The strategic plan for Aboriginal corrections

The evaluation team would like to express its appreciation to the many individuals who provided valuable information that contributed to the evaluation of the Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections (SPAC).

We would like to thank the Elders and offenders who participated in the collection of data at various CSC institutions, and to the staff members who coordinated these visits. We would also like to extend our sincere gratitude to all of the individuals who represented the various organizations that collaborate with CSC on matters related to Aboriginal corrections and who took valuable time out of their busy schedules to share their perspectives and experiences with the evaluation team. These organizations include but are not limited to select Native Friendship Centres, First Nation communities and community based organizations, as well as representatives of other federal departments.

The evaluation team is also very grateful for the assistance provided by Aboriginal Initiatives Directorate (AID) including Lisa Allgaier, Brigitte Bouchard, Irene Klassen, Jamie Contois, and Josée Archambault. In particular, the evaluation team would like to thank Bethany Williams for her guidance on Elder offerings and protocols. Thank you also to Martin Devenport and Christine Laflamme for their assistance with data verification. Lesley Monkman also provided great assistance in understanding the operational data entry processes and provided additional information on the Gladue principles.

We would also like to thank Holly Andersen for providing us with human resource and employment equity information; Jason Kohlmeyer, and Marg Deakin for providing us with data on Aboriginal-specific positions, and work descriptions. As well, we would like to thank Véronique Larochelle, Caroline Delorme, François Paquin and Marc Seguin for providing us with financial information.

The evaluation team would like to thank all members of the SPAC consultative group including Brigitte Bouchard (Aboriginal Initiatives), Randy Mason, Raymond Delaronde and Emily Henry (Correctional Operations and Programs), Robert Larochelle, Sylvie Labelle and Ghassan Assaad (Finance), Rayette Giles (Aboriginal Human Resources) and Denise Leblanc (Women Offender), for their collaboration and contributions throughout the evaluation.

Finally, the current SPAC team would like to thank the authors of Chapter One of the SPAC evaluation, Aboriginal Healing Lodge evaluation report, who also performed the initial planning for the SPAC evaluation: Eugenia Didenko and Bernard Marquis.

Nicole Allegri, Senior Evaluation Manager
Lysiane Paquin-Marseille, Evaluation Officer
Brittany MacDonald, Evaluation Analyst
Rhea Adhopia, Evaluation Officer
Paul Verbrugge, Evaluation Officer
Sean Horne, Evaluation Analyst
Bertha May, Evaluation Officer
Melissa Kingston, Junior Evaluation Analyst
Adam Crawford, Junior Evaluation Analyst
Julia Fera, Junior Evaluation Analyst
Elizabeth Loree, Junior Evaluation Analyst

Additional contributions to the evaluation were provided by other members of the Evaluation Division, including Joel Ndayubaha, Jillian Flight, Marcie McKay, and Sheena McLaren.

The Aboriginal offender population is significantly overrepresented in Canada’s criminal justice system. Factors contributing to the Aboriginal overrepresentation in corrections and the specific needs and profiles of Aboriginal offenders have been well-documented in the literature which supports the need for Aboriginal-specific and culturally-appropriate interventions. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA, 1992) establishes the legal framework that mandates and guides the provision of culturally-appropriate correctional interventions to Aboriginal offenders.

In 2005-06, a five-year strategy known as the Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections (SPAC) was developed as a means to address the specific needs of Aboriginal offenders in the correctional system. SPAC sought to implement a Continuum of Care of services for Aboriginal offenders, which would ensure a federal correctional system that is responsive to the specific needs of these offenders and contributes to safe and healthy communities. The strategy includes three key objectives: 1) provide culturally-appropriate interventions that address the specific criminogenic needs of Aboriginal offenders; 2) enhance collaboration; and 3) address systemic barriers internally and increase cultural competence within the Correctional Service Canada (CSC). These three objectives ultimately aim to achieve the overarching objective of SPAC which is to reduce the gap in correctional outcomes between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders.

Although some of these objectives are expected to be achieved in the first 5 years following implementation, others are longer-term goals intended to extend into the next several years. Objectives to be achieved in the first five years included the implementation and/or expansion of SPAC interventions and initiatives across the regions, as well as the preliminary demonstration of enhanced correctional outcomes among Aboriginal offenders who participated in SPAC interventions. Longer-term objectives included the full demonstration of enhanced correctional results among SPAC participants, as well as the reduction of the gap in correctional outcomes between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders.

The interventions provided under SPAC that were evaluated in this report represent approximately 3% of CSC’s direct program spending for fiscal year 2010-11.

The SPAC evaluation was divided into two separate yet complementary reports. The first was an evaluation of Aboriginal Healing Lodges which was presented to Evaluation Committee in March 2011. The current report is the second evaluation and includes all Aboriginal-specific interventions and services within federal corrections. In accordance with the 2009 Treasury Board Evaluation Policy, this evaluation examined issues pertaining to the relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of SPAC. The report is divided into five themes: 1) Continuum of Care, 2) Collaboration, 3) Corporate Response to Address Systemic Barriers, 4) Gaps in Correctional Outcomes and 5) Economy.

1) Continuum of Care: Following the implementation of SPAC, CSC has implemented an Aboriginal Continuum of Care which provides culturally-specific correctional assessments, programs and interventions to Aboriginal offenders interested in following a traditional Aboriginal path. Participation in Continuum of Care initiatives consisted of First Nation and Métis offenders, while Inuit offenders were found to have low participation rates. There was a small number of Inuit offenders which prevented further analysis of Inuit-specific interventions.

As part of the Aboriginal offender assessment process, CSC has implemented the collection of social history and the completion of Healing Plans and Elder Reviews. However, concerns were identified with the integration of these assessments in the correctional case management of Aboriginal offenders. Specifically, the importance of collecting social history information was understood by staff, but difficulties were identified with respect to the integration of this information in correctional decision making. Similarly, a lack of understanding surrounding the purpose of Elder Reviews was also reported by staff, where the use and timeliness of these reviews for case management were among the concerns noted. To address these identified gaps, the evaluation report included a recommendation for CSC to enhance correctional case management for Aboriginal offenders by ensuring that all members of the case management team (CMT) fully understand the purpose of the Aboriginal offender assessment process (collection of social history information, Healing Plan, Elder Review) and fulfill their respective roles in using this assessment information to better inform decision making. Moreover, CSC has increased the availability of Elders as they serve an invaluable function within institutions, Healing Lodges and the community and as such, they provide cultural and spiritual interventions and services, as well as offer guidance and support to Aboriginal offenders.

CSC has enhanced its capacity to deliver Aboriginal-specific national correctional programs. Participation in several correctional program areas was found to be associated with increased correctional results among Aboriginal men offenders. Specifically, those who participated in national correctional programs in violence prevention (mainstream or In Search of Your Warrior), sexual offender (mainstream) and substance abuse (mainstream) were more likely to be granted discretionary release than their non-participant counterparts. Aboriginal men who participated in a violence prevention or a sex offender program were also found to experience lower rates of conditional release failure (with any return). No significant differences were found among Aboriginal women offenders who participated in any national correctional program.

CSC has successfully expanded culturally-specific living environments, such as Pathways Initiatives and Healing Lodges. The majority of staff, management and offenders consider these specific initiatives as a positive contributor to Aboriginal offenders’ reintegration. Enhanced chances of discretionary release grants were found among Healing Lodges participants. No improvement in correctional results were found for Pathways Unit participants.

In further developing SPAC, the report included a recommendation that where Aboriginal-specific correctional interventions have not yet fully demonstrated anticipated outcomes (i.e., some Aboriginal-specific programs, Pathways Initiatives, and Section 81 Healing Lodges), CSC should explore options to ensure that these interventions have been developed and implemented in a way that is responsive to the needs of Aboriginal offenders.

CSC has made significant progress in establishing and increasing community support mechanisms. This has been achieved through the involvement of Aboriginal communities in the reintegration and release process with initiatives such as cultural escorted temporary absences (ETAs), Section 84 releases, and other community initiatives. These support mechanisms were viewed by staff, management and offenders as positive contributors to Aboriginal offenders’ reintegration. Enhanced correctional results were found to be associated with participation in cultural ETAs and Section 84 releases. In particular, offenders who participated in ETAs were more likely to be granted discretionary release and had a lower rate of conditional release failure. Aboriginal offenders released under Section 84 showed lower rates of conditional release failure.

Given the favourable results associated with participation in initiatives involving direct contact with the community (i.e., Section 84 releases and cultural TAs), the report included a recommendation that a greater focus be placed on enhancing the involvement of the community in the reintegration of offenders following the continuum of care in the institution, and that community capacity building be sought for Aboriginal offenders.

2) Collaboration: Collaborative initiatives and relationships were found to have been successfully established between the various CSC sectors at all levels (national, regional and institutional), inter-governmental departments and Aboriginal community organizations. CSC staff members reported receiving adequate direction from RHQ and NHQ in order to support the delivery of services to Aboriginal offenders. Overall, Aboriginal community engagement was viewed as effective. External stakeholders identified a positive relationship with CSC and noted a number of benefits for Aboriginal offenders, their organizations and CSC.

3) Corporate Response to Address Systemic Barriers: Policies and legislation have been established to support SPAC, where CSC staff respondents generally reported familiarity with these. Planning, reporting and accountability mechanisms were also found to exist for SPAC. Issues were identified with respect to data limitations on Aboriginal offenders participating in Continuum of Care initiatives that were found to impact CSC’s ability to report on the initiatives as part of the SPAC. As such, the report included a recommendation for CSC to enhance its capacity to report on the correctional progress of Aboriginal offenders involved in the Continuum of Care by ensuring that relevant information is consistently collected and that national reporting is completed in an analytical and integrated manner. In fulfilling this recommendation, CSC’s ability to demonstrate the progresses made by SPAC should be ameliorated and will guide the strategy in the future.

CSC has demonstrated progress in enhancing Aboriginal representation among CSC employees. The number of Aboriginal peoples employed within the Service has increased over the last ten years. Workforce availability estimates for Aboriginal employees were also met and exceeded in all regions except the Prairie Region; however, this region had the highest number of active and filled Aboriginal-specific positions. Despite these positive results, a number of Aboriginal-specific positions remain vacant.

Cultural competence among CSC staff was found adequate as most staff members reported familiarity with Aboriginal culture, teachings and ceremonies, as well as with culturally-sensitive approaches to working with Aboriginal offenders. Staff agreed that CSC has shown improvement in developing cultural awareness on Aboriginal issues, where many indicated that they were provided with cultural training and opportunities. However, opportunities for increasing cultural competence within CSC were identified.

4) Gaps in Correctional Outcomes: Preliminary analyses of the gap in correctional results between the overall Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders have revealed improvements in certain correctional indicators, but has widened or remained the same for others. On the positive side, the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal women offenders women with respect to the proportion of time spent in the community (vs. institution), security classification decreases, WED releases and conditional release failure (and technical) has narrowed. The gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men offenders for WED releases has also narrowed. Conversely, the gap in correctional results between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men and women offenders has widened with respect to higher statutory releases and so has the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men offenders with respect to conditional release failure (with any return and return with a technical violation). To date, analyses show that despite positive shifts, the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders (men and women) remain the same.

5) Economy: Cost analyses conducted for select initiatives under SPAC have demonstrated cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness when compared to mainstream initiatives. Aboriginal-specific national correctional programs demonstrated similar levels of efficiency as mainstream programs where the majority of the resources allocated have resulted in program completion. Participation in In Search of your Warrior and Section 84 releases was found to be cost-effective due to the lower rate of conditional release failure among participants. In addition, Section 81 Healing Lodges were found to be a cost-efficient option to CSC operated Healing Lodges. Since some Healing Lodges were not operating at full capacity, opportunities to enhance efficiency were identified. Efficiencies could be achieved through the increased transfer of offenders who meet the criteria for Healing Lodge placement.

In sum, the present evaluation has highlighted areas of SPAC that are demonstrating encouraging results as well as other areas in need of strengthening. Specifically, the strategy has shown positive outcomes in terms of implementing the Aboriginal Continuum of Care and providing culturally-appropriate interventions and services to Aboriginal offenders. Results from the report also suggest that CSC has been particularly successful in terms of collaborating internally, with other government departments and with Aboriginal organizations. However, there are specific outcomes targeted by SPAC that require further enhancement in order to achieve correctional results for Aboriginal offenders. As mentioned earlier, it is understood that some of these outcomes are only expected to demonstrate results within the coming years. The SPAC will continue to build on the work performed since the first plan was formalized in 2006. Now that a solid foundation has been built, CSC can now continue to enhance the implementation of the SPAC through the Management Action Plan to address each of the recommendations contained within this report to improve and achieve the outcomes laid out for the next five years.

FINDING 1: SPAC continues to be relevant. Specifically, SPAC is responsive to the needs of Canadians and supports the priorities of CSC and the federal government.

FINDING 2: Aboriginal men offenders who participated in a mainstream or Aboriginal-specific violence prevention, a mainstream substance abuse or mainstream sexual offender program were more likely to be granted discretionary release than their non-participant counterparts.

FINDING 3: Aboriginal men offenders who participated in either a mainstream or Aboriginal-specific violence prevention program, or in a mainstream sexual offender program, presented a lower rate of conditional release failure than their non-participant counterpart. Successful completion of a substance abuse program was associated with lower rates of conditional release failures with a new offence.

FINDING 4: Aboriginal women offenders having participated in national correctional programs (mainstream and/or Aboriginal) were as likely to be granted discretionary release as their non-participant counterparts who were assigned to such programs.

FINDING 5: Aboriginal women offenders who participated in any national correctional programs (mainstream and Aboriginal) were found to experience similar rates of conditional release failure as their non-participant counterparts.

FINDING 6: Aboriginal offenders who resided in a Pathways Unit were more likely to be released on statutory release than non-participant counterparts, which is counter to the intended goal of Pathways. As well, Pathways residents experienced conditional release failure (both with any return and return with a new offence) at a similar rate.

FINDING 7: Healing Lodges provide Aboriginal offenders with an environment focused on culture, spirituality and healing. Positive changes in the level of Aboriginal cultural knowledge of Healing Lodge residents, as well as in their behaviour and attitudes were reported by offenders and staff members.

FINDING 8: Difficulties have been identified with respect to the application and transfer process for CSC-operated and Section 81 Healing Lodges. As well, the need for additional educational services and vocational training in Healing Lodges to further increase offenders' potential for reintegration was highlighted.

FINDING 9: Aboriginal offenders who participated in a Healing Lodge were more likely to be granted discretionary release than a comparison group of non-participant counterparts and experienced conditional release failure (both with any return and return with a new offence) at a similar rate.

FINDING 10: Elders serve an invaluable function within institutions, Healing Lodges, and the community. They provide cultural and spiritual interventions and services, as well as offer guidance and support to Aboriginal offenders.

FINDING 11: Participation in Section 84 releases was found to be associated with lower rates of conditional release failure.

FINDING 12: Aboriginal offenders who participated in cultural ETAs, were more likely to be granted discretionary release and experienced conditional release failure at a lower rate than a comparison group of non-participants.

FINDING 13: Legislation and policies to support SPAC have been established and are outlined in a number of CDs and in the CCRA. CSC staff and management respondents reported familiarity with these policies, as well as the provisions set out in Sections 81 and 84 of the CCRA.

FINDING 14: Planning, reporting and accountability mechanisms for SPAC are established and reported in the Report on Plans and Priorities, the Departmental Performance Report and the Aboriginal Corrections Accountability Framework Year End Report. However, data limitations on Aboriginal offenders participating in Continuum of Care initiatives were found to impact CSC's ability to report on SPAC's performance.

FINDING 15: CSC has increased the number of Aboriginal employees in the past ten years such that the CSC workforce availability estimates have been met and exceeded in all regions except the Prairie Region. Although some regions have many actively filled Aboriginal-specific positions, a number of these positions remain vacant.

FINDING 16: While efforts have been made by CSC to provide adequate training to employees on Aboriginal culture, staff members suggested that there was still room for improvement with respect to increasing cultural competence within CSC.

FINDING 17: Aboriginal-specific national correctional programs demonstrate similar levels of efficiency as mainstream programs, where the majority of the resources allocated have resulted in program completion.

