canada prevents them from participating in other programs that are available. Incarceration requires the Inuit to adapt to a situation that is difficult for any offender, but which is completely foreign to their experience. They must learn to live within a closed environment, in a different climate, hearing a strange language and eating unfamiliar foods. Contact with their families is very difficult to maintain, and is thus usually non-existent
(Solicitor General of Canada, 1988).

Today, the circumstances for Inuit offenders have not changed remarkably. There are limited liaison and Elder support services for Inuit offenders, and no Inuktitut-speaking institutional or community parole officers (CSC, 2003b). There are two programs that have focused specifically on Inuit offenders — a sex offender and a substance abuse program. Due to the lack of knowledge and/or understanding of unique needs, many Inuit inmates are provided with programs and services that include practices and beliefs that are not part of Inuit culture and way of life. For example, although there are sweat lodges, sweet grass ceremonies, Elders, and healing programs, these programs and services are based upon, or only include, First Nation culture, and do not take into consideration the unique cultural differences between Canada's Aboriginal populations. Without some understanding of cultural differences between First Nations, Métis and Inuit cultures, the appropriate services and supports for Inuit during their incarceration will continue to be unmet. Programs and services that address Aboriginal offenders as a whole, rather than focusing on the diverse needs within each Aboriginal culture, can hamper successful reintegration back into the community.

Although the differences have not been extensively examined, a few studies have indicated that Inuit offenders differ from First Nations and Métis offenders (Faulkner, 1989; Moore, 2002; Motiuk & Nafekh, 2000). The differences are reflected in the offences for which they are incarcerated and their criminogenic needs at intake into federal correctional facilities. Motiuk and Nafekh (2000) found significant differences between Métis, First Nations, Inuit and non-Aboriginal offenders on the offences they were incarcerated for, as well as their needs upon admission. Moore (2002) found that a larger proportion of Inuit offenders are incarcerated for sex offences. They are also more often rated as having high need for intervention, particularly in the areas of personal/emotional orientation, substance abuse, and marital/family issues.

According to Hamilton (2003), the Inuit offender population is a remarkably consistent group in terms of criminal profile and correctional needs. The vast majority of Inuit offenders are from small Arctic communities to which they plan to return, and most speak Inuktitut as a first language. They are usually incarcerated for violent offences, predominantly sexual offences, and most are at risk of family violence. They have similar backgrounds, where exacerbating factors include substance abuse, a criminal past, violence in the home, and failure to complete high school. Raised in dysfunctional homes, many Inuit offenders did not have the full benefits of their culture when growing up, a deficit that can only be addressed by programming that incorporates pro-social Inuit values and lifestyle. Culturally appropriate intervention at all levels, including at the level of the federal corrections system, is imperative as a means of breaking the patterns of abuse and violence that perpetuate crime.

Most Inuit offenders plan to return to their communities where there currently is a dearth of structured relapse prevention programs and services. However, Inuit communities have repeatedly stated in public consultations that they welcome the opportunity to take a more active role in justice, corrections, and rehabilitation. Most have justice committees, partly funded by Justice Canada and the provincial or territorial governments, that are willing to advise and assist government agencies with crime prevention and enforcement. In addition, Inuit communities have a wealth of resources in the individuals who are active in supporting healthy lifestyles — people such as Elders, healers, counsellors, educators, health professionals, and social workers. Moreover, national Inuit organizations and regional governments are working steadfastly at identifying the root causes of crime and developing preventative initiatives. With a co-ordinated effort, relapse-prevention resources unique to Inuit communities are within reach, and are likely the most effective means to safely reintegrate federal Inuit offenders into their communities.

Present Study

To date, research indicates that Inuit offenders may require different interventions than those designed for non-Aboriginal and First Nations offenders. Therefore, it is necessary to examine what programs and services are in place, and what services are required that will ensure the safe, timely, and successful reintegration of federally-sentenced Inuit offenders.

This project was a joint effort of CSC, ITK and Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association, in order to further examine the institutional and community reintegration needs of Inuit federal offenders. This approach consisted of three components: interviews with Inuit offenders incarcerated in federal correctional facilities across Canada, interviews with family members of Inuit offenders and interviews with staff in federal correctional facilities. The major research questions for this study include:

1. Do Inuit federal offenders differ from Métis and First Nations offenders?
2. What are the needs of Inuit offenders when inside the institution and upon release to the community?
3. What are the needs of the family members of Inuit offenders?
4. What knowledge and experience do CSC institutional staff have regarding Inuit offenders?

This information is meant to help CSC and Inuit organizations better understand how to work with Inuit offenders and their communities, to begin the successful journey of reintegration home. It may provide information leading to different strategies for dealing with Inuit offenders while incarcerated. Further, it may provide information on the best approach for implementing Sections 81 and 84 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) for Inuit offenders. The purpose of these sections of the CCRA is to aid Aboriginal offenders in their successful reintegration by using traditional healing methods. Information from this project could lead to a second phase that would target specific communities and examine what services are available for Inuit offenders.

METHOD

This project is a descriptive examination of Inuit offenders in federal institutions across Canada. In order to gather the necessary information, the following data sources were utilized:

• offender files
• interviews with offenders
• interviews with family members of offenders
• interviews with federal institutional staff

Offender Files

A review of offender case files, using CSC's Offender Management System (OMS), was conducted to examine the socio-demographic characteristics of the offenders, current offence, criminal history, and static and dynamic factors (see Appendix B for a list of variables examined). This information was primarily gathered through the Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) process. CSC’s OIA process collects and stores information on each federal offender’s criminal and mental health background, social situation and education, factors relevant to determining criminal risk (such as number, variety of convictions and previous exposure, response to youth and adult corrections), and factors relevant to identifying offender dynamic needs (such as employment history, family background, criminal associations, addictions, attitudes). While the results help determine institutional placement and correctional plans, a distribution of selected criminal history and case need variables can result in a comprehensive profile of the federal offender population.

A comparison between Inuit and other Aboriginal offenders was undertaken in order to indicate differences between them. Information on non-Aboriginal offenders was included to provide context.

Offender Interviews

Interviews with federal Inuit offenders provided more extensive information than was available through offender case files. In particular, interviews provided some personal information not available in case files, and allowed for more in-depth discussions about the needs of offenders. An interview tool was developed in consultation with a steering committee.

