Indigenous intervention centres: profile of participants

Research Highlights: Eligible Indigenous offenders higher in risk and need are less likely to participate in IICs, limiting their full potential.

In an effort to maximize Indigenous resources, Indigenous Intervention Centres (IICs) were designed to meet the needs of individual Indigenous offenders through an integrated and culturally responsive approach to case management. Located at all women’s multi-level institutions^{Footnote 1} and a number of men’s medium-security institutions across the country, IICs are characterized by a concentration of Indigenous resources including Elder support, specialized case management staff, and Pathways Initiatives. In collaboration with the Indigenous Initiatives Directorate, this study represents the first phase of research examining the impacts of IICs on the progress and outcomes of Indigenous offenders.

To examine the profile of offenders participating in IICs and compare to those that were not, data was extracted for all Indigenous offenders admitted between April 1, 2018 and March 15, 2020. In order to participate in IICs, offenders must meet certain eligibility criteria related to shorter sentence length, non-sexual offence types,^{Footnote 2} program eligibility (i.e., none or moderate program needs), and a willingness to work with an Elder/Spiritual Advisor and participate in the Indigenous continuum of care.

Of the 2,263 Indigenous men and 267 Indigenous women admitted during the study timeframe, 477 men and 172 women were identified as IIC participants.^{Footnote 3} Representing the comparison group, a further 297 men and 32 women were eligible but did not participate for various reasons (e.g., not interested in pursuing the Indigenous continuum of care, not penitentiary placed at an IIC site).

Compared to the control group, IIC participants were more likely to be admitted to an IIC site at admission. Geographical characteristics to note include that the majority of IIC participants were admitted in the Prairie region. Further, both men and women that were eligible for IICs in Ontario were less likely to choose to participate.

In terms of demographic characteristics, men who chose to participate in IICs were slightly older than those who did not. The women’s sample of IIC participants had a greater proportion of First Nation peoples (relative to Métis and Inuit) compared to those not participating. Men who participated in IICs were less likely to be serving a sentence for a violent offence (Schedule 1 or homicide) and have a Security Threat Group (STG) affiliation. The IIC participants and non-participants were otherwise comparable in offence and sentence characteristics for both men and women.

Lastly, the criminogenic risk and needs profile was compared between groups. Men IIC participants were rated higher in engagement, accountability, and motivation. Non-participants were higher in both dynamic and static risk and lower in reintegration potential at intake than IIC participants. The differences in criminogenic risk and needs between groups did not reach statistical significance for women for the most part, likely due to smaller sample sizes. Of note, women that participated in IICs were less likely to have identified responsivity concerns.

IIC eligible non-participants were younger, higher in risk and need, and more likely to be affiliated with an STG. The large number of eligible offenders who did not participate in IICs suggest an area for improvement (e.g., motivational interviewing to engage eligible offenders in the Indigenous continuum of care, ensure placement at IIC sites where possible).

Ongoing research will examine the impact of IIC involvement on the institutional adjustment and behaviour of participants, while future research will address longer term impacts on release outcomes in the community.

Please e-mail the Research Branch. You can also visit the Research Publications section for a full list of reports and one-page summaries.

Prepared by: Laura Hanby & Tara Beauchamp