FINDING 18: Section 81 Healing Lodges were found to be a cost-efficient option to CSC-operated Healing Lodges. Since some Healing Lodges were not operating at full capacity, opportunities to enhance efficiency were identified.

FINDING 19: The Aboriginal-specific national correctional program In Search of your Warrior (ISOYW) is cost-effective with respect to earlier offender releases and lower rates of conditional release failure among offenders who participated in the program, which resulted in reduced incarceration time.

FINDING 20: The Section 84 release initiative is cost-effective. The cost-savings are associated with a lower rate of conditional release failure among offenders with a successful Section 84 release plan, which resulted in reduced incarceration time.

SUMMARY FINDING 1: The various components of the Aboriginal offender correctional assessment and planning process have been successfully implemented (i.e., Aboriginal social history collection, Healing Plans, and Elder Reviews). However, issues were identified with the integration of these assessments in the correctional case management of Aboriginal offenders. Staff reported they understood the importance of collecting social history information, but identified not knowing how to use it in decision-making. Staff also reported a lack of understanding of the purpose of Elder Reviews wherein the use and timeliness of these reviews for case management remains a challenge.

SUMMARY FINDING 2: Inuit offenders were found to have low participation rates in the Continuum of Care initiatives.

SUMMARY FINDING 3: Following the implementation of SPAC, CSC has increased its capacity to deliver Aboriginal-specific national correctional programs. Enhanced correctional results were found to be associated with participation in national correctional programs in violence prevention, sexual offender or substance abuse among Aboriginal men offenders whereas no significant results were found among Aboriginal women offenders who participated in any national correctional program.

SUMMARY FINDING 4: Since the implementation of SPAC, CSC has successfully expanded culturally-specific living environments, such as Pathways and Healing Lodges. The majority of staff, management and offenders agree that culturally-specific living environments provide a positive contribution to Aboriginal offenders' reintegration. Enhanced correctional results were associated with participation in Healing Lodges. Opportunities to increase correctional results among Pathways participants were found.

SUMMARY FINDING 5: Since the implementation of SPAC, CSC has made significant progress in establishing and increasing community support mechanisms. This has been achieved by involving Aboriginal communities in the reintegration and release process through enhanced capacity to facilitate community contacts and Section 84 releases. These various community support mechanisms were viewed by staff, management and offenders as positive contributors to Aboriginal offender reintegration. Enhanced correctional results were associated with participation in cultural escorted temporary absences (ETAs) and Section 84 releases. Opportunities for improvement were identified with respect to the facilitation processes for Section 84 releases and cultural ETAs.

SUMMARY FINDING 6: Collaboration on Aboriginal issues is present at all levels within CSC (national, regional, institutional), as well as between CSC and other government departments and Aboriginal community-based organizations. Within CSC, most staff reported receiving adequate direction from RHQ and NHQ in order to support the delivery of services to Aboriginal offenders. Collaboration between CSC and Aboriginal community organizations is viewed by CSC staff members and external stakeholders as effective. Specifically, stakeholders reported a positive relationship with CSC, where many benefits to offenders, CSC and their organizations were noted. Increasing community contacts was suggested to enhance collaboration.

SUMMARY FINDING 7: Since the implementation of SPAC, preliminary analyses of the gap in correctional results between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offender populations have found some improvements in correctional results; however, the gap remains in several of the outcomes. Among the noted positive changes, the gap between Aboriginal and non-aboriginal women offenders has decreased with respect to the proportion of time spent in the community (vs. institution), security classification decreases, WED releases, and conditional release failure (any and technical). The gap specific to WED releases between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men offenders has also decreased.

SUMMARY FINDING 8: While some improvements have been made in addressing the gap between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offender populations, other correctional results have deteriorated. The gap in correctional results between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders has increased for both men and women with respect to higher statutory releases (as opposed to day and full parole releases). The gap in conditional release failure (with any return and return with a technical violation) has also increased between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men offenders.

SUMMARY FINDING 9: Where cost analyses could be conducted, initiatives under SPAC have shown to be cost-efficient and cost-effective when compared to mainstream initiatives. Opportunities to improve the cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness were identified.

RECOMMENDATION 1: CSC should enhance correctional case management for Aboriginal offenders by ensuring that all members of the case management team fully understand the purpose of the Aboriginal offender assessment process (collection of social history information, Elder Review) and fulfill their respective roles in using this assessment information to better inform decision making.

RECOMMENDATION 2: In developing the next phase of SPAC, where Aboriginal-specific correctional interventions and services have experienced challenges or have not yet fully demonstrated anticipated outcomes (i.e., some Aboriginal-specific programs, Pathways Units, Section 81 Healing Lodges), CSC should explore options to ensure that the way these interventions and services have been developed and implemented is truly responsive to the needs of Aboriginal offenders (First Nations, Métis and Inuit).

RECOMMENDATION 3: In light of the positive correctional outcomes among Aboriginal offenders participating in initiatives involving direct contact with their community, enhanced focus should be placed on community capacity building to support offender reintegration following the continuum of care in the institution.

RECOMMENDATION 4: CSC should enhance its capacity to report on the correctional progress of Aboriginal offenders involved in the Continuum of Care. This would be achieved by ensuring that relevant information is consistently collected in all regions and that national reporting through established mechanisms is completed in an analytical and integrated manner, thereby improving CSC's ability to depict progresses made by SPAC, as well as guide the strategy in the future.

In accordance with the Five-Year Evaluation Plan, Correctional Service Canada (CSC) conducted an evaluation of the Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections (SPAC). The objective of the evaluation was to assess the extent to which the Strategic Plan had achieved its objectives. This could then be used to guide future strategic policy and resource decisions regarding Aboriginal corrections. The evaluation examined the extent to which CSC has been successful in achieving the three interrelated objectives of SPAC, namely:

• fully developing and implementing the Continuum of Care and services for Aboriginal men and women offenders from intake through warrant expiry, in all regions;
• enhancing collaboration (interdepartmentally, government-wide and with Aboriginal organizations); and,
• addressing systemic barriers internally and increasing cultural competence among CSC staff members.

The evaluation further assessed CSC’s progress in improving correctional outcomes for Aboriginal offenders and has made recommendations on ways to enhance the effectiveness and integration of interventions and services included in SPAC (Didenko & Marquis, 2011).

Aboriginal offenders are significantly overrepresented in Canada’s criminal justice system despite repeated attempts by the federal government to decrease this disparity (Rojas & Gretton, 2007; R. v. Gladue, 1999). Factors contributing to the Aboriginal overrepresentation in corrections and the specific needs and profiles of Aboriginal offenders have been well-documented in the literature. Various government and independent reviews have highlighted the need for Aboriginal-specific and culturally-appropriate interventions (Didenko & Marquis, 2011), such as the Task Force on Aboriginal Peoples in Federal Corrections (1988), the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996), and the Office of the Correctional Investigator (OCI) (2010).

The disproportionate representation of Aboriginal peoples in the criminal justice system is not unique to Canada. For example, the Māori peoples of New Zealand (New Zealand Department of Corrections, 2007), Indigenous Australians (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009) and Native Americans in several U.S. states (Alaska Department of Corrections, 2009; Hawaii Department of Public Safety, 2008) are all overrepresented among the incarcerated population in their respective jurisdictions.

CSC Response

To address the overrepresentation of Aboriginal offenders in the Canadian correctional system, CSC has developed a vision that is responsive to the specific needs of Aboriginal offenders and that contributes to safe and healthy communities. According to sections 79 to 84 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA, 1992) which provide a legislative framework for CSC’s Aboriginal corrections, CSC has incorporated Aboriginal culture and spirituality into correctional operations and has provided Aboriginal-specific interventions to federal offenders (CSC, 2011a). This process is based on the Aboriginal Corrections Continuum of Care model, reflecting a continuum of correctional interventions and services developed to facilitate Aboriginal offenders’ healing process and reintegration. The Aboriginal Continuum of Care includes enhanced offender assessment through Healing Plans^{Footnote 1} and Elder Reviews^{Footnote 2} the delivery of Aboriginal-specific correctional programming, and expanding living environments that use Aboriginal traditional healing approaches as a method of intervention for Aboriginal offenders, such as Pathways Units^{Footnote 3} and Healing Lodges^{Footnote 4} (Didenko & Marquis, 2011).

The Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections (SPAC)

In 2006, CSC developed a five-year SPAC to formalize the vision for Aboriginal corrections and improve correctional results for Aboriginal offenders. SPAC was developed in accordance with Sections 79 to 84 of the CCRA and included legislation regarding the delivery of Aboriginal programming and development of Aboriginal Advisory Committees, as well as defined the roles of Aboriginal communities regarding Aboriginal offenders’ services and release. The CCRA included Aboriginal-specific considerations in federal correctional policies, programs and services and incorporated Aboriginal spirituality and culture into the correctional environment (CSC 2009b). As previously mentioned, the ultimate goal of SPAC was to reduce the gap in correctional results between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders. Key targeted results included increased Aboriginal transfers to lowers security levels and Healing Lodges, increased Aboriginal conditional release applications presented to NPB and positive parole decisions, as well as enhanced successful completion of parole among Aboriginal offenders. To achieve these results, SPAC was developed around three key objectives: 1) provide culturally-appropriate interventions that address the specific criminogenic needs of Aboriginal offenders; 2) enhance collaboration; and 3) address systemic barriers internally and increase cultural competence within the Correctional Service Canada (CSC). The activities comprised under SPAC were organized as part of a Continuum of Care including four main stages: assessment, intervention, reintegration and prevention. The various activities are described in more detail below in the section on SPAC Activities.

Aboriginal Offenders vs. Non-Aboriginal Offenders

According to findings reported in the 2010 Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview (Public Safety Canada, 2010), Aboriginal offenders exhibit unique characteristics that differ from non-Aboriginal offenders (Marquis, Didenko, & Luong, 2010).

Figure 1

Source: Public Safety Canada (2010).

As indicated in Figure 1, Aboriginal offenders, when compared to non-Aboriginal offenders, are: more likely to be incarcerated as opposed to serving their sentence under community supervision, incarcerated more often for a violent offence, more likely to have a higher security classification (e.g., usually classified at the medium or maximum security level) and have a lower rate of parole grant for both day and full parole (Public Safety Canada, 2010). Research also found that relative to non-Aboriginal offenders, there were a higher proportion of Aboriginal offenders admitted to CSC with low reintegration potential, gang affiliations and who had served a prior youth or adult sentence (CSC, 2009a). Higher recidivism rates have also been documented in the literature for both men Aboriginal offenders (Bonta, Rugge & Dauvergne, 2003) and women Aboriginal offenders (Gobeil & Robeson-Barrett, 2007) compared to their non-Aboriginal counterparts.

Aboriginal Offenders Under CSC Supervision (2011)

To illustrate the specific characteristics of CSC’s Aboriginal offender population, a descriptive analysis was conducted to provide a profile of all Aboriginal offenders under federal supervision as of April 2011. The analysis examined a number of indicators such as geographical location, gender, age, security level, offence type, and gang membership. Tables with results are provided in APPENDIX A.

At the beginning of FY 2011-12, there were 22,863 offenders serving a federal sentence under institutional and community supervision. Aboriginal offenders represented 19% (n = 4,236) of the federal correctional population. Specifically, 13% (n = 2,958) identified as First Nations, 5% (n = 1,082) identified as Métis, and 1% (n = 196) of offenders identified as Inuit. Within CSC’s men offender population, almost one-fifth (18%; n = 3,947) were Aboriginal. Aboriginal women offenders represented over one-quarter (26%; n = 289) of all women offenders, a higher proportion than Aboriginal men offenders. Aboriginal offenders were younger than non-Aboriginal offenders where a much higher proportion fall into the 21-30 age group (34%; n = 1,445 vs. 25%; n = 4,697).

Aboriginal offenders made up the largest proportion in the Prairie Region (53%), followed by Pacific (17%) and Ontario Regions (15%). The majority of Inuit offenders were supervised in Ontario and Quebec. Among Aboriginal offenders under federal supervision, 72% (n = 3,057) were incarcerated and the remaining 28% (n = 1,179) were supervised in the community. These proportions differ from those of non-Aboriginal offenders, of whom 60% (n = 11, 164) were incarcerated and 40% (n = 7,436) were under community supervision.

Aboriginal offenders are typically incarcerated in higher security facilities. Results indicated that the proportion of Aboriginal offenders incarcerated in maximum and medium security institutions was approximately 3% higher than that of non-Aboriginal offenders.

The widest gap in security level was found in women offenders where Aboriginal women offenders classified as maximum security was more than double that of non-Aboriginal women offenders (20% and 8% respectively).

A larger proportion of Aboriginal offenders (78%; n = 3,311) were categorized as having committed Schedule I violent offences in comparison to non-Aboriginal offenders (65%; n = 12,019). Among the three groups of Aboriginal offenders, Inuit offenders had the highest proportion of Schedule I offences (92%; n = 181). Approximately 15% (n = 3,218) of all CSC offenders were sex offenders. Aboriginal offenders accounted for just over one-fifth of sex offences (22%; n = 710). Inuit offenders had the largest proportion of sex offences, with over half being sex offenders (53%; n = 104).

The proportion of Aboriginal offenders who were gang members was more than double that of non-Aboriginal offenders (18%; n = 748 and 8%; n = 1,425 respectively). Aboriginal offenders represented over one-third (34%) of all known gang members in federal custody.

SPAC Activities

The Aboriginal Corrections Continuum of Care was implemented in 2003 to “ensure continuity of services for offenders from intake to federal custody through to release into the community on conditional release and after sentence expiration” (Didenko & Marquis, 2011). As outlined in CD 702, the Continuum was divided into four main stages:

• Intake assessment which identifies Aboriginal offenders and encourages them to bridge the disconnect with their culture and communities;
• Intervention leads to healing paths in the institutions to better prepare Aboriginal offenders for transfer to lower security levels and for conditional release;
• Reintegration engages Aboriginal communities to support offenders as they return to their community;
• Pre and Post incarceration prevention ends with the establishment of community supports to sustain the offenders’ progress beyond the end of the sentence to prevent re-offending.

The relationship between these stages are defined and clarified in Figure 2. The Continuum incorporated the concept of the Medicine Wheel “as a reminder that correctional interventions developed and implemented for Aboriginal offenders must take into consideration the past, the present and the future direction of Aboriginal peoples as a whole and of the Aboriginal person as an individual” (CSC, 2006a).

Figure 2: Continuum of Care Model

Source: AID (2012).

SPAC’s primary activities, based on the Continuum of Care, can be organized into three categories: correctional programs, living environments, and Aboriginal-specific positions to support the initiatives.

Since the implementation of SPAC, CSC delivered seven core national Aboriginal correctional programs (as outlined below). It is important to note however that the Spirit of A Warrior and Circles of Change programs for Aboriginal women offenders have since been eliminated and replaced by the newly developed Aboriginal Women Offender Correctional Programs (AWOCP). As well, the Aboriginal Integrated Correctional Program Model (AICPM) is also relatively new and has been developed for Aboriginal men offenders.