Interview questions were designed to examine seven key areas: background information on the offender, childhood experiences, early involvement in crime, current relationship with family, culture, correctional programs and work; and needs. The structured interviews included both closed and open-ended questions. The interview questions are included in Appendix C. Respondents were interviewed individually, primarily by two Inuk interviewers — one hired by CSC and one by ITK².

The sample for this study consisted of male and female offenders incarcerated at federal institutions across Canada. All Inuit offenders who were "on-count" in each institution at the time of the study were asked to participate. Of the approximately 99 Inuit offenders in federal correctional facilities at the time, 75 were interviewed. Only three Inuit offenders declined to be interviewed. The interview took anywhere from 40 minutes to 2 hours to complete, depending on the amount of information provided. An average interview took about 1 hour.

² In order to complete as many interviews as possible, some of the interviews were conducted by non-Inuit interviewers. This was the case only when the offender was completely fluent in English and felt comfortable being interviewed by a non-Inuk interviewer.

Interviews were conducted in all regions except the Pacific. At the time of the survey, only one Inuk inmate was identified in the Pacific and the cost to travel was too extensive to merit the inclusion. The total sample included 73 Inuit males and 2 Inuit females. The following indicates the breakdown of interviews conducted at each institution:

Family Interviews

Each of the offenders who were interviewed was asked to provide the name of one or more family members with whom they have maintained contact and that they felt comfortable with us contacting. A total of 117 contacts were identified. Those who did not meet the criteria (e.g., non-family members) were removed from the contact list. Furthermore, it was decided that only one family member per offender would be contacted for an interview.

A structured interview was developed for family members of the Inuit offenders who were interviewed. Interview questions examined four key areas: background, relationship to offender, offender needs, and family needs. The structured interviews included both closed and open-ended questions. The interview questions are included in Appendix D.

The family members were contacted by telephone and asked if they were willing to be interviewed for the project. If they were willing to participate, they were asked if they were comfortable doing the interview by telephone. Thirty-four family members were interviewed, 27 by phone and 7 in person. Interviews took anywhere from 30 minutes to 1½ hours to complete, depending on the amount of information provided. An average interview took about 1 hour to complete.

The largest proportion of family members interviewed were from Nunavut (56%), followed by the Northwest Territories (18%), Quebec, (12%), Newfoundland and Labrador (9%) and other provinces (6%). All family members interviewed were Inuit. About two-thirds (65%) were female. Twelve of the family members were siblings, two were spouses/common-law partners, eight were mothers, five were fathers, four were nephews, and three were uncles.

Staff Interviews

In addition to interviews with Inuit offenders and family members, structured interviews were conducted with 65 parole officers from the federal institutions where Inuit offenders were interviewed. A random sample of parole officers was chosen, without regard to whether or not they were knowledgeable about Inuit culture. Interview questions examined four key areas: professional and educational background, cultural diversity, offender needs and programs, and family needs. The structured interviews included both closed and open-ended questions. The interview questions are included in Appendix E.

Interviews with parole officers were conducted in the following regions: Atlantic (Dorchester Penitentiary); Quebec (La Macaza Institution); Ontario (Collins Bay Institution, Fenbrook Institution, Joyceville Institution, Kingston Penitentiary, Millhaven Assessment Unit, Regional Treatment Centre); and Prairie (Bowden Institution, Drumheller Institution, Saskatchewan Penitentiary - Medium, Regional Psychiatric Centre). Only one Inuk inmate was identified in the Pacific region at the time of the survey; therefore, because of funding restraints, it was decided not to conduct interviews with staff.

About one-half (55%) of the parole officers interviewed were female, but none of them were Inuit. More than two-thirds of the respondents (69%) have worked at CSC for 5 years or more.

In addition to interviews with parole officers, telephone interviews were also conducted with eight CSC staff who have contact with Inuit offenders on a regular basis and are knowledgeable about issues facing Inuit offenders (see Appendix F). This included Inuit/native liaison officers, healers, psychologists and other staff who have worked with Inuit offenders. It was felt that these key informants would have first-hand knowledge of the needs of Inuit offenders and would have important information to contribute.

Interviews took anywhere from 30 minutes to 3 hours to complete, with an average interview taking about 1½ hours.

Process

The project began with the creation of a steering committee, composed of representatives from the Research Branch of CSC, ITK and Pauktuutit. An Inuk staff-member from CSC and an Inuk contractor hired by ITK conducted the interviews. Following initial meetings with the steering committee, a work plan and interview instruments were prepared and agreed upon by the steering committee. The work plan and interview instruments were then reviewed by the National Inuit Technical Working Group on Justice and Corrections, as well as other persons within CSC.

Each of the five CSC regional Aboriginal administrators was contacted with regard to the project. They, in turn, contacted the Warden of each institution to discuss the research project and establish an appropriate contact person in order to proceed with the study. The assigned contact person for each institution (e.g., Assistant Warden of Correctional Programming, Inuit/Native Liaison, etc.) was then contacted in order to set up interview dates and to organize any information sessions that they felt should take place prior to the interviews. The project targeted institutions with larger proportions of Inuit offenders.

Interviews with offenders were conducted in the institutions. Respondents were advised that the questions may be sensitive, and that services were available to them in the institution if they wanted to speak to someone following the interview. Interviews were conducted either in Inuktitut or in English, depending on the respondent's preference. In total, 51 of the 75 respondents chose to be interviewed in Inuktitut.

Interviews were conducted with staff in the institutions during the same time period as the interviews with offenders. All of the interviews with parole officers were conducted in English. The interviews with the eight CSC staff who were knowledgeable about Inuit offenders were conducted later by telephone, and five of these eight interviews were conducted in Inuktitut.

Names of family members were gathered from the offender interviews. It was felt that, as with offenders, family members may want support following the interview. Therefore, in all communities where family members were to be interviewed, support resources were identified and available in the event that a family member required additional support following the interview. Family members were then contacted and interviews were conducted. Interviews were conducted in Inuktitut or in English, depending on the language the respondent preferred. Thirty of the 34 family members chose to be interviewed in Inuktitut.

The interviews were sent to CSC for data input. Open-ended questions were examined and, where appropriate, themes were developed and coded for analysis. Once a dataset was prepared, analyses were conducted to address the research questions.