• Aboriginal High Intensity Family Violence Prevention Program is for Aboriginal men offenders who are rated as high risk on the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) and who have a documented history of two or more incidents of violence against a female partner.^{Footnote 6}
• Aboriginal Offender Substance Abuse Program (AOSAP) is for Aboriginal men offenders who demonstrate a need for a high intensity program.
• In Search of Your Warrior Program (ISOYW) is for Aboriginal men offenders who have a history of violent offending and who are considered a high risk to re-offend violently. Participants must be actively following Aboriginal spirituality. The program requires a high degree of commitment from the participant and includes a number of traditional ceremonies.
• Spirit of a Warrior Program (ISOYW) is for Aboriginal women offenders who have a moderate to high need for treatment of violence. The program is an in-depth intervention that is intended to reduce the risk to re-offend with violence, reduce the risk to relapse, improve family relations, improve the ability to communicate with others, improve coping skills, and adapt Aboriginal culture and spirituality into all aspects of behaviour and everyday life.
• Circles of Change Program is for Aboriginal women offenders who demonstrate a moderate to high need in the associates/social interaction domain and/or the general attitude domain, as well as those who have a demonstrated deficit in problem solving.
• National Aboriginal Basic Healing Program is a moderate intensity program for men Aboriginal offenders who are actively participating in Aboriginal spiritual practices. This program develops a spiritual foundation.
• Tupiq Program for Inuit Offenders is for men Inuit offenders who have past records of sexual offences and Inuit offenders who have past records of family violence.
• Aboriginal Integrated Correctional Program Model (AICPM) is one of the three separate program streams integrated within the ICPM.^{Footnote 7} The ICPM is an innovative and holistic approach to correctional programs, designed to serve the numerous federal men offenders who present needs in multiple need domains. The AICPM, as with the other program streams within the ICPM, also includes an intake, institutional and community maintenance component.
• Aboriginal Women Offender Correctional Programming (AWOCP) is a program stream similar to the AICPM, but is conceptualized as the Circle of Care specifically for Aboriginal women offenders. The AWOCP includes four programs which are designed to build from one another: the Aboriginal Women’s Engagement Program, Aboriginal Women Offender- Moderate Intensity Program, Aboriginal Women Offender- High Intensity Program and the Aboriginal Women Offender Self-Management Program.^{Footnote 8}

• Pathways Healing Units provide a traditional environment in CSC institutions for Aboriginal offenders dedicated to following a traditional healing path. These units are designated within select medium and multi-level security institutions and serve to provide offenders with a structured living environment that fosters Aboriginal spirituality and culture. Pathways Units offer opportunities for offenders to engage in Aboriginal-specific programs, ceremonies and activities in preparation for transition into a lower security institution or a Healing Lodge (Didenko & Marquis, 2011). These units are supplemented by Pre-Pathways interventions at maximum security institutions (prior to the offender having a medium security rating) and Pathways Transition interventions at minimum security institutions (Jensen & Nafekh, 2009a). Transfer to a Pathways Unit is on a volunteer basis and is subject to screening by the Elder(s) and case management team (CMT).^{Footnote 9}
• Pre-Pathways Day Program is an Aboriginal-specific intervention provided at select maximum security facilities which focuses on the preparation of individuals to move to a Pathways Unit once the offender is rated at medium security. These specific initiatives or interventions focus on cultural, traditional, and ceremonial practices and are guided by the Elders.^{Footnote 10}
• Pathways Transition Units provide Aboriginal-specific interventions to individuals who have transitioned from a Pathways Unit to a minimum security institution. Similar to the Pre-Pathways intervention, initiatives offered through the Pathways Transition Units focus on cultural, traditional, and ceremonial practices and are also guided by the Elders.^{Footnote 11} These units are typically an option for offenders not residing in a Healing Lodge.
• Healing Lodges provide a structured living environment that incorporates Aboriginal spirituality and traditions in its operations and interventions. In Healing Lodges, the needs of offenders are addressed through Aboriginal teachings, traditions and ceremonies, and contact with Elders and the community. A holistic philosophy governs the Healing Lodge concept, whereby offender programming is delivered within a context of community interaction with a focus on healing, spiritual leadership and preparing for release. Healing Lodges are developed and operated in close collaboration with Aboriginal communities. CSC presently has two types of Aboriginal Healing Lodges: 1) federal facilities operated by CSC as Healing Lodges; and, 2) facilities operated by Aboriginal communities through an agreement with CSC, under Section 81^{Footnote 12} of the CCRA, for the provision of custody and care to offenders with the full transfer of administration of correctional services (CSC, 2008a; Didenko & Marquis, 2011).

• First Nations, Métis and Inuit Elders contribute to meeting the cultural and spiritual needs of diverse Aboriginal offenders throughout their sentence. They provide guidance and leadership in correctional planning/intervention for those who wish to follow a traditional healing path. Elders form the foundation of the subsequent SPAC activities.
• Aboriginal Liaison Officers (ALOs) ensure the unique histories of individual Aboriginal offenders are understood and their needs are met. They provide a liaison role between offenders and non-Aboriginal staff members to ensure spiritual and cultural needs are addressed. They also support Elders and assist them with Healing Plans, Elder Reviews, and the use of the Offender Management System (OMS). ALOs are responsible for planning, developing, and facilitating Aboriginal-specific activities and cultural/traditional interventions to meet the needs of Aboriginal offenders. ALOs also assist in the identification and assessment of the initial healing requirements for Aboriginal offenders and help them in developing healing/release plans in consultation with Elders, case management teams (CMTs), community-based agencies and Aboriginal communities (CSC, 2006b).
• Aboriginal Correctional Program Officers (ACPOs) deliver culturally-appropriate correctional programs within institutions to address behaviours that place Aboriginal offenders at risk to re-offend. These programs have specific Aboriginal focused content and can also involve the assistance of Elders.
• Aboriginal Community Development Officers (ACDOs) work with Aboriginal offenders who have expressed an interest in returning to their communities through Section 84 agreements. As well, ACDOs assist in the development and delivery of initiatives for Aboriginal offenders in partnership with Aboriginal communities. More specifically, under Section 84 of the CCRA, ACDOs liaise with these communities to develop a reintegration plan for the offender. The intention is for the ACDOs to serve as a bridge between CSC and Aboriginal communities/organizations (CSC, 2006c). Finally, the ACDO may attend the PBC hearing to speak on the developed release plan for the offender (Jensen & Nafekh, 2009b).
• Aboriginal Community Liaison Officers (ACLOs) support Aboriginal offender reintegration in urban communities (CSC, 2006b). As such, ACLOs identify healing, spiritual, cultural, and other appropriate resources for Aboriginal offenders, in consultation with Elders, Aboriginal communities and organizations. ACLOs are also responsible for reviewing the release plan of Aboriginal offenders who were referred from Parole Officers (POs), ALOs, Elders, ACDOs, Healing Lodges and other institutional staff members (CSC, n.d.).

Further information regarding the Continuum of Care and a thorough analysis of these activities are provided in Theme One (Continuum of Care) of this report.

Milestones within SPAC

To highlight the development of various policies, programs and activities either within or supporting the Continuum of Care, the evaluation team created a timeline of milestones which provides a historical perspective of Aboriginal corrections (see Figure 3). It is important to note that the first occurrence of an event does not suggest full national implementation. Rather, in the case of operational activities, the broader roll-out has taken several years to complete following the first occurrence, and in some cases, is still being expanded.

Figure 3: Timeline of Major Milestones within SPAC

Governance structure

As noted in the Strategy for Aboriginal Corrections Accountability Framework (CSC, 2009b), a governance structure has been implemented for Aboriginal corrections (refer to Figure 4 for an illustration of the currently approved Aboriginal corrections governance structure). According to the approved governance structure, the Director General of AID reports to the Senior Deputy Commissioner (SDC) who then reports to the Commissioner.

At the same time, the Commissioner is advised and supported by the National Aboriginal Advisory Committee (NAAC) and an Executive Committee (EXCOM). The NAAC was formed in accordance with Section 82 of the CCRA to provide advice on the provision of correctional services to Aboriginal offenders (CSC 2008a). The NAAC consists of prominent members of Aboriginal communities. Presently, the Commissioner hosts approximately three NAAC meetings each year and receives guidance and input from NAAC. The SDC and DG of AID are advised and guided by the National Elders Working Group (NEWG; CSC, 2009b). The NEWG provides the DG,AID and the SDC with guidance and advice.

Figure 4: Approved Aboriginal Corrections Governance Structure

As presented in Table 1, CSC has invested over $213,560,060 over a five year period to fund the wide range of initiatives encompassed under SPAC. SPAC expenditures represented approximately 3% of CSC’s direct program spending for FY 2010-11.^{Footnote 13}

Source: IFMMS (2012).

The SPAC evaluation was conducted by the Evaluation Division in accordance with the 2009 Treasury Board Evaluation Policy. Several evaluations and research studies have examined components contained within SPAC.^{Footnote 14} However, this is the first comprehensive evaluation which includes all SPAC activities. At the same time that this evaluation was being conducted, an internal audit was also being performed on the Aboriginal Corrections Accountability Framework (ACAF).

This evaluation has examined the following core evaluation issues: Section 1) continued relevance of, and need for SPAC, including its alignment with departmental and government priorities as well as federal roles and responsibilities; Section 2) demonstrated performance as defined by effectiveness of the activities contained within SPAC. The effectiveness and efficiency section of the report is divided into four themes: Continuum of Care; Enhanced Collaboration; Corporate Response to Address Systemic Barriers; and Gaps in Correctional Outcomes. Section 3) addresses the efficiency and economy of the activities. A variety of data sources and analytical methods were used in the evaluation. A comprehensive evaluation matrix, including evaluation questions, expected outcomes, performance indicators, and data sources, is provided in APPENDIX B.

• This evaluation was conducted using a mixed-method research design, incorporating both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The evaluation questions were addressed through several lines of evidence, namely:
• Literature and documentation review;
• Analyses of automated data (offender, human resource and financial);
• Structured interviews with Elders, Aboriginal offenders, internal key informants and external stakeholders;
• Electronic questionnaires completed by CSC management and staff members; and,
• Naturalistic observations of Elders.

Literature and Document Review

• A review of relevant documentation and academic literature pertaining to Aboriginal corrections was conducted to inform the development of the analytical framework for the evaluation and to provide context for the findings. The documents reviewed included:
• Evaluation, research, and audit reports on Aboriginal corrections and broader issues concerning Aboriginal peoples;
• CSC strategic documents and operational plans concerning Aboriginal correctional issues (e.g., Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections, Aboriginal Corrections Accountability Strategy, National Action Plan on Aboriginal Corrections, Reports on Plans and Priorities (RPP), Departmental Performance Reports (DPR), etc.);
• Commissioner’s Directives and related policy guidelines; as well as,
• Documents eliciting government-wide plans and priorities.

Automated Offender Data

Offender Release Cohorts

Three offender release cohorts^{Footnote 15} were used for this evaluation: an Aboriginal offender release cohort; an Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offender release cohort; and, a Section 84 and non-Section 84 Aboriginal offender release cohort. Data specific to these cohorts were extracted from the Offender Management System (OMS), a computerized case file management database used by CSC, PBC, and other criminal justice partners, to manage information on federal offenders throughout their sentence. The cohorts are briefly described below. For further methodological details, such as statistical tests performed, and offender cohort profile information, refer to APPENDIX C and APPENDIX D.

Aboriginal Offender Release Cohort

The Aboriginal offender release cohort used for the quantitative analyses of correctional outcomes was comprised of all Aboriginal offender first conditional releases from April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2011.^{Footnote 16} The unit of analysis in our sample was a conditional release, not an offender. Therefore a single offender may have accounted for more than one release if this offender had multiple sentences. The final sample included 4,020 conditional releases from 3,948 Aboriginal offenders. Analyses were conducted on all conditional releases; however, for the purpose of simplifying the presentation of our findings, the profile and results sections were discussed in terms of “Aboriginal offenders” rather than “Aboriginal offender conditional releases”. The majority of Aboriginal offenders examined within the cohort were men (91%; n = 3,639) whereas women accounted for 9% (n = 381).

To assess the impact of SPAC on the successful reintegration of Aboriginal offenders into the community, the evaluation used the Aboriginal release cohort to examine two measures of correctional outcomes, namely the likelihood of discretionary release grants (i.e., full parole and day parole) and the rate of conditional release failure (i.e., return to custody while on first release). For the second measure, two types of returns were considered: any returns^{Footnote 17} and returns with a new offence. Comparisons were established between Aboriginal offenders who had participated in three key initiatives comprised under SPAC (i.e., Aboriginal-specific correctional programs, culturally-specific living environments and cultural temporary absences) and Aboriginal offenders who had not participated. Therefore, the comparison groups changed according to the type of initiatives being examined and always included Aboriginal offenders that were not exposed to the initiative in question.

Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Offender Release Cohort

A second release cohort was created to perform quantitative analyses comparing the likelihood of improvement in criminogenic needs of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders presenting similar characteristics. This cohort includes most of the Aboriginal offender first conditional releases used in the Aboriginal offender release cohort, as well as a matched comparison group of non-Aboriginal offender first conditional releases for the same time period. The matching of offender releases was performed using the propensity score matching method.^{Footnote 18} The final sample included 4,004 Aboriginal and 4,004 non-Aboriginal offender releases. Of these, 7,246 (90%) were for men offenders and 762 (10%) were for women offenders.

Section 84 and Non-Section 84 Offender Release Cohort

A third offender release cohort was created to specifically compare the correctional outcomes of Aboriginal offenders with a Section 84 release to those of Aboriginal offenders without a Section 84 release. This sample includes all Aboriginal offender first conditional releases that resulted in a Section 84 contained in the Aboriginal offender release cohort, as well as a matched comparison group of non-Section 84 Aboriginal offender first discretionary releases. The matching of offender releases was performed using the same method as previously described (i.e., propensity score matching method). The final sample included 90 Section 84 releases and 90 non-Section 84 releases.

Rate-based data

To assess the gaps in correctional results between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders following the implementation of SPAC, the evaluation team compared the difference in rates (i.e., Aboriginal rate – non-Aboriginal rate) for several correctional indicators (listed in APPENDIX M), approximately five years prior and five years after SPAC. The evaluation team presented correctional results using a rate-based approach, a similar method for calculating rates that is used for CSC’s corporate documents, such as the DPR. Specifically, rates were expressed in offender person-years (OPY). Rate-based analyses^{Footnote 19} were performed to examine whether there has been a significant change since the implementation of SPAC. Since event counts for women offenders were lower than those of men’s, these analyses could not be performed for women. However, yearly rates for women were calculated for the ten year period and a visual analysis of the annual rates was conducted. Further details on the analyses performed are provided in APPENDIX C.

Offender Population Data

To complement the qualitative and quantitative data gathered, the evaluation team reported on the current profile of Aboriginal offenders under CSC’s jurisdiction according to the year-end snapshot of offender population data provided by CSC’s Policy Sector, Performance Management Branch. This snapshot was retrieved on April 10, 2011 from OMS.

Offender Transfer Data

The evaluation team reported on the number of Aboriginal offender transfers to specific institutions (i.e., CSC-operated and Section 81 Healing Lodges), as well as on average daily bed counts and occupancy rates. These data were extracted from CSC’s Corporate reporting System (CRS) on April 20, 2012.

Automated Human Resources (HR) Data

HR data was provided by CSC’s Human Resources Management (HR), and was extracted from the Human Resource Management System (HRMS) database. Data on Aboriginal employees were retrieved as of March 31, 2010 and data on Aboriginal-specific positions were retrieved as of June 30, 2011 by employees of the HR Strategic Planning, Reporting and Systems Division. HR data were manipulated and analyzed by the evaluation team in order to present frequencies and proportions.

Automated Financial Information

Financial data for SPAC expenditures incurred for FYs 2006-07 to 2010-11 were provided by CSC’s Corporate Services, Finance. The data were retrieved from the Integrated Financial and Material Management System (IFMMS) as of March 2012. Financial data were used to calculate the overall cost of SPAC, as well as perform analyses on the cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of correctional interventions and services. Effectiveness analyses contrasted the Cost of Maintaining an Offender (COMO) at the institutional and community level to establish the cost saving associated with enhanced correctional results following offender participation in Aboriginal correctional programming and Section 84 releases.

Structured Interviews

Elder Interviews

Face-to-face interviews were conducted during the months of June and July of 2011 with nine Elders at six sites across all regions. Specifically, the evaluation team completed three interviews in the Quebec Region, two interviews in each of the Ontario and Atlantic Regions, and one in both the Pacific and Prairie Regions. Considering the small number of interviewees, no further demographic information was included in the report in an effort to safeguard their confidentiality.

Aboriginal Offender Interviews

Interviews were conducted during the months of June and July of 2011 with 120 offenders. The majority (75%; n = 85) of offenders were men. The interviewees were from all five regions, namely Atlantic (20%; n =23), Quebec (17%; n = 19), Ontario (19%; n = 22), Prairie (16%; n = 18), and Pacific (27%; n = 31) regions.

Internal Key Informant Interviews

During September and October of 2011, the evaluation team conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with CSC internal key informants in Aboriginal corrections, mainly for the purpose of understanding collaboration within CSC, between CSC and other government levels and departments and with our community stakeholders. The following groups of CSC staff members were invited to participate in an interview: all sector heads; each RAAI; all AWIs who were involved in the offender intake process; all ACDOs and, all ALOs. In total, interviews were conducted with 42 internal key informants. Interviewees included representatives at the institutional, regional and national levels.