FINDINGS

As previously described, the study consisted of interviews with 75 Inuit offenders incarcerated in federal institutions across Canada, 34 family members and 73 staff members of federal correctional facilities. The following describes the specific analyses examining the research questions described earlier. Appendix A contains all tables referred to in the report.

Profile of Inuit Offenders

Using data from a one-day snapshot of offenders incarcerated in federal correctional facilities in Canada, an examination of the profiles of Inuit offenders was undertaken (CSC, 2003a). They were also compared to other Métis and First Nations offenders in federal correctional facilities. For information purposes, data on non-Aboriginal offenders is also included.

In January 2003, there were 99 Inuit offenders incarcerated in federal correctional facilities in Canada. They comprise less than 1% of the entire federally incarcerated offender population. As seen in the table below, the largest number of Inuit offenders are incarcerated in the Ontario region, primarily at Fenbrook Institution. This is a deliberate result based on CSC's decision to house most Inuit offenders in one institution, in order to better provide Inuit-specific services.

Socio-demographic characteristics

Although differences exist between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders, Inuit offenders and other Aboriginal offenders tend to have fairly similar socio-demographic characteristics.

As illustrated in Figure 1, no significant differences exist between Inuit, Métis and First Nations offenders on gender or age for the current admission to the federal correctional facility. Ninety-eight percent of Inuit offenders, and 96% of Métis and First Nations offenders, were men (see also Table 1). On average, Inuit offenders were 32 years of age at the time of the current admission, and Métis and First Nations offenders were 31. However, a larger proportion of Inuit offenders were single at the time of admission to federal custody (69% versus 51% for Métis and 54% for First Nations offenders).

Although a larger proportion of Inuit than Métis or First Nations offenders had not completed high school upon admission to the institution (94% compared with 87% and 89%, respectively), these differences were not significant. Interestingly, a smaller proportion of Inuit offenders were unemployed at the time of arrest (65%) compared with Métis and First Nations offenders (both 77%).

Current offence

As illustrated in Figure 2, the most serious offence for which the majority of Inuit offenders were currently incarcerated was sexual assault (see also Table 2). More than one-half (52%) of Inuit offenders were currently incarcerated for a sexual assault, compared with 18% of First Nations and 11% of Métis offenders. A significantly smaller proportion of Inuit offenders were currently incarcerated for robbery offences (6% compared with 20% for First Nations and 29% for Métis offenders). Further, compared with Métis offenders, significantly smaller proportions of Inuit were currently incarcerated for drug-related (0% versus 4%) and property offences (3% versus 9%).

The mean aggregate sentence for Inuit offenders was 4.9 years. This was less than that for Métis (6.0 years) and First Nations (5.3 years) offenders³. Fifteen percent of Inuit offenders were currently serving life sentences; this was not significantly different than First Nations and Métis offenders (20% and 21%, respectively).

³ Mean aggregate sentence is calculated with life sentences removed.

Criminal history

Although Aboriginal offenders generally tend to have more extensive criminal histories than non-Aboriginal offenders, Inuit offenders had fairly similar criminal histories as Métis and First Nations offenders (see Table 3). One difference was that a smaller proportion of Inuit offenders had escape/attempted escape/unlawfully at large on their record (16%, compared with 36% of Métis and 33% of First Nations offenders).

Static and dynamic factors

A larger proportion of Inuit than Métis offenders were rated high risk to re-offend (83% versus 70%) (Table 4). Although a larger proportion of Inuit than First Nations offenders were rated high risk to re-offend (83% versus 76%), the difference was not significant. The higher rating on risk for Inuit offenders is primarily the result of the nature of the offences for which they are incarcerated (sexual offences).

Overall, Inuit offenders are rated as having a higher need for programming than Métis and First Nations offenders at the time of admission to the federal correctional facility. Ninety-two percent of Inuit offenders were rated as having a high need for programming overall, compared with 78% of Métis offenders and 82% of First Nations offenders.

As illustrated in Figure 3, Inuit offenders have different needs for programming than other Aboriginal offenders. A larger proportion of Inuit than Métis offenders had some or considerable need in the area of marital/family issues (67% versus 56%). However, a smaller proportion of Inuit than Métis and First Nations offenders were rated as having some or considerable need in social interaction/associates (46% versus 73% and 72%, respectively). Further, a smaller proportion of Inuit than First Nations offenders were rated as having some or considerable need in the area of employment (57% versus 72%).

No significant differences were found between Inuit, Métis, and First Nations offenders on the rated level of security at time of admission. Further, no significant differences emerged among these three groups on motivation for intervention. However, a significantly smaller proportion of Inuit offenders were considered to have high reintegration potential at time of intake to federal custody, compared with Métis and First Nations offenders (4% versus 15% and 13%, respectively).

Culture and family background

Additional background information was gathered through the interviews with the Inuit offenders. Most of the Inuit offenders (91%) said that they understand or speak an Inuit language (Table 5). Furthermore, 85% said they were attached to Inuit culture during adulthood prior to incarceration. However, attachment to Inuit culture appears to diminish during incarceration; fewer than one-half (47%) said that they were attached to Inuit culture while incarcerated in the institution. Similarly, fewer than one-half (45%) said that they currently participate in Inuit activities, such as carving and feasts. This could be the result of the lack of Inuit-specific activities scheduled in the facilities in which they are located. In contrast, although only 24% of the Inuit offenders said that they were attached to First Nations' culture prior to their incarceration, this increased to 41% during incarceration. It is possible that attachment to First Nations culture increased during the time they were incarcerated because they did not have access to Inuit culture.

The largest proportion of the Inuit offenders grew up in Nunavut (56%), followed by Quebec (Nunavik) (16%), Newfoundland and Labrador (15%), and the Northwest Territories (13%). About one-half (46%) of the respondents said that they grew up in a small town. A further 29% grew up in a large or small village or hamlet, and 19% in a large town or a small city. At the time of arrest, a larger proportion of the Inuit offenders were living in a city or large town (17% a small/large city; 17% a large town). At the time of the arrest, 46% had been in that location for more than 20 years. A further 20% had been there from 11 to 20 years, 15% for 1 to 10 years, and 19% for less than 1 year.