External Stakeholder Interviews

During the months of September and October of 2011, the evaluation team conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with CSC’s external stakeholders in Aboriginal corrections, mainly for the purpose of understanding collaboration between CSC and other community stakeholders. Participants were selected by contacting each Regional Administrator of Aboriginal Initiatives (RAAI) who provided a list of key external stakeholder organizations and contacts from their region which collaborate with CSC. Interviews were conducted with a total of 29 external stakeholders. The sample consisted of Program Coordinators (29%; n = 8), Executive Directors (21%; n = 6), and Directors (18%; n = 5) in the areas of justice, healing, and housing. The majority of interviewees were from the Prairie (39%; n = 12) and Ontario (21%; n = 7) regions, followed by the Atlantic (14%; n = 4), Pacific (14%; n = 3), and Quebec (11%; n = 3) regions.

In summary, 9 Elders, 120 offenders, 42 internal key informants and 29 external stakeholders were interviewed for this evaluation across all sites, in the language of the respondent’s choice.

Electronic Questionnaires (Survey)

CSC’s institutional, community and regional management and staff members were invited to complete an on-line questionnaire (also referred to as a survey in the report) pertaining to Aboriginal corrections in November and December of 2010. In total, 106 individuals completed the staff questionnaire and 76 individuals completed the management questionnaire.

CSC Management Profiles

The 76 management respondents included Wardens (20%; n = 15), Managers of Assessment and Intervention (15%; n = 11), Program Managers (15%; n = 11) and other managers. Survey respondents were from all five regions, specifically Prairie (32%; n = 24) Ontario (26%; n = 19), Pacific (18%; n = 13); Quebec (8%; n = 6) and Atlantic (5%; n = 4); as well as from the Regional or National Headquarters (11%; n = 8).

CSC Staff Member Profiles

Of the 106 staff respondents, close to two-thirds (60%; n = 64) represented institutional operations, one-third (36%; n = 38) represented community operations and 4% (n = 4) were from National and Regional Headquarters. Among respondents involved in community and institutional operations, approximately one-third were from the regions of Ontario (32%; n = 34) and Prairie (31%; n = 33); the remaining participants represented the Pacific (18%; n = 19), Quebec (12%; n = 13) and Atlantic (7%; n = 8) regions. The vast majority (91%; n = 95) of respondents indicated they directly worked with or supervised Aboriginal offenders and over half (52%; n = 55) self-identified as Aboriginal persons.

Elder Observations

Observations of Elders performing their daily role within the institutions were conducted in five CSC facilities. An observation template was created to structure the observations and follow-up interviews were conducted with the Elders shadowed. A total of seven Elder observations were conducted for this evaluation. Two observations were conducted in each of the Atlantic, Quebec and Prairie Regions, and one was conducted in the Pacific Region. Given the limited number of interviewees, and in order to safeguard their confidentiality, no demographic information was included in the report.

In evaluating the implementation of SPAC initiatives and their impact on correctional outcomes of Aboriginal offenders, various limitations were identified and should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results presented in the report.

First, the evaluation was limited to focusing on selected SPAC initiatives because not all initiatives allowed for a measure of effectiveness. Hence, it is not always possible to attribute changes in service to SPAC. As well, it is also too soon to determine the impact of some initiatives.

Caution should be taken when interpreting the findings from the offender and Elder interviews. Specifically, because each interview group consisted of small sample sizes, the results may not be representative of all Aboriginal offenders or all Elders (N = 120 and N = 9, respectively).

Effectiveness analyses for the various SPAC activities focussed on two key correctional outcomes: discretionary release and conditional release failure. Several other correctional outcomes could have been examined, but were not due to the large scale of this evaluation. Where previous research or evaluation reports have examined additional outcomes, results were reported in the relevant sections of this evaluation.

The scope and breadth of the current evaluation also prevented any analysis of offender casework records. All quantitative analyses relied primarily on OMS data that was mostly in the form of discrete variables and flags (i.e., yes or no). Further data quality issues encountered with OMS data have been detailed in the text of this evaluation.

For this evaluation, it was not possible to obtain information regarding the number of Section 84 release plans initiated and presented to PBC. Therefore, analyses specific to the likelihood of being granted a Section 84 release, and analyses of cost-efficiency on the proportion of plans that were approved by PBC could not be conducted.

The present evaluation focused exclusively on national correctional programs and did not include local and regional programs due to difficulties in identifying participants and participation status in these programs. In addition, certain national programs were not analyzed in the scope of this evaluation. Specifically, the Integrated Correctional Program Model (ICPM), recently piloted in the Pacific and Atlantic regions, in 2009 and 2011 respectively, was not included in our analyses due to limited data (i.e., less than 3% [n = 65] of offenders in the Aboriginal release cohort had enrolled in ICPM, mainstream and Aboriginal streams combined). As well, community maintenance programs were not examined because prior evaluations have demonstrated that data pertaining to these programs are not reliable.

Additionally, during the timeframe captured by our release cohort data (April 1 2006 to March 31 2011), the national correctional program referral guidelines were revised and modified. Therefore, offenders who had previously been assigned to a correctional program might have no longer needed this program according to the new guidelines, and would have never started this program. This consideration is important to interpreting the data and analyses on program assignment, start and completion; in this context, a program assignment may not necessarily always represent a program need.

Finally, the effectiveness of the SPAC initiatives was only examined until an offender reached the warrant expiry date (WED) of the sentence captured in the evaluation’s timeframe or until the follow-up period (March 31, 2011).

RELEVANCE: The extent to which a program addresses a demonstrable need, is appropriate to the federal government, and is responsive to the needs of Canadians (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2009a).

Overrepresentation of Aboriginal offenders within the Canadian correctional population has been studied extensively over the past ten years. In fiscal year (FY) 2009-10, Aboriginal offenders represented 18% (n = 3,989) of those serving a federal sentence, although Aboriginal peoples comprise less than 4% of the Canadian population (Statistics Canada, 2008). Since FY 2000-01, the number of incarcerated Aboriginal offenders under federal jurisdiction has increased by 28% (Public Safety Canada, 2010). According to projections reported by Statistics Canada, the Aboriginal population in Canada is expected to increase at an average yearly rate of 2% (n = 9,800 in 2001-02 to n = 23,000 in 2016-17) which corresponds to more than double the 1% growth rate of the total population for Canada (Statistics Canada, 2005). As well, the number of Aboriginal adults in the 20-29 age group (the group with the greatest potential for criminal activity;Statistics Canada, 2008) is projected to increase by 42% by FY 2016-17 compared to the 9% projected growth of the young adult population in Canada. The increasing number of Aboriginal adults within this age category presenting the highest risk for criminal involvement could have a significant impact on the correctional population in the future.

The Aboriginal Initiatives Directorate (AID)’s Aboriginal Corrections Accountability Framework Year End Report (2011), also acknowledges the staggering increase in the Aboriginal offender population. Specifically, the report noted that “the increase in the Aboriginal offender population for that period is almost as great as the increase in the total offender population for those ten years” (CSC, 2011a).

Despite the continued overrepresentation of Aboriginal offenders, a lack of awareness remains concerning the distinct characteristics of this heterogeneous group, including risk factors, criminogenic needs, and important responsivity factors that are essential in designing effective treatment programs. Research suggests that Aboriginal offenders have extensive criminal histories (Bonta, Lipinski & Martin, 1992). Studies have consistently demonstrated that Aboriginal offenders exhibit significantly more risk factors compared to non-Aboriginal offenders and that these individuals present numerous criminogenic needs at intake(Trevethan, Moore, Naqitarvik, Watson& Saunders, 2004b). First Nations and Métis offenders often have extensive involvement in the criminal justice system and have lengthy criminal experience, whereas Inuit offenders are more frequently incarcerated for sexual offences and larger proportions are high-risk to re-offend (Moore, 2003). As such, it is important to understand the criminogenic differences among the three distinct Aboriginal offender populations: First Nations, Métis, and Inuit.

First Nations offenders

First Nations offenders are more likely to be incarcerated for Schedule I offences^Footnote20(e.g., serious assault) than non-Aboriginal groups. Due to their serious violent offence convictions, First Nations offenders are incarcerated at maximum-security facilities at a significantly higher rate than other groups (Moore, 2003).

The criminal history of this group is characterized by extensive youth and adult criminal convictions which is similar to Métis offenders, but unlike the Inuit offender population who generally exhibit little involvement in youth criminal activity (Moore, 2003). First Nations offenders also tend to have greater programming needs in the area of employment-related interventions when compared to Inuit offenders and are more likely to demonstrate “ some or considerable ”need for substance abuse programming in comparison to Métis offenders (Trevethan & Moore, 2002).

Métis offenders

Contrary to the offence profiles of Inuit and First Nations offenders, the Métis population is more likely to be incarcerated for robbery, property and drug related crimes (Moore, 2003). As of March 2011, more than half (51%;n = 549) of Métis offenders were incarcerated for Schedule I offences (e.g., robbery).Similar to First Nations offenders, the Métis population exhibit similar needs in the area of correctional programming with a focus on substance abuse and employment.

Inuit offenders

Inuit offenders have a high rate of serious offences and are incarcerated for more sexual offences than any other Aboriginal group (Moore, 2003; Stewart, Hamilton, Wilton, Cousineau & Varrette, 2009; Trevethan et al., 2004a; Trevethan et al., 2004b). Specifically, more than half (53%) of Inuit offenders are currently incarcerated for a sexual offence, compared to 16% of First Nations and 12% of Métis offenders (CRS, March 2011 snapshot).

Responsivity

Home environment and cultural characteristics of the Aboriginal population suggest a need for different methods of interventions (Trevethanetal., 2004b).These interventions must incorporate cultural aspects to be most effective. Research has consistently demonstrated that correctional programs are most effective when they target identified criminogenic needs of offenders (“ need ” principle), match offenders ’level of risk (“ risk ”principle) and are administered in a manner that is consistent with the offender’s specific characteristics, learning style and cultural context. This is known as the “ responsivity ” principle (Andrews, Bonta & Hoge, 1990; Andrews & Bonta, 2006).

The “responsivity”principle has been highlighted as of particular importance in the context of Aboriginal corrections in that programs delivered should be sensitive to the specific cultural needs of Aboriginal offenders. Although empirical research examining the effectiveness of Aboriginal programming is limited, some studies have suggested that Aboriginal-specific programs are as effective or more effective for Aboriginal offenders than generic correctional programs (Sioui & Thibault, 2001; Weekes & Millson, 1994; Marquis et al., 2010).

Acknowledging the overrepresentation of Aboriginal offenders within the federal correctional population, CSC developed the SPAC in 2006. SPAC’s primary goals were to implement an Aboriginal-specific Continuum of Care, (detailed in Theme One of this report) and to ensure the federal correctional system responds to the needs of Aboriginal offenders and communities (CSC, 2010a). Furthermore, SPAC is directly related to one of CSC’s strategic priorities, specifically; enhanced capacities to provide effective interventions for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit offenders, and is further supported by CSC’s Transformation Agenda priorities (CSC, 2010b).

The federal government’s unique relationship with Aboriginal peoples is expressed in the Constitution Act (1982) and is further articulated in the CCRA (1992) which mandates CSC to provide interventions and services designed to specifically address the needs of Aboriginal offenders and engage Aboriginal communities in the reintegration process for Aboriginal offenders.

The 2011 Speech from the Throne articulates the federal government’s commitment to improving conditions for Aboriginal peoples so they have the ability to contribute to Canada’s future prosperities. “Canada’s Aboriginal peoples are central to Canada’s history, and our Government has made it a priority to renew and deepen our relationship. Concerted action is needed to address the barriers to social and economic participation that many Aboriginal Canadians face. Our Government will work with Aboriginal communities, provinces and territories to meet this challenge” (Governor General, 2011).

PERFORMANCE: The extent to which effectiveness, efficiency and economy are achieved by a program (TBS, 2009a).

At the outset of SPAC, three intermediate and one long-term key performance objectives were established (see Table 2). A series of indicators were identified to monitor and report on performance results for each objective. Outcome indicators for the first three objectives were intended to be reached, in part or completely, by the end of the five year plan, whereas indicators for the overall objective of reducing correctional disparities for Aboriginal offenders were anticipated to show results over a ten year period and remain ongoing, as described in Table 2.

Accordingly, this section of the evaluation will follow a similar outline where the report will be structured around these 4 themes (Continuum of Care, Collaboration, Corporate Response to Address Systemic Barriers, and reducing the correctional gap). Finally, economy results are reported in the last section.

The Continuum of Care responds to the needs of Aboriginal offenders by providing an array of initiatives such as culturally-specific correctional assessment and planning, enhancing access to Aboriginal-specific correctional programs and services, offering culturally-specific living environments, engaging Aboriginal communities in the reintegration process of offenders, and establishing community supports that will sustain post-incarceration progress.

The evaluation team assessed CSC’s success in implementing the above mentioned initiatives. Additionally, Effectiveness^{Footnote 21} was examined through statistical analyses for four key categories of initiatives that were intended to impact Aboriginal offenders’ correctional results as part of the Continuum of Care: 1) the provision of Aboriginal-specific correctional programs; 2) culturally-specific living environments (i.e., Pathways, Healing Lodges, and Pathways Transition Units); 3) releases to Aboriginal communities through Section 84 of the CCRA; and 4) an enhanced accessibility to temporary absences (TA).^{Footnote 22} The relevant findings are presented below and detailed statistical analyses are provided in APPENDIX E to APPENDIX J.

Once admitted into federal custody, all federal offenders undergo the offender intake assessment process, where CSC provides introductory information on the federal correctional system collects offender information (including social history information) and creates a Correctional Plan. In addition, Aboriginal offenders are informed of cultural and spiritual services provided by CSC such as Elder services, ALOs, ACDOs, Pathways Units, Healing Lodges, Sections 81 transfers, Section 84 releases, and Aboriginal correctional programs. If offenders have expressed an interest in working with an Elder and participating in Aboriginal-specific interventions, a Healing Plan is developed and the offenders’ progress is monitored and updated through Elder Reviews. The following section presents a brief dCSC as intended by SPAC, and theescription of these Aboriginal-specific assessment tools, how they have been implemented by challenges that have been encountered thus far.

The Gladue principles were established in an April 1999 decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision stated that mitigating factors such as social history must be taken into account upon sentencing, particularly when dealing with Aboriginal offenders. As a result, all court decisions have to consider the unique systemic factors and background of an Aboriginal person in sentencing and sanctions. Although the original decision was predominantly focused on sentencing, CSC has since incorporated these mitigating factors into policy requirements which ensure that the social history of Aboriginal offenders be collected and integrated into the decision making for Aboriginal offenders (CSC, 2008a).

The Gladue principles were established in an April 1999 decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision stated that mitigating factors such as social history must be taken into account upon sentencing, particularly when dealing with Aboriginal offenders. As a result, all court decisions have to consider the unique systemic factors and background of an Aboriginal person in sentencing and sanctions. Although the original decision was predominantly focused on sentencing, CSC has since incorporated these mitigating factors into policy requirements which ensure that the social history of Aboriginal offenders be collected and integrated into the decision making for Aboriginal offenders (CSC, 2008a).

In addition to this requirement, various CDs pertaining to case management outline what constitutes an offender’s social history, as well as how and when to include this information in case assessments. An Aboriginal offender’s social history may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• effects of the residential school system
• effects of the dislocation and dispossession of Inuit peoples
• family or community history of suicide, substance abuse, victimization, fragmentation
• level of connectivity with family / community or loss of / struggle with cultural / spiritual identity
• experienceinthechildwelfaresystemandwithpoverty

An examination of thedata available in OMS indicated that there was no tracking mechanism (i.e., flag system) to ensure that the social history of Aboriginal offenders had been documented. Therefore, the evaluation team could not obtain the number of Aboriginal offenders for whom this information was collected.

Online survey results indicated that CSC staff and management were aware of the Gladue principles. When asked to rate their familiarity with these principles, the vast majority of staff (82%) and management (82%) respondents reported that they were either ‘moderately’ or ‘very’ familiar. In addition, most (89%) operational staff members noted that they ‘often’ or ‘always’ consider Aboriginal offenders’ social history when making decisions that concern these offenders. However, when further examining the practical application of Aboriginal social history, multiple sources indicated discontinuity between the collection of this information and its subsequent use within decision making. They indicated that once the collection process is completed, the information is not consistently being used in case management and therefore does not respect the intent of the Gladue principles. Over half (50%; n = 3) of the AWIs agreed that improvements could be made with respect to the amount and consistency of training provided to ALOs, Elders and other staff members on the collection and integration of social history information.