The largest proportion of the Inuit offenders said that they currently considered a small town as home (43%). A further 25% considered a large or small village as home, and 19% a large town. Similarly, the largest proportion thought a small town was the best place to be released (32%). However, 27% said that a large or small city would be the best place to be released. The largest proportion of the respondents said that they planned to live in a small town upon release (33%). The most common areas where the Inuit offenders planned to live upon release were Iqaluit, Yellowknife, and Kuujjuaq.

Table 6 provides information on family background and current relationships. About two-thirds (63%) of respondents indicated that their primary caregiver while growing up was one or both parents. However, one-fifth (20%) were raised by grandparents. Most (89%) said that they were attached to their primary caregiver. Two-thirds of the Inuit offenders said they had been involved in the child welfare system while they were growing up (67% were adopted, in a foster home, or a group home at some point). Forty-four percent said, at some point in their childhood, they had been adopted; 36% had been in foster care, and 33% had been in a group home.

The majority said that they had their basic needs met during childhood (88%), had a stable childhood (74%) and were happy during their childhood (77%). However, many also experienced problems during their childhood, such as violence (75%) and alcohol use in the home (66%), as well as violence in their community (80%).

Less than one-half of the Inuit offenders interviewed who had a spouse or children said that they currently had contact with their spouse/common-law partner (48%) or their children (45%). Furthermore, for those who have contact, it tended to be by telephone or letter and was not very frequent (i.e., once a month or less). This is not particularly surprising given the distance that separates most of the Inuit offenders from their family members. Although they did not have a great deal of contact, a large proportion said that they were attached to their spouses (73%) and children (76%). Interestingly, a large proportion of Inuit offenders (88%) said that they currently had contact with other family members, such as siblings or parents.

Summary

In sum, Inuit offenders tend to be young, single, have low education and high unemployment, characteristics fairly similar to Métis and First Nations offenders. The only differences in socio-demographic characteristics were that a larger proportion of Inuit offenders were single and a smaller proportion unemployed at the time of admission to federal custody.

As is the case with other Aboriginal offenders, Inuit offenders have more extensive criminal histories and different offence patterns and criminogenic needs than non-Aboriginal offenders. However, some differences exist among Inuit, Métis, and First Nations offenders. Specifically, a large proportion of Inuit offenders are incarcerated for sexual offences. Further, larger proportions of Inuit are rated high risk to re-offend and high need for programming compared with other Aboriginal offenders. However, Inuit offenders tend to receive shorter sentences than Métis and First Nations offenders.

Unlike other Aboriginal offenders, especially Métis (Trevethan, Moore & Thorpe, 2003), Inuit offenders typically live in rural settings. They also tend to follow Inuit traditions and most speak an Inuit language. However, unlike many First Nations offenders who seem to re-establish their cultural links during incarceration (Trevethan et al., 2002), attachment to Inuit culture appears to diminish during incarceration, while attachment to First Nations culture increases. This is most likely because there is greater access to First Nations than Inuit culture in federal institutions. Since most Inuit offenders plan to go to Inuit communities upon release, it is unfortunate that their cultural links are weakened during incarceration.

As with other federal offenders, many Inuit offenders had difficult home environments during childhood, including violence and substance abuse in the home. As with First Nations and Métis offenders (Trevethan et al., 2002), approximately two-thirds of the Inuit offenders had been involved in the child welfare system while growing up. However, unlike many First Nations and Métis offenders (Trevethan et al., 2002; Trevethan et al., 2003), a large proportion of Inuit offenders said that they had a stable and happy childhood.

Unlike First Nations and Métis offenders (Trevethan et al., 2002), many Inuit offenders said they had little contact with their spouse or children. Further, any contact tended to be by telephone or letter. This is not surprising given the distance that separates most Inuit offenders from their family members. However, it indicates the difficulties that Inuit offenders face in maintaining contact with, and support from, loved ones. The lack of contact with family has an impact not only on the offender, but also on the family and whole community. With no link to the community, there is also less opportunity to prepare for the eventual return home of the offender.

Needs of Inuit Offenders

Program participation

CSC offers core and non-core programs. Core programs include substance abuse, education, family violence, living skills, and sex offending. These programs are determined based upon the criminogenic needs identified in each offender’s correctional plan. Non-core programs refer to programs that are not standardized across CSC.

Based on information from the interviews with offenders, an examination of the program participation of Inuit offenders was undertaken. The majority of the respondents (88%) said that they were aware of the programs available in the federal correctional facility. Similarly, 85% said that they had participated in institutional programs at some point in their sentence. As illustrated in Figure 4, the largest proportion said they had participated in programs for substance abuse (64%) (see also Table 7). Further, approximately one-half participated in programs for education (50%), sex offending (48%) and anger management/family violence (42%). About one-third (36%) said they had participated in some programs relating to cognitive/living skills and 30% received counselling or psychological services.

Some respondents said that they participated in Aboriginal-specific programs. This ranged from 3% of those involved in educational programs to 64% of those involved in sex offender programming. Some noted that they were involved in Inuit-specific programs, from 0% of those involved in education programs to 61% of those involved in sex offender programming — specifically, the Tupiq sex offender program run out of Fenbrook medium-security institution.

The majority of respondents who participated in programs said that they had completed them. For instance, 87% of those who participated in cognitive/living skills programs and 85% of those who participated in substance abuse programs said that they completed the program. However, only 6% of those involved in educational programs said that they had completed them (Table 7). This is not particularly surprising because an educational program is typically much longer than other core programs.

As illustrated in Table 7, the majority of respondents felt that that the programs they participated in were useful. This ranged from 67% of those who commented on employment services⁴ to 92% of those who commented on anger/family violence programs. Respondents said that the reason why certain programs have been useful was because they helped cause positive personal changes (77%) and provided skills (21%). Furthermore, it was noted that facilitators and Elders made the programs most effective, and that programs designed specifically for Inuit and taught in Inuktitut made them most effective. For instance, one respondent noted:

The Tupiq program has been useful because it gets you right to the root of the problem, your whole life history, how you learned violence… It allows the participant to see the impact that violence had on him when he was young. Elders were especially effective. Facilitators are excellent and are very understanding.

⁴ Results should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of respondents.

Among the reasons given by those who said that the programs were not very useful, was the fact that the programs were taught in English. Most respondents (97%) said that they would like to see Inuit facilitators provide programs. Other reasons why the programs were not considered very useful were problems with program facilitators, the duration of programs, and the lack of program availability.