Further examination of CSC policies revealed that these policies are clear on what constitutes a social history factor, but there is no clear direction of how to incorporate these factors in correctional decisions. Although CD 705-2: Information Collection states that staff should consider the social history of Aboriginal offenders within decision making (CSC, 2012a), no detailed guidelines currently exist on how to objectively integrate and operationalize this information into any decision making process.

The above findings are consistent with those identified in recent internal and external reports. For example, an internal audit of the offender intake assessment revealed low compliance rates within the collection and integration of Aboriginal social history in offender assessments (CSC, 2009c). Similarly, the 2010 Annual Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator (OCI) noted that CSC should “provide clear and documented demonstration that Gladue principles are considered in decision making”. The most recent OCI report (2011) highlighted the fact that staff members continue to struggle with operationalizing the “practical intent of the [Gladue] principles”.

Overall, these results suggest that staff members understand how to collect and record social history information pertaining to Aboriginal offenders. They also recognize the value of incorporating the Gladue principles within the collection and decision making processes. However, uncertainty remains with respect to the application and inclusion of these factors within the decision making stage. As such, further clarification and explicit explanations within CSC policy are required.

One potential impact resulting from these issues pertaining to the application of social history in correctional decision making is that the collection and documentation of these factors can inadvertently have a negative effect on Aboriginal offenders’ risk assessment. When staff members collect Aboriginal social history information, they are providing additional information that often contributes to offenders’ risk factors. As such, this additional information may increase the risk ratings of Aboriginal offenders, thereby resulting in transfers to higher security institutions. Access to programming, particularly Aboriginal-specific initiatives, is more challenging at higher security levels compared to what is offered at the lower levels. In sum, this use of Aboriginal social history could create a considerable systemic barrier for the Aboriginal offender population.

To limit the possibility of this barrier, training pertaining to the Gladue principles has recently been developed and was piloted in all five CSC regions as of March 2012. The training is designed for parole officers responsible for completing Assessments for Decisions specific to Aboriginal offenders’ case management, and focuses on the consideration of Aboriginal social history in these documents. The example below is an actual case provided in the national training package. It represents an excellent example of how CSC CMTs have creatively used social history information to facilitate the Aboriginal Continuum of Care and address Aboriginal offenders’ needs.

This example demonstrates how case management staff can operationalize the Gladue principles by considering an offender’s Aboriginal social history to arrive at alternative resolutions. Providing staff members with concrete examples, such as the one presented above, may assist CMTs in making culturally informed and appropriate case decisions for the unique needs of the Aboriginal offenders.

Once an offender’s social history has been identified and collected, the Elder, in consultation with the ALO, works with interested offenders to develop their Healing Plan. The Healing Plan serves an essential role in the correctional planning of Aboriginal offenders. It is integrated into the Correctional Plan and Correctional Plan Progress Reports (CPPRs), as detailed in CDs 702: Aboriginal Offenders and 705-5: Supplementary Intake Assessments, and is intended to identify and consider the unique situation of Aboriginal offenders. This information is then recorded and used by staff members to determine the programming needs of these Aboriginal offenders (CSC, 2008a; CSC, 2010c).

Upon closer examination, the evaluation team found that information pertaining to Healing Plans was not uniformly entered into OMS. Data on the number of Healing Plans developed was inconsistent throughout the regions and time. However, data collected through interviews suggested that approximately two-thirds (61%; n = 72) of offenders interviewed had a Healing Plan. Of these, nearly all were involved in the development of their Healing Plans (89%; n = 65) and thought the Healing Plan helped them to identify their healing goals (86%; n = 62). Many reported that the Healing Plan has proven beneficial in a number of other ways. Specifically, the plan reminded them of their healing goals and provided them with a sense of direction and guidance (43%; n = 22). It also helped them identify their individual needs and risks (29%; n = 15) and fostered a sense of accountability (29%; n = 15), as well as motivated them towards their healing goals (27%, n = 14). In addition, the majority of Elders (88%; n = 7) and staff (93%; n = 95) respondents agreed that ‘some’ or ‘most’ of the Aboriginal offenders they work with are committed to their Healing Plans and are participating in Aboriginal activities and interventions.

Therefore, Healing Plans are being developed and completed for Aboriginal offenders and most of these offenders are involved in the development of their plans. Furthermore, offenders reported a commitment to their plans and agreed that the plan serves as a positive reinforcement in the maintenance of their healing paths.

Elder Reviews are a means to continuously assess an offender’s progress along their healing path. It is completed by the Elder or the ALO within 50 days after an offender’s admission to federal custody or within 40 days from referral, and must be done prior to completion of the initial security classification (CSC 2008a).

There are two kinds of Elder Reviews: initial and progress. The initial Elder Review includes the Elder’s first observation where a determination is made as to whether the offender will continue to work with the Elder and take part in Aboriginal interventions. The Healing Plan will be discussed as an option and if the Elder and offender agree, the Plan will be developed and integrated into the Correctional Plan. The progress Elder Review is more detailed and is completed once the offender has been working with the Elder for at least six months. These reviews are updated by the Elder (or by the ALO in conjunction with the Elder) upon request of the CMT for decision making purposes.

In FY 2007-08, categories were created in OMS to document and track the number of Elder Reviews performed. Since the implementation of this system, a total of 3,987 Elder Reviews (including initial and progress) were completed for 3,058 Aboriginal offenders. As seen in Table 3, the overall number of reviews completed and entered into OMS has been increasing over the last few years.

Source: OMS (2011).

Data quality issues surfaced when examining the Elder Review data within OMS. Specifically, there were missing dates and document information in the database, thereby making it difficult to analyse.

In the cases where the type of Elder Review was known, one-fifth (19%; n = 596) of offenders were identified as having both an initial and a progress Elder Review completed. The low proportion of completion for progress Elder reviews could be the result of data quality issues as stated above. Otherwise, since the policy (CSC, 2008a) states that progress Elder reviews must be completed once an offender has worked with the Elder for six months, this could either be an indication that the reports are not being completed or that the Elder does not work with the offenders for a sufficient period of time to necessitate the progress report. Further inquiry would be needed to determine this.

When operational staff members were asked about the importance of Elder Reviews in their work, 88% (n = 90) agreed that these were ‘somewhat’ to ‘very’ important, and 89% (n = 86) indicated that they use Elder Reviews in their work. In addition, the majority of staff (71%; n = 69) and management (81%; n = 61) respondents agreed that CSC has made ‘some’ to ‘substantial’ improvement when it comes to engaging Elders in providing culturally-sensitive assessments and interventions.

However, despite these observed improvements, several concerns remain. Close to two-thirds (61%; n = 51) of staff members rated the quality of Elder Reviews as ‘poor’ to ‘fair’, and 71% (n = 59) noted that the availability of these reviews were also ‘poor’ to ‘fair’. Results from an internal audit also revealed that the timeliness of Elder assessments was also insufficient (CSC, 2009c). Additionally, only a few (22%; n = 2) Elders were fully aware of the purpose or use of Elder Reviews within offender case management. A small number of Elders interviewed believed that Elder Reviews were used for decision making purposes, as well as progress reports. However, most (67%; n = 6) reported that despite contributing information and/or feedback for the review, they remained unclear as to how this information will eventually be used by the CMT.

Overall, Elder Reviews are a way to assess and monitor Aboriginal offenders’ progress along their healing journey. While these assessments are considered valuable, evidence suggests that there is a disconnect between the information that is provided in the Elder Review and the information that is needed by the CMT to accurately report on the correctional progress that an offender has made while working with the Elder.

An integral component of the Aboriginal Continuum of Care is the provision of culturally-appropriate correctional interventions and services that address the specific criminogenic needs of Aboriginal offenders. To achieve this objective, CSC has developed and implemented a number of initiatives and activities such as: enhancing the delivery of Aboriginal correctional programs; providing access to culturally-specific living environments; Aboriginal-specific staff; Elder services; and, various other spiritual/cultural activities (i.e., ceremonies and traditional engagements).

The small number of Inuit offenders (N = 196; 1% of the Aboriginal offender population as of April 2011) present in the correctional system may partially account for the fact that Inuit participation in Aboriginal-specific initiatives is rare. However, various other factors may also contribute to the low engagement of Inuit offenders in Aboriginal initiatives, such as their unique criminal profile and criminogenic needs which differ from those of First Nations and Métis offenders. As previously mentioned, research has found that Inuit offenders present a higher rate of serious and sexual offences, a higher proportion of incarceration (vs. community supervision), and a higher risk to re-offend (Hamilton, 2003 as cited in Trevethan, Moore, Navaqitarvik, Watson & Sanders; 2004b).

According to the Northern Corrections Framework Discussion Paper (CSC, 2011c), Inuit offenders are found to be connected to their culture at the time of admission, however later become disengaged once incarcerated, possibly due to the distance between CSC institutions and their Inuit communities. Inuit offenders are often isolated from family and friends, where contact is often very limited. Moreover, many Inuit offenders also find it difficult to adjust to the drastic change in climate, landscape and lack of access to traditional food from the land (CSC, 2011c).

Additionally, Aboriginal correctional programming and interventions are often targeted to meet the needs of First Nations offenders, for which the traditions, ceremonies and language vastly differ from those of the Inuit culture (CSC, 2011c). Programming specific to the criminogenic and cultural needs of Inuit offenders remains limited whereby Aboriginal programs are not accessible to Inuit offenders due to the language barrier since most Inuit offenders primarily speak Inuktitut. Thus, it is not surprising that Inuit participation in Aboriginal programs is low.

However, recent efforts have been made by CSC to provide relevant correctional programming and services to meet the needs of these offenders. Furthermore, as part of the Sivvupiak Action Plan (2010-2015), CSC has developed a strategy that will provide a continuum of culturally-appropriate interventions to Northern offenders (Northern Corrections Framework). This strategy focuses on increasing Inuit cultural competence, improving the delivery of Inuit services to facilitate their transition to lower security levels, building community capacities to manage Inuit offender reintegration through victim consultation, enhancing supervisory and intervention activities in the North, and enhancing Section 84 releases to Inuit communities (Trevethan, 2012).

CSC is mandated to provide Aboriginal offenders with culturally-appropriate correctional programs that meet their indentified needs. As such, a number of programs have been developed and implemented in accordance with the Continuum of Care model that aim to assist Aboriginal offenders in connecting to their culture, families, and communities (CSC, 2006a). Further details on specific correctional programs are provided in the Program Background section of this report.

Aboriginal-Specific National Correctional Program Availability

As per CSC policies, offenders with identified programming needs must be assigned and enrolled to a program(s) in accordance with their Correctional Plans. In the case of Aboriginal offenders, program assignment may include either mainstream or Aboriginal-specific programming. However, CD 705-6: Correctional Planning and Criminal Profile specifically states that Aboriginal offenders will be referred to culturally-appropriate programming whenever possible (CSC, 2007). Since the implementation of SPAC, the number of Aboriginal enrolments in the seven core Aboriginal-specific national correctional programs has increased by over 84% (from 290 to 534; see Table 4).

Source: OMS (2011).

Effectiveness of National Correctional Programs among Aboriginal Offenders

Research has shown that participation in correctional programs that are targeted to offenders’ specific criminogenic needs is associated with a higher likelihood of discretionary release, as well as with a lower rate of conditional release failure (Andrew & Bonta, 2006; Nafekh et al., 2009).^{Footnote 23} This evaluation examined the impact of participation in national correctional programs, both mainstream and Aboriginal-specific,^{Footnote 24} on the correctional outcomes of Aboriginal offenders (i.e., discretionary release grant and conditional release failure). CSC offers a range of programs that are tailored to the criminogenic need areas of offenders. For this evaluation, program participation was assessed in five national correctional program categories of the Program Activity Architecture (PAA), namely ‘Violence Prevention’, ‘Sexual Offender’, ‘Substance Abuse’, ‘Family Violence Prevention’, and ‘Social Skills’ programs. Due to low participation in some of these categories, certain categories were not included in analyses. Participation in community maintenance programs and ICPM was not examined for this Aboriginal offender release cohort due to data reliability issues or limited data, as discussed in the limitations section.

Aboriginal Men

The majority (84%; n = 3,069) of Aboriginal men offenders in our release cohort had been identified as presenting a need in at least one national correctional program (mainstream and/or Aboriginal; see Table 5 for breakdown by program category). Across all program categories, successful completion of programs occurred in high proportions, ranging from 75% to 83%.

Source: OMS (2011).

Discretionary Conditional Release

Statistical analyses^{Footnote 25} were performed to compare the conditional release grants between Aboriginal offenders who had been enrolled to national mainstream and Aboriginal-specific programs and Aboriginal offenders who had been assigned to these programs, but never enrolled^{Footnote 26}. Specifically, the objective was to determine the impact of any exposure (successful or non-successful) to correctional programs in each program category on the likelihood of obtaining discretionary release. Overall results revealed that Aboriginal men offenders having been exposed to a violence prevention (mainstream and Aboriginal-specific), a sexual offender (mainstream), or a substance abuse (mainstream) program, were significantly more likely to be granted discretionary release than a comparison group of Aboriginal non-participant counterparts. Aboriginal men offenders exposed to family violence prevention or social skills programs were as likely to be released on statutory release as their non-participant counterparts (see Table 6).

Similar findings were maintained when only considering successful participation (as opposed to any exposure) in all national correctional program categories, mainstream and Aboriginal specific combined (see APPENDIX E).

Conditional Release Failure (i.e., return to custody after conditional release)

Statistical analyses^{Footnote 30} were performed to compare the rate of conditional release failure between Aboriginal offenders who had been enrolled to national mainstream and Aboriginal-specific programs and Aboriginal offenders who had been assigned to these programs, but never enrolled. As presented in Table 7, results found that significantly lower rates of conditional release failure (with any return) were observed among Aboriginal men offenders who were exposed to mainstream or Aboriginal-specific violence prevention or mainstream sexual offender prevention programs when compared to a comparison group of Aboriginal non-participant counterparts (see APPENDIX E for results of statistical analyses).

Successful completion of substance abuse programs, mainstream and Aboriginal combined, was significantly associated with a 20% lower rate of conditional release failure with a new offence (see APPENDIX F for results of statistical analyses).

Aboriginal Women

Similar to men, the majority (84%; n = 321) of Aboriginal women offenders included in the offender release cohort were identified as presenting a need in at least one national correctional program category (mainstream and Aboriginal; see Table 8 for breakdown by program category). Successful completion of national correctional programs was also achieved in high proportions, ranging from 69% to 91%.

Source:OMS (2011).

Conditional Release Failure

Statistical analyses^{Footnote 33} comparing the rate of conditional release failure among Aboriginal women offenders who had been enrolled to mainstream and Aboriginal-specific programs and Aboriginal women offenders who had been assigned to these programs, but never enrolled were performed. Results revealed that the rates of conditional release failure (any return and return with a new offence) among Aboriginal women offenders who had been exposed to any national correctional program, mainstream and Aboriginal combined, were statistically similar to those of the comparison group of Aboriginal women non-participant counterparts (see APPENDIX E).^{Footnote 34}

Summary

Overall, CSC has made some progress in enhancing the availability of culturally-specific programming. Staff, management and offenders agreed that Aboriginal-specific programs are positive contributors to offender reintegration. Results from statistical analyses found that Aboriginal men offenders who were exposed to a national correctional program, specifically for violence prevention, sexual offender and substance abuse programs, demonstrated improvements in correctional results when compared to Aboriginal men offenders who presented a need for the program but were never exposed.

Culturally-specific living environments offer Aboriginal offenders the opportunity to practice their culture and traditions in a structured correctional setting where their criminogenic and cultural needs are supported through enhanced access to culturally-specific programs, Aboriginal ceremonies, Elders’ teachings and counselling, as well as interactions with other Aboriginal staff members and people. These services are designed to provide a gradual Continuum of Care, as Aboriginal offenders cascade to lower security levels and are eventually released. The culturally-specific living environments offered by CSC include Pathways Units (Pre-Pathways Day Programs and Pathways Transition Units) and Healing Lodges (CSC and Section 81 Healing Lodges).