One-third of the respondents said that they have been on parole (31%, n=23). Of these, 18% said they had participated in programs while on conditional release. Of those involved in programs, the largest proportion had participated in substance abuse programming (77%).

Needs

As indicated earlier, substantial numbers of Inuit offenders in federal custody are rated as having some or considerable need on each dynamic need domain at the time of admission to the federal facility. Using information from offender files, an examination of needs at intake and prior to release was conducted for those who had needs assessments completed at both time periods. As illustrated in Figure 5, Inuit offenders have substantial criminogenic needs both at intake and prior to release into the community. However, a smaller proportion were deemed as having "some or considerable" need at release as opposed to intake in regards to substance abuse (75% versus 100%), personal/emotional issues (89% versus 100%), and attitude (50% versus 61%). Similar proportions had some or considerable need for community functioning (46% and 50%), associates (54% and 57%), and employment (61% in both cases). A larger proportion had some or considerable need for marital/family issues (79% versus 71%) at the time of release. This may be because, at the time of release, these issues are possibly more predominant than during a period of incarceration.

An additional analysis was conducted to examine significant differences between criminogenic needs at intake and release. It was found that Inuit offenders were rated as having a significantly lower need upon release to the community for substance abuse (mean 3.3 versus 3.9) and personal/emotional issues (mean 3.6 versus 3.9)⁵. This suggests that some needs are being addressed while the offenders are incarcerated. However, a large proportion still have significant needs at release. It is possible that the programs would be more effective if conducted in an appropriate cultural context for Inuit offenders. It may also indicate the importance of further interventions at the time of release.

⁵ Means are calculated using a 4-point scale, with 1 indicating an asset, 2 indicating no need, 3 indicating some need, and 4 indicating considerable need.

Information from the interviews confirms the findings from the needs assessments. Large proportions of the Inuit interviewed said they were facing issues relating to alcohol and drug addiction (56%) and depression/anxiety (43%) at the time of incarceration (Table 8). Other issues they noted included: criminal lifestyle/peers (21%); parental/relationship issues (17%); lacking life direction (17%); and self-esteem (14%). Clearly, Inuit offenders face a number of varied issues while incarcerated and upon release into the community.

The offenders were asked if they thought that they had different needs from non-Aboriginal offenders and from other Aboriginal offenders. Overall, 83% of the respondents reported different needs from non-Aboriginal offenders. These differences related primarily to culture or language. For instance, of those who said they had different needs from non-Aboriginal offenders, 47% noted that the differences related to culture, 33% to language, and 33% to diet.

Two-thirds (66%) of the Inuit offenders said that they have different needs from other Aboriginal offenders. Of those who said that the needs of Inuit and other Aboriginal offenders are different, 61% noted that the differences related to culture and 31% to language. The appropriate use of language ensures effective expression, discussion and understanding, all of which are important for rehabilitation. One-fifth (22%) said that other Aboriginal offenders have greater opportunity for tradition to be incorporated in their programs and 19% said that differences related to diet.

The offenders were also asked what their needs as an Inuk are in the institution. A large proportion indicated the need for programs and counselling. For example, more than one-half indicated the need for programs or counselling — 47% for programs or counselling generally, and 13% for Inuit-specific programming. One offender suggested the following:

Have Inuit programs in Inuktitut. Some Inuit wait for healing programs because they don't speak English. Inuit facilitators would be very useful. [There is a need] for more programs for Inuit. It would be helpful because some get tired of waiting for healing sessions. Counselling services are always delayed even when parole officers tell you that you are starting a program.

Further, 19% noted the need for Inuit-specific activities, such as carving and drum dancing. One offender noted:

I need to carve more because it gets me closer to my culture and it makes me proud. Carving could keep me busy and help me make money to send to my sister.

According to one key informant, there is a need for Inuit-specific services because:

…when we go through another persons culture we change. You have to keep in tune with your culture because it's what you know [and] who you are. [We need] retention or to learn of Inuit culture. We have to stay grounded… not to lose sight of who you are…

One-third (33%) of the Inuit offenders said that they needed country food in the institution. Sharing meals is central to Inuit culture. Eating country food such as caribou, seal, arctic char, and ptarmigan contributes in many ways to the well-being of individuals and forms an important part of healing (Kuhnlein, Receveur, Chan & Loring, 2000; Usher, Baikie, Demmer, Nakashima, Stevenson & Stiles, 1995). Some Inuit offenders feel the physical effects of the dramatic change in diet, which can result in difficulties learning and participating in programs. Other areas of need include contact with family/phone calls (13%), more Inuit staff, facilitators, healers and translators (13%), and contact with other Inuit generally (9%). These responses indicate a strong reliance on community and family ties, and the perseverance of Inuit culture and tradition.

Upon release to the community, respondents noted the need for programs and treatment (45%), support and guidance from family, Elders and others (29%), employment (29%), housing support (23%), and education (13%). According to one respondent:

[I need to] work with a counsellor for my personal problems… one-on-one counselling to keep myself focused and get out issues that build up in my brain. A counsellor could help me deal with problems.

The offenders were asked what programs they would like to see in the institution or in the community. A large proportion said that they saw the need for Inuit-specific programs. In the institution, 31% said that they needed more Inuit-specific programs generally, 17% said Inuit language or cultural programming, 16% said a carving or carpentry program, and 14% said Inuit sex offender program. Further, 17% noted the need for an Inuit food program. Finally, some noted the need for Inuit psychologists, counsellors and Elders (19%). Many also noted the need for programs in the community. In particular, one-half (52%) of the respondents noted the need for mainstream programs, such as substance abuse and violence programs. Other programs they suggested included Inuit sex offender programs, healing programs, family/parenting programs, Inuit Elders, release/transition programs, and Inuit language/cultural programs. According to one respondent:

There is a gap between leaving the institution and being released back into the community in the way of support… What is wrong with the system is that something must be done when the offender goes back into the community because if not he will be faced with the same problems… The offender needs help.

Summary

Inuit offenders clearly have a broad range of criminogenic needs when entering the federal correctional system and upon release to the community. Some of the programs in place are attempting to address these issues. A large proportion of Inuit offenders have participated in programs aimed at addressing their diverse criminogenic needs. Further, those interviewed tend to feel that the programs have been useful. However, they also note that the most useful programs were ones that were designed specifically for Inuit offenders. For other programs, they tended to feel that the cultural aspect was missing. In particular, the programs lack a focus on Inuit culture, the use of Inuit facilitators and delivery in Inuktitut. It is not clear whether all programs meet Inuit offenders' cultural or spiritual needs to the same extent. Although the programs target criminogenic needs identified at intake, the offenders may not respond fully to the programs unless they are given in an appropriate cultural context and in a way that is meaningful to the lives of Inuit offenders. According to one offender:

…[it is] hard to understand [programs]…[they are] done in English and English and Inuit cultures are very different.

Needs of Family Members

Family is the foundation of Inuit culture. The family is surrounded by a larger social network that includes the rest of the community, even the region. Inuit families are large and interconnected, as intricate bonds are formed through childbirth, marriage and adoption. Therefore, in addition to examining the needs of Inuit offenders while incarcerated and upon release to the community, this study also examined the needs of the families of Inuit offenders (Table 9).

Of the 34 family members interviewed, about one-third (37%) said that there are areas that are currently causing them difficulty, such as a death in their family, physical health issues and issues relating to substance abuse.

Few family members (17%) said that programs are available to them while the offender is incarcerated. A slightly larger proportion (31%) said that services were available to them, such as counselling/psychological services, social services, and access to Elders. Fifty percent of family members said they think programs will be available to them, and 67% said that they think services will be available to them, once the offender is released.

When asked about their needs while the offender is incarcerated, almost one-half of family members (45%) said they need to support the offender while he/she is incarcerated. Twenty-nine percent felt that they need contact with the offender. Other areas of need include help from the community, counselling/Elders, and financial support. Upon release, the majority of respondents said that they need to support the offender (60%). Other responses included help from the community, counselling and financial and emotional support. These results point to the importance of having a network in place to provide assistance for families when needed.

Offenders gave somewhat similar answers about the needs of family members. The largest proportion felt that their family members needed more contact with them (36%). One-quarter (25%) said that family members need emotional support, 21% said they need family counselling, and 21% said financial support. Other areas of need while the offender is incarcerated include better understanding of the offender and community support. Upon release to the community, the offenders said that their family members will need to see or receive support from the offender (43%), will need to better understand or support the offender (22%), and will need family counselling/counselling in general (22%).

These needs of family members of Inuit offenders are likely similar to the needs of family members of all offenders. However, because of the distance they typically live from the offender, it is difficult for families to visit. Furthermore, to make the services most effective, they need to be provided in remote locations and by people who understand the culture and language. According to one offender:

It's hard for family members to see a brother or son sent to jail. [It's important] to have a visitors program. It's hard to have visitors come because it's too expensive to fly them here.

It is important to bridge the cultural and language gaps between CSC staff and family members of offenders. Furthermore, there is a need to facilitate the understanding of the correctional process and the needs of offender for family members. This could be aided by the use of Inuit facilitators or Elders. Although the role of CSC has not typically included work with family, family members are important links to the offender's successful reintegration into society, most particularly in more northern locations. Therefore, the role of CSC with family members should be better defined and perhaps broadened.

Staff Knowledge

As a final question in this study, interviews with staff examined the knowledge or training of correctional staff regarding Inuit offenders and Inuit culture. Of the 65 parole officers interviewed, one-half (51%) said that they currently work with Inuit offenders (Table 10).

Based on the interviews with institutional staff, it appears that CSC staff have little knowledge of Inuit culture. For instance, although 77% said they had training about Aboriginal issues, only 15% had training about Inuit issues. This included some information sessions and working with an Inuk liaison officer. About three-quarters (72%) of the staff interviewed said they had no current knowledge about Inuit offenders, 17% said they had some knowledge, and 11% said they had extensive knowledge. The finding that staff have little knowledge of Inuit culture may be partially attributed to the fact that only about one-half of them currently work with Inuit offenders. Some of the reasons that staff gave for having little knowledge about Inuit offenders were lack of training or experience with Inuit offenders and little contact with Inuit. According to one parole officer:

I haven't really received any training on Inuit culture and background. The training I have received on Aboriginals grouped them all together. In working with them, we've realized the differences.

The lack of knowledge about Inuit culture and Inuit offenders may result in the needs of Inuit offenders not being sufficiently met. For instance, it could lead to some biases in intake assessments or inappropriate programming for Inuit offenders.

Although they had little knowledge about Inuit offenders, only one person said that all Aboriginal offenders share the same culture. Furthermore, 94% said that the needs of Inuit offenders are different from the needs of non-Aboriginal offenders, and 83% said that the needs of Inuit offenders are different from other Aboriginal offenders. Differences primarily related to traditions, language, diet and remote location.

Parole officers were asked how their understanding of Inuit offender needs could be enhanced. They noted the need for more training/education on Inuit culture (52%), training/education in general (34%), exposure to Inuit communities and lifestyle (31%), access to information on Inuit culture (31%) and exposure to Inuit offenders (15%).

Sixty percent of the staff felt that the needs of Inuit offenders are not currently being met while they are incarcerated. Furthermore, 71% of the staff felt that the needs of Inuit offenders are not met upon release to the community. When asked what Inuit offenders need most while incarcerated, the largest proportion of staff (42%) said Inuit staff or staff who are knowledgeable about Inuit culture and traditions. A further 39% said Inuit-specific programs and services, and 34% said communication/contact with family or community members.

At the time of release to the community, the largest proportion of staff (48%) felt that Inuit offenders need family/community support. Approximately one-third (31%) said they need community-based or Inuit-specific programs, and 28% said they need follow-up programs or counselling.

Eighty-seven percent of the staff felt that the needs of the family members of Inuit offenders are not currently being met while the offender is incarcerated. Similarly, 88% of the staff felt that the needs of the family members of Inuit offenders are not met upon release of the offender to the community. The largest proportion of staff (64%) said that family members need contact or communication with the offender while he/she is incarcerated. A further 41% said that family members need financial assistance, and 31% said they need information about the offender, or awareness about his/her progress.

Upon the release of the offender, one-half (52%) of the staff felt that family members need adjustment to having the offender released and to understand how to help the offender. A further 36% said that family members need support systems in place, and 27% said they need family counselling.