Pathways Units

As previously mentioned, Pathways Units are designated ranges or houses within medium level institutions that provide a traditional and cultural healing environment to offenders who choose to pursue an Aboriginal healing path. Offenders within these units work alongside Elders and a CMT composed of Aboriginal-specific staff members. These offenders are provided with a greater opportunity to participate in Aboriginal-specific programming, cultural/spiritual activities and ceremonies. Pathways Units were first implemented in 2002 at three sites and four more sites were later developed in 2006. Following the implementation of SPAC, CSC expanded its Pathways capacity to include seven additional sites, thus there are currently 14 Pathways Units operating.^{Footnote 35} These units are found in each CSC region, where some regions have multiple units depending on the size of the Aboriginal offender population. As of 2011, these units have a combined capacity of 363 beds, ranging from 6 to 102 beds per site (see Table 9).

In 2009, CSC expanded their Pathways Units by creating Pre-Pathways interventions and Pathways Transition Units. Pre-Pathways Day Programs are offered in select maximum security institutions and focus on preparing offenders for their transfer to a Pathways Unit. CSC currently operates two Pre-Pathways Day Programs which have a combined capacity of 8 places. Similarly, Pathways Transition interventions are offered in certain minimum security institutions as a follow-up for Pathways residents who are cascading to a lower security level. These living units offer an alternative to offenders who may not be interested or are ineligible to go to a Healing Lodge. Pathways Transition Units are available at seven of CSC’s minimum institutions and have a combined bed capacity of 106 beds.

Source: AID (2011).

Over the last five years, CSC has engaged in 2,105^{Footnote 36} Aboriginal offender transfers to Pathways Units, of which 1,954 (93%) were men and 151 (7%) women. As shown in Table 10, the number of Aboriginal offender transfers to Pathways Units has been increasing since the implementation of SPAC. In addition, there were a total of 182 Aboriginal offender transfers to Pre-Pathways Day Programs and 249 Aboriginal offender transfers to Pathways Transition Units between FYs 2006-07 and 2010-11.

Source: OMS (2011).

The data collected through interviews indicated that over half (54%; n = 64) of Aboriginal offenders had participated in a Pathways Unit. Of the offenders who had never participated in Pathways, the majority (61%; n = 36) presented an interest in residing in this living environment. Reasons given to support their interest pertained to the greater opportunity to learn and practice their Aboriginal culture and spirituality, greater access to cultural supports and better opportunity for self improvement. Furthermore, the vast majority of management (98%; n = 62) and staff (92%; n = 86) respondents reported that participation in Pathways Units provided ‘some’ to ‘substantial’ contribution to successful Aboriginal offender reintegration. A prior evaluation of Pathways Units (Jensen & Nafekh, 2009a) has found that the majority of staff members and offenders involved in Pathways viewed this initiative as a positive experience and would recommend it to other Aboriginal offenders who wish to follow a traditional healing path.

Approximately one-third (34%; n = 20) of Aboriginal offenders interviewed mentioned that they were not planning on living in a Pathways Unit. Of these, 39% (n = 7) indicated that they were content with their current situation or were expecting to be released soon and did not wish to transfer. However, a few offenders believed that Pathways created a segregation among Aboriginal offenders (17%; n = 3) or had concerns with specific staff members and offenders in the unit (22%; n = 4). Similar issues were found in the Pathways evaluation (Jensen & Nafekh, 2009a) where offenders reported the admission of inappropriate offenders who did not follow their healing path, the lack of support from staff members resulting in negative attitudes, the separation from other inmates created by Pathways, as well as non-participants’ negative views of Pathways participants receiving preferential treatment. Additionally, staff members had reported issues with resistance from other staff members, lack of knowledge regarding Pathways criteria and low cultural awareness (Jensen & Nafekh, 2009a). Both staff (50%; n = 43) and management (44%; n = 8) surveyed for the current evaluation and past evaluation (Jensen & Nafekh, 2009a) highlighted the need for additional training on cultural sensitivity and Aboriginal case management.

The negative views regarding Pathways, such as the sense that this initiative is a form of segregation, were raised by a few offenders in the context of a broader question. It remains unclear whether these perceptions are shared by other offenders. Further research could help determine the extent of this issue.

Effectiveness of Pathways Units

Previous research has attested to the positive impact of providing culturally-specific living environments on Aboriginal offenders’ correctional outcomes. For example, benefits found to be associated with Pathways Units include lower rates of return to custody with a new violent offence (Jensen & Nafekh, 2009a).^{Footnote 37} For the current evaluation, analyses were performed regarding the likelihood of being granted conditional release as well as the rate of conditional release failure following residency in Pathways Units.^{Footnote 38} To assess the contribution of Pathways Units, this evaluation examined the impact of participation in Pathways Units on the correctional outcomes of Aboriginal offenders (i.e., discretionary release grant and conditional release failure). It is important to note that data pertaining to offender participation in Pathways Units has been recorded in OMS since 2008. As detailed in an OMS Bulletin entitled Aboriginal Enhancements (CSC, 2008e), new fields were then created to record Pathways Unit involvement among offenders. Prior to 2008, data specific to Pathways participation was recorded at the regional level in tacking documents that were specific to the regions. To ensure that Pathways information for all five fiscal years (2006-07 to 2010-11) were captured in this evaluation, the data contained in OMS was combined with the data contained in the regional tracking documents prior to 2008. However, data reliability issues could steam from the unstandardized method of entry prior to 2008.

Aboriginal Men
Discretionary Conditional Release

Approximately 12% (n = 435; N = 3,639) of Aboriginal men offenders in the release cohort had resided in a Pathways Unit. Results^{Footnote 39} indicated that Aboriginal men offenders who had resided in any Pathways Unit were 40% less likely^{Footnote 40} to receive discretionary release than a comparison group of Aboriginal non-resident counterparts.^{Footnote 41}

These results somewhat differ from findings of the Pathways Healing Units evaluation (Jensen & Nafekh, 2009a) where an equal likelihood of being granted discretionary release was found between Pathways participants and non-participants (Jensen & Nafekh, 2009a). Differences in samples may account for this contradictory finding as the prior study included both non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal offenders. Additionally, Jensen and Nafekh (2009a) specifically evaluated the seven original nationally recognized and funded Pathways Units,^{Footnote 42} whereas this evaluation examined all Pathways Units that have been operating for the majority of the SPAC period.^{Footnote 43} The additional Pathways Units were only nationally recognized in FY 2009-10 and did not receive national funding for prior years.^{Footnote 44}

In light of possible disparities between the recognized funded and non-recognized non-funded Pathways Units, additional analyses were performed solely on Aboriginal offenders who participated in the seven original nationally recognized and funded Pathways Units. Results indicated similar findings; participants of original Pathways Units were in fact 26% less likely^{Footnote 45} to be released on discretionary release than the comparison group of non-participants.^{Footnote 46} Additional analyses performed specifically on individual Pathways Units found no significant results.^{Footnote 47} These results are opposite to the intended goals of Pathways Units which aim to accelerate offender preparation for release into the community.

Offender survey results collected for the SPAC evaluation may provide some insight as to why Pathways participants are not being released on discretionary release. Of the offender interviewees who identified having participated in a Pathways Unit and being eligible for parole, close to two-thirds (62%; n = 26) stated they had not applied for parole where nearly one-third (32%; n = 8) of these also indicated that they will not be applying. Some of the stated reasons for not applying for parole included: an approaching statutory release date; feeling that parole would not be granted by PBC; and, feeling that parole was not supported by one’s parole officer at that time. An examination of parole cancelations among offenders in the Aboriginal release cohort found that a significantly higher proportion of Pathways participants waived or withdrew from their full parole review in comparison to non-participants (68% vs. 60%, respectively). However, in examining the reasons given for waivers or withdrawals, it was unclear as to what factors could explain the higher parole cancelation among Pathways participants. These findings suggest possible explanations for the lower discretionary release grants for Pathways participants. Further research would be necessary to better understand this outcome.

Conditional Release Failure

Statistical analyses^{Footnote 48} revealed that the rate of conditional release failure (with any return or return with a new offence) was not found to be significantly associated with participation in Pathways Units (APPENDIX F)^{Footnote 49}. Interestingly, analyses performed by Pathways institutions^{Footnote 50} found that the Pathways Unit at Bowden Institution was the only site where a 53% reduction in the rate of conditional release failure could be observed among Pathways participants when compared to a non-participant comparison group (APPENDIX F) However, this result must be interpreted with caution as the limited sample of Aboriginal Pathways participants (n = 44) for this site may not be an accurate representation of the interventions at this site.^{Footnote 51}

Other positive correctional results were found in the Pathways Healing Units evaluation (Jensen & Nafekh, 2009a) where participation in Pathways Units was associated with lower rates of involvement in minor and major institutional incidents. Additionally, other correctional indicators approached statistical significance^{Footnote 52} such as a higher likelihood of being transferred to a Healing Lodge (which is a minimum level facility) and lower likelihood of being transferred to a maximum security facility, as well as a lower rate of various incidents (i.e., refusing to submit to random urinalysis testing, taking intoxicants, possessing contraband).

Aboriginal Women
Discretionary Conditional Release

Less than one-tenth (9%; n = 35, N = 381) of Aboriginal women offenders in the release cohort had resided in a Pathways Unit prior to their first conditional release. Statistical analyses^{Footnote 53} confirmed that Aboriginal women who had resided in a Pathways Unit were 53% more likely^{Footnote 54} to be released on statutory release than a comparison group of Aboriginal non-participant counterparts.^{Footnote 55} However, the especially low number of women having resided in Pathways Units merits caution when interpreting results. Similar reasons as those provided for Aboriginal men may account for the difference found between these results and those of the Pathways Healing Units evaluation (Jensen & Nafekh, 2009a). No analyses could be conducted for Aboriginal women offenders who participated specifically in the funded Pathways because the number was too small (n = 11).

Conditional Release Failure

Similar to the results obtained for Aboriginal men offenders, statistical analyses^{Footnote 56} indicated that residency in a Pathways Unit did not statistically impact the rate of conditional release failure (with any return or return with a new offence) among Aboriginal women offenders (see APPENDIX F for statistical results).

Healing Lodges

Once Aboriginal offenders cascade to a minimum security level, select individuals may participate in a transfer to a Healing Lodge (or Healing Village). These minimum security facilities are either operated by CSC, or by an Aboriginal community under Section 81 of the CCRA. Their purpose is to provide offenders with a culturally-based holistic healing process, which contributes to Aboriginal offenders’ reintegration. Similar to the Pathways Units, offenders must commit to working with Elders and staff members, as well as follow an Aboriginal healing path.

Source: CRS – Inmate Movement Data Cube, April-04-10, taken at April 20, 2012 for CSC-operated Healing Lodges and OMS (2011) for Section 81 Healing Lodges.

The majority of management (97%; n = 62) and staff (92%; n =84) respondents reported that participation in Healing Lodges, both CSC and Section 81 operated, contributed to successful Aboriginal offender reintegration. Findings from the Healing Lodge evaluation (Didenko & Marquis, 2011) suggest that the majority of Aboriginal offenders residing in Healing Lodges agreed that the Healing Lodge met their overall needs and increased their knowledge of Aboriginal culture. Both staff members and offenders noted that participation in Healing Lodges had a positive impact on offenders’ behaviour in terms of their engagement in programs and cultural activities, as well as their self-awareness, self-confidence, motivation, personal responsibility and pro-social attitudes. These improvements were also supported by quantitative data that indicated positive changes in offenders’ criminogenic need levels.

Although management and staff members shared positive views of Healing Lodges, Didenko and Marquis (2011) identified several challenges with the facilitation of transfers to these facilities. Some general challenges identified included the large number of Aboriginal offenders who do not meet the security level criteria (i.e., minimum security or in rare cases, medium security) required to be eligible for transfer to a Healing Lodge, limited availability of Healing Lodges across the country, remote geographical locations of Healing Lodges, low staff and management awareness of Healing Lodge functioning resulting in low promotion, and lack of interest by offenders. Furthermore, staff and management members, as well as community representatives and offenders, all agreed on the need for further vocational training; employment and employability skill development; and, educational training for offenders residing in Healing Lodges. Further information pertaining to challenges specific to CSC-operated and Section 81 Healing Lodges are detailed in the Chapter One of the SPAC Evaluation (Didenko & Marquis, 2011).

Recent evaluations have found that Healing Lodges are not operating at maximum capacity (Didenko & Marquis, 2011; Delveaux et al., 2007; Nafekh, Allegri & Li, 2005). According to the latest data, although some Healing Lodges have maintained lower occupancy rates throughout the five years following the implementation of SPAC, others have succeeded in reaching occupancy levels near maximum capacity and have even implemented waiting lists. The issues mentioned above pertaining to difficulties with the transfer process may account for the lower occupancy levels in some Healing Lodges. However, it should be noted that the range in occupancy levels for Healing Lodges is similar to that of other minimum security level institutions suggesting that many offenders remain at the maximum and medium security level.

Overall, Healing Lodges are seen by CSC staff and management members, as well as offenders, as a positive factor associated with offender participation and commitment in Aboriginal activities and interventions. Yet, various areas within the application and transfer process, such as: the eligibility and interest of offenders, availability of Healing Lodges and services, as well as staff and management awareness and support, indicated a need for improvement.

Effectiveness of Healing Lodges

The benefits of residing in Healing Lodges have been presented in the Healing Lodge evaluation (Didenko & Marquis, 2011), where a higher likelihood of a discretionary release grant was found among participants. The current evaluation performed analyses surrounding the likelihood of being granted conditional release, as well as the rate of conditional release failure following residency in Healing Lodges. To assess the contribution of Healing Lodges, this evaluation examined the impact of participation in both CSC and Section 81 Healing Lodges on the correctional outcomes of Aboriginal offenders (i.e., discretionary release grant and conditional release failure).

Aboriginal Men
Discretionary Conditional Release

Approximately one-fifth (17%; n = 617, N = 3,639) of Aboriginal men offenders in the release cohort had resided in a Healing Lodge. Statistical analysis^{Footnote 57} confirmed that Aboriginal men offenders who resided in a Healing Lodge were over two times more likely^{Footnote 58} to receive a discretionary release than a comparison group of Aboriginal non-resident counterparts.

This finding is similar to results from the Healing Lodges evaluation (Didenko & Marquis, 2011) which also reported an increased likelihood of discretionary release grants among Healing Lodge participants. However, this finding was specific to CSC Healing Lodges; Aboriginal offenders from Section 81 Healing Lodges were found to be twice as likely to be denied discretionary release as a comparison group of Aboriginal offenders from minimum security institutions. Although the evaluation report did not provide any conclusion as to the reasons for this discrepancy, possible explanations were suggested within the offender, staff and management interviews. Over half of staff and management interviewees from Section 81 Healing Lodges indicated a need to improve communication with institutional and community CMTs. Section 81 Healing Lodge residents also identified difficulties with release planning and irregular contact with CSC parole officers.

Conditional Release Failure

Statistical analysis^{Footnote 59} revealed that the rate of conditional release failure (with any return or return with new offence) was not significantly associated with residency in a Healing Lodge (see APPENDIX F). This finding is supported by results obtained in the Healing Lodge evaluation, where an equal rate of conditional release failure was found among both Aboriginal men offenders who had participated in a Healing Lodge and a comparison group of offenders who were released from a minimum level institution (Didenko & Marquis, 2011).

Aboriginal Women
Discretionary Conditional Release

Over one-quarter (29%; n = 112, N = 381) of Aboriginal women offenders in the release cohort had resided in a Healing Lodge. Statistical analyses^{Footnote 60} confirmed that Aboriginal women offenders who had resided in a Healing Lodge presented an almost 3 times greater^{Footnote 61} likelihood of being granted discretionary release than a comparison group of Aboriginal non-resident counterparts. This higher likelihood of discretionary release was also found in the Healing Lodge evaluation (Didenko & Marquis, 2011).

Conditional Release Failure

Similar to the results obtained for Aboriginal men offenders, statistical analyses^{Footnote 62} indicated that the impact of residency in Healing Lodges on the rate of conditional release failure (with any return or return with new offence) among Aboriginal women offenders was not statistically significant (see APPENDIX F).