The responses from CSC staff show that there is a need for staff training about, and experience with, Inuit culture. Training should not be limited to offender needs, but should also be linked to an understanding of the family and Inuit communities as a whole (especially in relation to language and diet). Training could involve sessions on differences between Inuit and other Aboriginal groups, Inuit culture, Inuit communities, social problems in the North, precipitating factors related to criminal activity in the North, the needs of Inuit offenders, and supports/services available for offenders in Inuit communities.

Preliminary information sessions for staff on Inuit culture would be a start to enhance understanding of differences between Inuit offenders and other Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders. One way to begin this process may be to focus on institutions where Inuit offenders tend to be incarcerated.

An increased understanding about Inuit offenders and Inuit culture on the part of staff could lead to more accurate intake assessments, the development of more sensitive treatment programs, and better informed placement within programs.

As staff encounter a more culturally diverse offender population and with the continuing over-representation of Aboriginal offenders, it is increasingly important to be aware and sensitive to the unique cultural and language needs. Although Inuit offenders represent a small proportion of the offender population, it is imperative that staff gain a knowledge and understanding of their needs, and the programs and services that would be best suited to address them within an institutional and community setting.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this project was to examine the needs of federal Inuit offenders and their family members while the offenders are incarcerated, and upon release to the community. It also examined the knowledge that institutional staff had about Inuit offenders.

As with other Aboriginal offenders, differences exist between the profiles of Inuit offenders and non-Aboriginal offenders. However, some differences also exist between Inuit, Métis, and First Nations offenders. Inuit offenders tend to be young, single, have low levels of education and high unemployment, characteristics fairly similar to Métis and First Nations offenders. The only major differences are that a larger proportion of Inuit offenders were single, and a smaller proportion unemployed at the time of admission. In terms of most serious current offence, a larger proportion of Inuit are incarcerated for sexual offences compared with Métis and First Nations offenders, and a smaller proportion are incarcerated for robbery. In addition, smaller proportions are incarcerated for drug-related and property offences than Métis offenders. Furthermore, larger proportions of Inuit are rated as high risk to re-offend and as high need for programming compared with other Aboriginal offenders. They are rated as having some or considerable need in the areas of personal/emotional issues, substance abuse, criminal associates, and attitude. However, Inuit offenders tend to receive shorter sentences than Métis and First Nations offenders.

Unlike other Aboriginal offenders, especially Métis, Inuit offenders typically live in rural settings. They also tend to follow Inuit traditions and most speak an Inuit language. However, unlike many First Nations offenders who seem to re-establish their First Nations cultural links during incarceration, attachment to Inuit culture appears to diminish for Inuit offenders during incarceration, while attachment to First Nations culture increases. This is likely because there is greater access to First Nations than Inuit culture in federal institutions. Since most Inuit offenders plan to go to Inuit communities upon release, it is unfortunate that their cultural links are weakened during incarceration.

As with other federal offenders, many Inuit offenders had difficult home environments during childhood, including violence and substance abuse in the home. As with First Nations and Métis offenders, approximately two-thirds of the Inuit offenders had been involved in the child welfare system while growing up. However, unlike many First Nations and Métis offenders, a large proportion of Inuit offenders said that they had a stable and happy childhood.

Unlike First Nations and Métis offenders, many Inuit offenders said they had little contact with their spouse or children. Further, any contact tended to be by telephone or letter. This is not surprising, given the distance separating most Inuit offenders from their family members. However, it indicates the difficulties that Inuit offenders face in maintaining contact with, and receiving support from, loved ones.

Inuit offenders clearly have a broad range of criminogenic needs when entering the federal correctional system and upon release to the community. Programs in place are attempting to address these issues. A large proportion of Inuit offenders have participated in programs aimed at addressing their diverse criminogenic needs. Further, those interviewed tend to feel that the programs have been useful. However, they also note that the most useful programs were ones that were designed specifically for Inuit offenders (such as the Tupiq Inuit sex offender program). For other programs, they tended to feel that the cultural aspect was missing. It is not clear whether all programs meet Inuit offenders' cultural or spiritual needs to the same extent. Although the programs target criminogenic needs identified at intake, the offenders may not respond fully to the programs unless they are given in an appropriate cultural context and in a way that is meaningful to the lives of Inuit offenders. The following quotes from two offenders indicate some of the issues they face:

[It's] very difficult [here]. No hunting, no Inuit food, not much communication, no Inuit employees. [There are] many good activities, but none with Inuit values.

I feel like I'm in residential school. I feel lonely and out of place because I was taken away from my family and am made to do things that are not my way of life.

Differences in offence characteristics, needs, home environment and cultural characteristics point to a need for different methods of intervention for Inuit offenders.

The needs of family members of Inuit offenders are similar to the needs of family members of all offenders. For instance, family members say they need contact with the offender, financial support, emotional support and counselling. However, because of the distance they typically live from the offender, it is difficult for family members of Inuit offenders to visit. Furthermore, to make the services most effective, they need to be provided in the locations where family members live (often remote locations) and by people who understand the culture and language.

Educating staff and allowing them to acquire experience with Inuit culture is clearly an important area that requires further attention. The staff interviewed have said that they little knowledge of Inuit culture. For instance, although 77% said they had received training about Aboriginal issues, only 15% had been given any training on Inuit issues. Furthermore, approximately three-quarters of the staff interviewed said they had no current knowledge about Inuit offenders. Information sessions for staff on Inuit culture could aid in a better understanding of differences between Inuit offenders and other Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders. It would also be beneficial to develop recruitment and retention strategies for Inuit staff, so that Inuit offenders have access to Inuit staff, facilitators and Elders. Inuit staff are knowledgeable of the offenders' culture, understand their way of life in the north, may speak their dialect and maintain a host of community links. Further research is necessary to determine the best ways in which staff could enhance their knowledge of Inuit offenders and Inuit culture in general.

Discussion

The information from this study helps CSC and Inuit organizations better understand the needs of Inuit offenders and their families. This may provide a better understanding of how to implement Section 81 and 84 of the CCRA for Inuit offenders. In addition to indicating the need for staff training on Inuit culture, the findings from this project could be used to move towards a second phase of research that would target specific communities. The project could examine the availability of Inuit services for section 81 or 84.