Therefore, Healing Lodge residents, both Aboriginal men and women, showed a higher likelihood of obtaining discretionary release, but did not demonstrate a lower rate of conditional release failure. This could suggest that PBC board members are granting discretionary release at a higher rate to Healing Lodge participants as they have assessed that the offenders’ participation in the initiative has assisted in reducing their risk level and enhancing their potential to be managed within the community. When offenders who have participated in the initiative are more likely to receive discretionary releases, it suggests that PBC board members assessed that offenders’ risk was reduced following participation in the program. However, when these participants do not present lower rates of conditional release failure, this implies that the assessment did not translate into correctional results (i.e., the offenders returned to custody at comparable rates).

Summary

The contributions of culturally-specific living environments were favourably viewed by offenders as well as management and staff members. However, issues were identified regarding the planning, approval and transfer processes for these initiatives, specifically for Healing Lodges. Concerns pertained to the lack of resources impacting the timeliness of applications, eligibility/interest of offenders, availability of services due to remote locations, as well as awareness and support from some management and staff members. Overall, participation in Healing Lodges (specifically CSC-operated Healing Lodges) was associated with an improved likelihood of being granted discretionary release among Aboriginal offenders, whereas participation in Pathways did not yield any results with respect to discretionary release grants or rates of conditional release failure. Additional research would be necessary to explain these results. To better track the correctional outcomes of Pathways participants and facilitate research efforts in the future, CSC has recently enhanced fields in OMS to further explain the reasons for offender departures from Pathways (as detailed in an OMS Bulletin entitled Additions to the Departure Reason Table in OMS; CSC, 2012c).

1.2.3 Elder Services

Elders form the cornerstone of Aboriginal corrections. They play a pivotal role in working with CSC to provide culturally and spiritually appropriate services and interventions to the Aboriginal offender population. As was highlighted in interviews with Aboriginal offenders and Elders as well as in findings from the Healing Lodge evaluation (Didenko & Marquis, 2011), the scope of the services provided by Elders is quite vast. CSC defines an Elder or Spiritual Advisor as the following:

AID established the Elder’s Statement of Work^{Footnote 63} that outlines objectives and activities for which the Elder is responsible, either in the institution or the Healing Lodge. These include participating in programs; conducting spiritual services and various traditional ceremonies; providing teachings and counselling the Aboriginal offenders regarding areas of Aboriginal spirituality and culture; providing advice/information to staff and management members on issues of Aboriginal spirituality and its impact on the institution; and, providing information case management as part of the CMT.

When asked to explain their role within CSC, most Elders expressed that they were considered positive role models and they facilitate holistic healing among Aboriginal offenders. “As an Elder, you are [their] father" explained an Elder interviewee. One offender addressed his Elder during an observation period and said: “You are like a chapel to us. You teach us our spirituality and the meaning of life itself. Today, if you were not here we wouldn’t be moving anywhere. We would be sitting in our cells.” Moreover, Elder observations collected from all the sites revealed that Elders provide regular informal relational support to offenders. One Elder noted that “[Elders] need to help offenders learn their culture and their language to connect them to where they are from; empowerment gives them tools.”

Similarly, Elders also serve an integral function within Healing Lodge operations. Findings from the Healing Lodge evaluation (Didenko & Marquis, 2011) identified the significant role Elders play in the delivery of services and interventions to Aboriginal offenders at the Lodges. Elders were identified by staff, management, offenders and community representatives as “the single most important aspect of the Healing Lodge” (p. 52).

According to the offenders interviewed for this evaluation, nearly all (89%; n = 107) indicated that they meet with Elders in the institution, where many (42%; n = 43) reported individual/ one-on-one meetings as the most common reason for engaging with Elders. It should be noted that the institutions selected as interview sites had at least one full-time Elder.

In addition to accessing the services of institutional Elders, offender interviewees also indicated that they meet with Elders from the community. Contributions from community Elders will be further discussed later in Theme One. Details pertaining to the availability of Elders will be discussed in Theme Three.

1.2.4 Aboriginal-Specific Positions

As part of the implementation of the Continuum of Care, a variety of CSC Aboriginal-specific positions were created. These positions will be further discussed in terms of availability and vacancy in Theme Three of this report.

1.2.5 Other Cultural Services, Activities and Regional Initiatives

In addition to the interventions and services described above, CSC offers a series of activities that serve to integrate Aboriginal cultural practices within the correctional environment. Several offender interviewees reported involvement in a number of cultural and spiritual activities during their incarceration, including: smudges; sweats; artisan activities; individual counselling with the Elder; and, sharing/ morning circles. Additionally, almost one-quarter of offenders interviewed indentified involvement in community cultural events (e.g., sundance, pow-wow, etc.).

To supplement CSC’s national Aboriginal-specific correctional programs and interventions, there are many regionally implemented, services and interventions offered specifically to the Aboriginal offender population. These local initiatives not only provide ways to meet the unique needs of Aboriginal offenders in that location, but they also serve as creative solutions to meet specific local and regional needs. The following provides some examples of locally-run initiatives that have enhanced the Continuum of Care in various CSC regions.

Atlantic Region- Wabanaki Healing House at Nova Institution

Wabanaki Healing House is a cultural living environment at Nova Institution that provides women offenders with the opportunity to reconnect with their spiritual self through participation in Aboriginal-specific programming with cultural and spiritual activities, as well as connecting with community supports. Women within the house are required to participate in both their Correctional Plan and Healing Plan, and are supported by Elders, Elder’s helpers, ALOs and peer counselling groups. In addition, Wabanaki ensures that a Continuum of Care exists for these Aboriginal women by encouraging and fostering partnerships with local Aboriginal communities and establishing resources accessible upon release.

Quebec Region- Association Sectorielle Paritaire-Construction (ASP-Construction)

This association has worked with CSC at the La Macaza institution to deliver training specifically for Aboriginal offenders who wish to work in the field of construction. This five day training focuses on health and safety concerns on construction sites and was recognized by the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail. Upon completion of the training, participants receive a Certification issued by ASP-Construction, which they may present to private sector employers to enhance their job prospects upon release into the community.

Ontario Region- Inuit Carving Program at Fenbrook Institution

For nearly 10 years, Fenbrook Institution has offered an Inuit carving program for offenders. The initiative runs in partnership with the Arctic Cooperative and enables Inuit offenders to access soap stone which they carve and sell back to the Arctic Cooperative. The money from the sales is then deposited into the accounts of the carvers. The program assists Inuit offenders in developing specialized skills that align with their unique cultural traditions and can be used to gain employment which may assist in their successful transition into community.

Prairie Region- Affordable Housing Initiative at Riverbend Institution

Riverbend Institution provides Aboriginal offenders with the opportunity to participate in the Affordable Housing Initiative. This initiative was created in partnership with the Saskatchewan Housing Corp, the Muskeg Lake First Nation, The Saskatoon Tribal Council, CSC and CORCAN. Houses are constructed by offender crews on-site at Riverbend Institution, and the reserve coordinates the delivery of materials to the reserves. The initiative targets offender’s employability needs by allowing them to gain professional carpentry and construction skills and experience which fosters offender reintegration through engagement in community activities.^{Footnote 64}

Pacific Region- Tsow- Tun Le Lum

Tsow-Tun Le Lum, meaning “healing house”, is a community-based substance abuse treatment centre located in Lantzville, British Columbia. The Centre offers programs that address the issues of addictions and substance abuse, and that support the survivors of trauma and residential schools. CSC’s regional community office has maintained a contract with the Centre for over 20 years as a means of ensuring the existence of a Continuum of Care for offenders who need it. In recent years, the Centre has seen an increase both in the number of program seats occupied by federal offenders as well as the number of program completions.

These regional examples showcase the array of culturally-specific institutional initiatives that enhance the Aboriginal Continuum of Care.

The Aboriginal Continuum of Care model concludes with the provision of post-incarceration support to Aboriginal offenders to facilitate their successful reintegration into the community. As such, SPAC has worked on implementing a series of community support mechanisms to sustain offenders’ progress throughout their incarceration and upon release to prevent re-offending.

In 2010, the OCI recommended that CSC enhance involvement of Aboriginal communities in the reintegration process of Aboriginal offenders by “increas[ing] its use of 84 of the CCRA to their fullest and intended effect” (OCI, 2010). Since the implementation of SPAC, CSC has created over 18 ACDO positions across the country^{Footnote 65} which are responsible for engaging Aboriginal communities in the supervision of Aboriginal offenders.

Section 84 Releases

Section 84 releases involve engaging Aboriginal communities in the discretionary release^{Footnote 66} process of Aboriginal offenders. When offenders express interest in being released to an Aboriginal community and have demonstrated a commitment towards their healing path, it is the responsibility of the ACDO to facilitate this process by collaborating with the communities in planning the successful reintegration of the offender, as outlined in Section 84 of the CCRA.

Over the last five years, ACDOs have engaged over 30 Aboriginal communities (see APPENDIX H) in the first discretionary release of 92 offenders (84 men and 8 women). Of these, 88% (n = 81) of releases were for day parole and 12% (n = 11) for full parole. Furthermore, OMS data show that the number of reported Section 84 releases has been increasing since FY 2006-07 (See Table 12).

Source: OMS (2011).

Despite this increase, the overall number of Section 84 releases remains low. This may be explained by various challenges identified by over 45% (n = 32) of management members surveyed concerning the facilitation of Section 84 releases. Issues encountered included limited resources which results in difficulties specific to the planning and transfer process (e.g., lack of staff and time, lack of preparation, timely application/approval process), low staff and management awareness of the Section 84 release process resulting in the limited promotion of this service, lack of eligibility or interest from Aboriginal offenders, as well as lack of support from the Aboriginal communities.

Jensen and Nafekh (2009b) highlighted concerns surrounding the timeliness of Section 84 release planning for Aboriginal offenders. The evaluation found that at the time of offenders’ PBC hearings, half of the Section 84 release plans initiated were completed, whereas the other half were pending or incomplete.^{Footnote 67} This finding suggests that there is more interest in Section 84 releases than what the limited number of ACDOs (12) has been able to process. However, it is important to consider this finding in its legal context. Specifically, CSC is mandated by the CCRA to initiate a Section 84 release plan for every Aboriginal offender who expresses an interest in being released to an Aboriginal community. Therefore, many plans may be initiated, but possibly due to lack of human resources, a proportion of these cannot be completed.

Survey data revealed that notwithstanding issues identified above, the majority (91%; n = 81) of operational staff members encourage Aboriginal offenders to pursue Section 84 releases to Aboriginal communities. Similarly, most (86%; n = 103) of Aboriginal offenders interviewed identified that they were aware of their right to pursue a Section 84 release to an Aboriginal community under the CCRA, and over two-thirds (66%, n = 77) reported an interest in being released to an Aboriginal community.^{Footnote 68} Reasons for pursuing a release to an Aboriginal community included receiving support from and being closer to their community and family, having the ability to practice the Aboriginal way of life, heal and stay on the right path, and having increased access to various community resources (e.g., programs, employment opportunities, etc.).

Of the Aboriginal offenders who expressed interest in a Section 84 release, only 11% (n = 8) indicated that their release plan had been completed, and less than 20% (n = 14) said it was in the process of being completed. The majority (81%; n = 17) of offenders with initiated or completed plans confirmed that community members were involved in the preparation of the release plan. These members included justice committees, band councils, various community leaders and friendship centres, Elders as well as family and friends.

Furthermore, statistical analyses^{Footnote 69} found that participation in Section 84 releases was associated with enhanced correctional results. Specifically, the rate of conditional release failure (with any return) among Aboriginal offenders released to an Aboriginal community through Section 84 of the CCRA was 54% lower than that of a matched comparison group of Aboriginal offenders conditionally released through means other than the Section 84 release process. However, no differences were found in the rate of conditional release failure with a new offence (see APPENDIX I for analysis results). Although analyses of the chances of discretionary release grants were not feasible for this evaluation due to the unavailability of data, the previous evaluation of the ACDO initiative found that offenders who had a Section 84 release plan completed prior to their PBC parole hearing were more likely to receive discretionary release than a comparison group of offenders without a plan (Jensen & Nafekh, 2009b).

Thus, Section 84 releases to Aboriginal communities are supported and encouraged by management, staff members and offenders. Section 84 releases have demonstrated effectiveness in improving Aboriginal correctional results.

Community Elders

CSC encourages Aboriginal offenders to use the services offered by Elders from the community as this assists them in maintaining contact with their community throughout their incarceration and thereby ensuring a possible continuity of cultural practices upon release. Interviews conducted with offenders revealed that community Elder services were offered for 82% (n = 98) of interviewees and over half (57%; n = 56) of those did meet with their community Elder. Offender interviewees indicated that there were various opportunities for offenders to meet with community Elders, such as during ceremonies, TAs and/or social gatherings, through telephone and/or written communication, and when the Elder comes to visit the institution. Offenders indentified that the community Elder provides them with support and often complements the teachings and perspectives of the institutional Elder, as well as provides a link to their community assisting them in establishing contacts upon release. For offenders who did not have access to community Elders, reasons mentioned included the inability to go into the community, distance from their community and the lack of interest to do so.

As previously mentioned, the support provided by Elders forms the foundation of SPAC. In addition to institutional Elders, the majority of offenders interviewed had access to community Elders and this component was considered as a support for offenders transitioning back into the community.

Cultural Temporary Absences (TAs)

In addition to promoting community Elder services, SPAC had the objective of enhancing participation in cultural TAs among Aboriginal offenders. TAs “provide offenders with opportunities to maintain family and community ties and avail themselves of rehabilitative, employment, personal and cultural activities […]” (CSC, 2010d), thus they are considered to be another contributing factor to the reintegration of offenders in the community. There are three types of TAs, namely escorted temporary absences (ETAs), unescorted temporary absences (UTAs) and work releases.

An examination^{Footnote 70} of cultural TAs among Aboriginal offenders has revealed that since the implementation of SPAC, the average rate of ETA occurrences has significantly increased for Aboriginal men offenders (285 to 345), but has remained similar for Aboriginal women offenders (401 to 394). The rates of UTAs and work releases have remained statistically similar from pre to post SPAC periods among Aboriginal men offenders (31 to 39 and 9 to 8, respectively). However, among Aboriginal women offenders, the rate of UTAs has slightly decreased (35 to 25) and the rate of work release slightly increased (12 to 28).

The Healing Lodge evaluation (Didenko & Marquis, 2011) found that management, staff and offenders agreed on the importance of community contact through cultural TAs as it allows offenders to have access to community-based services and take part in the community’s functioning by becoming a contributing member. These benefits are considered essential factors in the successful reintegration of Aboriginal offenders. However, several issues restricting the facilitation of TAs were identified, such as the low number of staff and volunteers available, and difficulties with transportation to remote communities.

Effectiveness of Participation in TAs

Previous research has demonstrated the benefit of participation in TAs on offender rates of discretionary release and offender success in the community (see, for example, Motiuk & Belcourt, 1996; Grant & Gal, 1998; Grant & Johnson, 1998). This evaluation examined participation in TAs among Aboriginal men and women offenders from the release cohort to determine its impact on correctional outcomes (i.e., conditional release grant and conditional release failure).^{Footnote 71}

Aboriginal Men
Discretionary Conditional Release

Over one-quarter (26%; n = 943, N = 3,639) of the Aboriginal men offenders in the release cohort had participated in one or more TA throughout their sentence at the time of their first release. The vast majority (99%; n = 935) took part in cultural ETAs, whereas only 17% (n = 159) of offenders participated in UTAs and 11% (n = 103) in work releases. The number of TAs ranged from 1 to 745 occurrences per offender; however, half of the offenders had less than 15 occurrences.^{Footnote 72}

Statistical analyses^{Footnote 73} demonstrated that Aboriginal men offenders who participated in cultural ETAs were 2.7 times more likely^{Footnote 74} to be granted discretionary release than a comparison group of Aboriginal non-participant counterparts. Participation in either UTAs^{Footnote 75} or work releases^{Footnote 76} did not significantly impact the chances of being granted discretionary release.

Conditional Release Failure

Statistical analyses^{Footnote 77} revealed that Aboriginal men offenders who participated in cultural ETAs presented a 21% lower rate of conditional release failure (any return) in comparison to Aboriginal non-participant counterparts, whereas participation in UTAs and work releases showed no significant effect on returns to custody upon conditional release (see APPENDIX J).