It seems clear from the research that Inuit-specific programs and services would be beneficial for Inuit offenders. Although Inuit represent a very small proportion of the offender population served by CSC, they are substantially over-represented, as is the case with Métis and First Nations offenders. Furthermore, a substantially larger proportion of Inuit offenders are incarcerated for sexual offences compared with other offender groups, indicating that a program focusing on sexual offending is particularly necessary for Inuit offenders (Williams, Vallée & Staubi, 1997). Offenders, family members and staff all noted the need for Inuit-specific programs and services. Further to this is the importance placed on the incorporation of language, diet, and customs into programs and services. The role of Inuit program facilitators and Elders also appear to be central to the delivery of Inuit-specific programs and services. Although many of the Inuit offenders are currently incarcerated at Fenbrook Institution, there are also many spread throughout other federal correctional facilities. Consolidating as many Inuit offenders as possible in one region would make the provision of Inuit-specific programs and services more feasible.

Another justification for an Inuit-specific correctional program is the failure of non-Inuit programs to successfully meet the needs of this unique offender population. The Inuit have unusually high rates of detention by the National Parole Board (NPB) and a higher-than-average rate of non-compliance in conventional programs. Foremost among the problems cited by the NPB detentions and denials of Inuit is the offenders' apparent lack of insight and understanding into their criminal behaviour. The second most prevalent reason for denial of parole has been a lack of programming undertaken or completed by the Inuit inmates. Other reasons include minimization or denial of the offence, lack of victim empathy and failure to understand the effects of crime on the victim (Hamilton, 2003). Current education theory explains that learning is accomplished at many levels and in many domains, and that motivation is a key to success in changing behaviour and thinking (Wlodkowski, 1991; Wlodkowski & Ginsberg, 1995). Fundamental to motivation is a participant’s ability to connect his/her own life experiences, goals and problems with those addressed by the program. According to this theory, motivation is enhanced when a corrections program can relate closely to the realities of an offender’s life.

CSC currently has an Inuit-specific program in place for sex offenders at Fenbrook Institution. The "Tupiq" program follows universally accepted relapse prevention theory, but integrates Inuit culture by utilizing Inuit delivery staff, healing therapy and cultural references (Hamilton, 2002). This program represents the first step towards addressing the specific needs of Inuit offenders and holds the potential for contributing to their successful reintegration into Inuit communities. Another service currently available at Fenbrook Institution is a carving shack that allows Inuit offenders to learn carving skills that they can utilize upon release.

The journey of federally sentenced Inuit offenders is fraught with challenges that cannot be overcome until some of the obvious obstacles to rehabilitation are addressed. It is important for CSC to better understand Inuit culture and communities in order to develop more effective strategies for reintegrating Inuit offenders back into their communities.

REFERENCES

Avataq Cultural Institute (2003). Website – www.avataq.gc.ca/eng/reg/index_reg.html .

Correctional Service Canada (2003a). One-day snapshot of federal offenders, Unpublished data from Offender Management System, January 2003.

Correctional Service Canada (2003b). Services for Inuit offenders. Correctional Operations and Programs, May.

Evans, J., Hann, R., & Nuffield, J. (1998). Crime and corrections in the Northwest Territories. Prepared for the Honourable Goo Arlooktoo, Minister of Justice and the Honourable Kelvin Ng, Minister of Health and Social Services, Government of the Northwest Territories.

Faulkner, C. (1989). Inuit offender study. Prepared for Correctional Service of Canada.

Government of Canada (2001). Speech from the Throne. 1^st Session, 37^th Parliament, January 30, 2001.

Griffiths, C.T., Zellerer, E., Wood, D.S., & Saville, G. (1995). Crime, law, and justice among Inuit in the Baffin region, NWT, Canada. Criminology Research Centre, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.

Hamilton, E. (2003). A description of Inuit communities. Unpublished paper prepared for the Research Branch, Correctional Service Canada.

Hamilton, E. (2002). Corrections for Inuit offenders: The Tupiq program overview. Prepared for Fenbrook Institution.

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (2003a). Inuit of Canada. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami.

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (2003b). Census data supports Inuit need for more housing, better health care, Inuit specific programs. Inuktitut language remains strong. Press Release, January 21, 2003.

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada (2001). Research and consultation project concerning Inuit housing across Canada.

Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (2003). Website - http://www.inuvialuit.com/irc/about.html .

Kuhnlein, H.V., Receveur, O., Chan, H.M., & Loring, E. (2000). Assessment of dietary benefit/risk in Inuit communities. Prepared for Centre for Indigenous Peoples' Nutrition and Environment (CINE), Macdonald Campus of McGill University and Inuit Tapirisat of Canada.

Labrador Inuit Association (2003). Website - www.nunatsiavut.com .

Moore, J.P. (2002). A comparative profile of First Nations, Métis and Inuit federal offenders. Research Report (in publication), Correctional Service Canada.

Motiuk, L., & Nafekh, M. (2000). "Aboriginal offenders in federal corrections: A profile." Forum on Corrections Research, 12(1), 10–15.

Nunavut Corrections Planning Committee (1999). Planning for Nunavut corrections. A report for the Honourable Jack Anawak, Minister of Justice, Nunavut.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996). Bridging the cultural divide: A report on Aboriginal people and criminal justice and Canada. Ministry of Supply and Services Canada.

Solicitor General of Canada (1988). Correctional issues affecting native peoples. Correctional Law Review Working Paper No. 7.

Statistics Canada (2001). Census of Population.

Trevethan, S., Auger, S., Moore, J.P., MacDonald, M., & Sinclair, J. (2002). The effect of family disruption among Aboriginal inmates. Research Report R-113, Correctional Service Canada.

Trevethan, S., Moore, J.P., & Thorpe, M. (2003). The needs of Métis offenders in federal correctional facilities in British Columbia. Research Report R-129. Correctional Service Canada.

Trevethan, S., Tremblay, S., & Carter, J. (2000). The over-representation of Aboriginal people in the justice system. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada.

Usher, P.J., Baikie, M., Demmer, M., Nakashima, D., Stevenson, M.G., & Stiles, M. (1995). Communicating about contaminants in country food: The experience in Aboriginal communities. Research Department, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada.

Williams, S., Vallée, S., & Staubi, B. (1997). Aboriginal sex offenders: Melding spiritual healing with cognitive-behavioural treatment. Correctional Service Canada.

Wlodkowski, R.J. (1991). Enhancing adult motivation to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Wlodkowski, R.J., & Ginsberg, M.B. (1995). Diversity and motivation: culturally responsive teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Tables