Aboriginal Women
Discretionary Conditional Release

More than half (57%; n = 216, N = 381) of Aboriginal women offenders in the release cohort had participated in one or more TA. The majority (98%; n = 212) of the women offenders participated in cultural ETAs. A small number were involved in UTAs (11%; n = 23) and even fewer in work releases (4%; n = 9). The number of TAs ranged from 1 to 149; however, over half of the women offenders had experienced six occurrences or less.^{Footnote 78}

Statistical analyses^{Footnote 79} revealed that Aboriginal women offenders who participated in cultural ETAs were 70% more likely^{Footnote 80} to obtain a discretionary release than a comparison group of Aboriginal non-participants. Due to the small number women having participated in UTAs and work releases, no valid analysis could be conducted on the likelihood of discretionary release grants.

Conditional Release Failure

Similar to results found for men, statistical analyses^{Footnote 81} confirmed that participation in cultural ETAs was also significantly associated with the rate of failure on conditional release for Aboriginal women offenders. Aboriginal women having participated in cultural ETAs presented a 35% lower rate of conditional release failure than a comparison group of Aboriginal non-participant counterparts (see APPENDIX J). Analyses for participation in UTAs and work releases could not be performed due to the low number of Aboriginal women participants.

Summary

Overall, the various initiatives undertaken by SPAC to create community support mechanisms were recognized as presenting positive correctional results. Through the creation of ACDO positions facilitating Section 84 releases, the involvement of community Elders and the enhanced access to cultural TAs, additional services were offered to Aboriginal offenders whereby facilitating the development of community contacts. Participation in initiatives such as Section 84 releases was associated with lower rates of conditional release failure. Participation in ETAs were associated with earlier releases and lower rates of conditional release failure among Aboriginal offenders. Improvements were observed regarding Aboriginal offenders’ interest in engaging with their communities and Aboriginal communities were said to be more open and collaborative in receiving Aboriginal offenders back. The majority of staff (80%; n = 79) and management (95%, n = 69) members noted that CSC has made ‘some’ to ‘substantial’ improvement in encouraging Aboriginal offenders to connect to their culture and communities and a high proportion of staff (62%; n = 58) and management (76%; n = 55) respondents identified that CSC had made ‘some’ to ‘substantial’ improvement in engaging Aboriginal communities to support Aboriginal offenders’ reintegration.

Although advancements have been made, the need for further improvement was highlighted. Approximately half of staff (53%; n = 48) and management (48%; n = 33) members indicated that CSC has made ‘no’ to ‘little’ improvement in developing community capacity to support Aboriginal offenders beyond the end of their sentence. The number of communities engaged through the above mentioned activities remains limited due to various factors such as low awareness, lack of interest and community resources, as well as limited CSC resources (i.e., small number of ACDOs across the country). Elder interviewees have raised concerns that some Aboriginal offenders are not adequately prepared for release in the community. Elders mentioned that many Aboriginal offenders are afraid to leave the institution for reasons such as they believe it is easier to function inside the prison, they fear that their community might not accept them or that upon return to the community they will fall into old destructive habits. It is unclear to what extent this has an impact on Aboriginal offenders’ rates of parole cancelation, discretionary release grants and conditional release failure. Further research could be done to explore this issue. Therefore, further community development would be beneficial for the reintegration of Aboriginal offenders.

Collaboration is an essential component of effective correctional practice, particularly within the development and delivery of Aboriginal corrections. One of the objectives of SPAC is to “enhance horizontal collaboration and coordination within CSC, within the Public Safety portfolio, and with other levels of government, Aboriginal organizations and stakeholders” (CSC, 2006a). In particular, the Aboriginal Continuum of Care is reliant upon CSC’s collaboration with community stakeholders in Aboriginal corrections.

As well, CSC’s sixth priority specifically states the need to establish “productive relationships with increasingly diverse partners, stakeholders, and others involved in public safety” (CSC, 2011d). Moreover, the CCRA and CSC policy mandate that the Service actively engage in partnerships to provide culturally-appropriate programs in the institution and the community to facilitate offender reintegration. As such, collaboration within the context of this evaluation has been assessed by discussing SPAC’s three expected results: a coordinated approach to Aboriginal corrections within CSC and government-wide, as well as engaging Aboriginal stakeholders in Aboriginal corrections (CSC, 2006a).

Finally, it is important to note that SPAC’s objective within the first five years of implementation was to build capacity for effective collaboration within CSC, whereas expanding horizontal and external collaboration were understood as on-going objectives intended to be strengthened over several years. This evaluation examined all three areas.

2.1 Internal Collaboration^{Footnote 82}

SPAC highlighted internal collaboration as an essential component to be strengthened within Aboriginal corrections. Specifically, the strategy sought to ensure the planning, reporting and accountability mechanisms at all levels were integrated into Aboriginal correctional activities (CSC, 2006a). To assess this component, information was solicited from a number of internal key informants representing various levels within CSC (refer to methodology for more details).

Almost all (95%; n = 40) internal key informants provided examples of activities performed by their sector or region which support CSC’s Aboriginal corrections agenda. Specifically, the most commonly reported activities included: providing services and/or programs of a cultural or spiritual nature (45%; n = 18); offering cultural awareness or sensitivity training to staff members (35%; n = 14); as well as, facilitating and coordinating Section 81 transfers and/or Section 84 releases (33%; n = 13). Among these key informants, over half (52%; n = 22) indicated that the identified activities aligned with and supported SPAC by contributing to the safe reintegration of Aboriginal offenders, and where approximately one-fifth (19%; n = 8) reported helping to ensure that staff members were culturally aware and sensitive.

Two-thirds (67%; n = 28) of internal key informants reported collaborating with other CSC institutional, community and/or regional staff members on Aboriginal issues. Specifically, this collaboration involved: providing support in areas concerning Elder contracts, training, and security briefings (46%; n = 13); establishing working relationships with Aboriginal community members (46%; n = 13); and, exchanging information (i.e., best practices and mentoring opportunities) (39%; n = 11).

Despite reporting internal collaboration, over two-thirds (68%; n = 19) of key informants also identified having experienced barriers and/or challenges in collaborating with other CSC staff members on Aboriginal issues. Challenges included: insufficient communication and collaboration particularly in the areas of Aboriginal programming and strategies on connecting with Aboriginal communities (47%; n = 9); lack of awareness surrounding Aboriginal policy and/or cultural sensitivity (37%; n = 7); and, insufficient resources for programs, activities, and community engagement opportunities (37%; n = 7).

Additionally, all internal key informants from NHQ reported collaborating with other sectors, divisions, and directorates on Aboriginal initiatives. Nearly all (80%; n = 4) key informants working outside of AID identified collaborating with AID for guidance and consultation regarding programming, services, and policy changes. However, two-thirds (67%; n = 6) also reported having experienced barriers or challenges over the course of this collaboration, where the majority noted a need for increased support for Aboriginal initiatives.

Moreover, CSC has taken steps to foster accountability in the provision of leadership to advance Aboriginal corrections within CSC. For example as stated within the Strategy for Aboriginal Corrections Accountability Framework (CSC, 2009b), the Senior Deputy Commissioner (SDC) has a direct responsibility to provide leadership in the integration of Aboriginal initiatives within CSC. Regional Deputy Commissioners (RDC) are responsible for ensuring that SPAC is fully implemented in their regions. Therefore, accountability is fostered through linking the performance agreements of RDCs and the SDC to the Framework.

Institutional staff and management also noted sufficient collaboration with RHQ and NHQ; yet suggested some areas for improvement. The majority of operational staff and management members reported receiving adequate direction from RHQ (58%; n = 57 and 80%; n = 55, respectively) and NHQ (54%; n = 53 and 71%; n = 50, respectively) to effectively provide services to Aboriginal offenders. However, half (50%; n = 43) of operational staff respondents identified the need for additional guidance in the form of training. Specifically, respondents suggested that training in the areas of cultural sensitivity and awareness on Aboriginal issues (44%; n = 19), as well as in case management and program delivery (42%; n = 18), would be beneficial. Similarly, nearly one-third (31%; n = 18) of operational management respondents identified that they required additional information to implement Aboriginal-specific interventions and services in their institution, district, or office.

To summarize the results of internal collaboration within CSC, most key informants provided several examples of how their sector or region supports and contributes to Aboriginal corrections. CSC staff members at all levels indicated they were collaborating and the majority reported having adequate support from management.

SPAC outlines enhanced collaboration between CSC, various federal departments and agencies, and other levels of government as one of its key objectives. As such, CSC staff members and key informants were asked about their involvement with other government departments regarding Aboriginal activities and initiatives, as well as the effectiveness of this relationship.

Operational management and staff respondents reported improvements in collaborating with various government departments to provide culturally-appropriate interventions and services. Specifically, a large proportion of staff and management (56%; n = 51 and 59%; n = 41, respectively) respondents reported ‘some’ to ‘substantial’ improvement in collaborating with government departments or agencies.

Operational management and staff respondents reported improvements in collaborating with various government departments to provide culturally-appropriate interventions and services. Specifically, a large proportion of staff and management (56%; n = 51 and 59%; n = 41, respectively) respondents reported ‘some’ to ‘substantial’ improvement in collaborating with government departments or agencies.

Furthermore, of those who reported collaborating with other federal government departments on Aboriginal issues, the majority provided responses that indicated effective collaboration, while the remaining informants indicated collaboration that was less effective. Suggestions for improved collaboration included an enhanced focus on working groups and community development.

In summary, results from CSC staff members and key informant interviews indicated that collaboration has been occurring between CSC and other government departments regarding Aboriginal activities. Staff members reported improvements in collaborating with government entities to provide culturally-appropriate interventions and services. Many key informants also viewed the nature of this relationship as effective.

Aboriginal community engagement is identified as an essential component within SPAC. Survey data from CSC staff and management, key internal informants and Aboriginal community-based organizations were used to examine the nature of collaboration between these parties regarding Aboriginal initiatives. External stakeholders were identified by RAAIs and contacted by the evaluation team to participate in interviews. This group consisted largely of people from Aboriginal community organizations.

Staff and management respondents reported improvements in collaborating with Aboriginal organizations to provide culturally-appropriate interventions and services. Almost two-thirds of staff members (63%; n = 59) and more than three-quarters of management (83%; n = 60) respondents reported that ‘some’ to ‘substantial’ improvements had been made in collaborating with Aboriginal organizations.

The majority (90%; n = 38) of key internal informants reported collaborating with Aboriginal community groups on Aboriginal-specific files or activities. These agencies included: Aboriginal community services (45%; n = 17), friendship centres (32%; n = 12), Native Counselling Services of Alberta (21%; n = 8), Aboriginal committees (16%; n = 6) and Aboriginal band councils (13%; n = 5). Among interviewees who reported collaboration, most (76%; n = 29) described this collaboration as either ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ effective.

Although many internal informants provided favourable responses regarding the effectiveness of the collaboration with Aboriginal community organizations, most (86%; n = 36) indicated that the relationship could be strengthened or expanded. Some suggestions for CSC to enhance collaboration and improve engagement with communities included: establishing more community contacts and relationships (42%; n = 15); providing additional funding for Aboriginal-specific positions (e.g., ALOs, ACDOs and Elders) (17%; n = 6); and, enhancing CSC staff knowledge of communities through increased contact with local bands, post-secondary institutions, or Aboriginal organizations (14%; n = 5).

Additionally, contributions from the National Aboriginal Advisory Committee (NAAC) form another component of Aboriginal stakeholder engagement. In 1997, CSC formed the NAAC as required by the CCRA. The Committee’s membership includes nominations from national Aboriginal organizations and is chaired by CSC’s Commissioner. The Commissioner plays a key role in facilitating collaboration between CSC and its external stakeholders by serving as a forum where the chair receives advice and recommendations concerning the provision of correctional services to Aboriginal offenders. CSC is responsible for ensuring that the NAAC is informed of correctional programs and services, where the NAAC in turn provides CSC with advice, counsel and recommendations on policy, procedures, and interventions impacting Aboriginal offenders (CSC, 2008b).

Similar to the staff, management and internal interviewees, the majority (90%; n = 26) of external stakeholders also reported collaborating with CSC. Specifically, two-thirds (67%; n = 8) of those who reported their role as consultative in nature noted that they provided CSC with advice related to pre-sentencing and offender release planning activities. Moreover, 33% (n = 4) reported providing general advice on Aboriginal issues with some of this work being facilitated through stakeholders’ involvement with advisory boards and/or committees.

When external stakeholders were asked to assess the relationship and the level of collaboration between their organizations and CSC on Aboriginal corrections issues, 41% (n = 12) indicated that they had an excellent relationship and collaborated closely with CSC at various stages of an offender’s sentence. Approximately one-third (28%; n = 8) reported a good relationship, yet identified some challenges and areas for improvement. Nearly one-quarter (24%; n = 7) of external stakeholders reported a poor relationship with CSC, characterized by minimal amounts of contact, communication, and collaboration.^{Footnote 83}

In addition, external stakeholders identified a number of areas where collaboration between their organization and CSC benefited Aboriginal offenders, their organization and CSC.

Specifically, these included: providing offenders with a strong support network that assists in addressing their specific needs (70%; n = 19); contributing to offenders’ successful reintegration into the community (30%; n = 8); and, ensuring that Aboriginal offenders are provided with a healing path that is culturally-appropriate (19%; n = 5).

The majority (93%; n = 27) of stakeholder interviewees also noted the benefits their organizations received from collaborating with CSC. Stakeholders reported that they are provided the opportunity to assist Aboriginal offenders in areas regarded as important such as promoting cultural awareness within CSC (59%; n = 16) and enhancing the overall quality and availability of services and programs provided to Aboriginal offenders (33%; n = 9).

Furthermore, nearly all (97%; n = 28) external stakeholder interviewees noted that CSC has benefited from collaborating with their organizations. Specifically, responses indicated that they assist CSC in providing culturally-appropriate treatment, programs, and resources to Aboriginal offenders (71%; n = 20). As well, CSC gains additional knowledge from communities about the diversity of Aboriginal culture and history, which CSC can apply in correctional programming (32%; n = 9).

Similarly, the Healing Lodge evaluation (Didenko & Marquis, 2011) revealed several benefits associated with the reciprocal relationship between Healing Lodges and the community. In particular, it was found that many offenders on TAs participate in service work and/or cultural activities in the community, and the community benefits from having the Healing Lodge residents perform maintenance in the community. Moreover, the Healing Lodges provide volunteer and employment opportunities to community members which benefits all parties involved.

External stakeholders were specifically asked during the interviews to describe ways in which CSC has been successful in terms of responding to the needs of Aboriginal offenders, as well as identify any challenges encountered in collaborating with CSC on Aboriginal issues. Nearly all (90%, n = 26) stakeholders provided examples of how CSC has demonstrated success in responding to the needs of Aboriginal offenders. Specifically, more than one-third (34%; n = 10) noted that CSC has increased its efforts to meet the needs of Aboriginal offenders and ensure their successful reintegration; and half (50%; n = 13) identified that CSC has been doing well in collaborating with Aboriginal communities and seeking community input on Aboriginal correctional practice.

External stakeholders were also asked if they had experienced any challenges in collaborating with CSC on Aboriginal issues and many (76%; n = 22) noted these. Some of the challenges included: limited program funding and resources (32%; n = 7); lack of cultural understanding (32%; n = 7); staffing concerns (lack of staff, high turnover, insufficient staff training, and unclear roles and responsibilities) (27%; n = 6); and, inadequate communication (23%; n = 5). When asked whether these barriers had been addressed, 58% (n = 11) of stakeholders indicated that some had been addressed with little to some success, while 37% (n = 7) reported the issues had yet to be addressed.

Additionally, interviewees identified insufficient and ineffective information sharing between CSC and external stakeholders (57%; n = 16). When asked how this area could be improved, all (n = 16) identified that more communication and transparency were required both within CSC and among community organizations. Specifically, this included the need for more contact and/or meetings between organizations and key CSC personnel involved in assisting Aboriginal offenders, as well as for CSC to provide updates on larger issues such as policy changes, which affect the work of external stakeholder organizations.

The overall results from interviews suggest that positive collaboration is present between community organizations and CSC. As well, this collaboration has resulted in a number of identifiable benefits for Aboriginal offenders, external stakeholders and CSC.

Theme three of the report focuses on CSC’s corporate response to address systemic barriers. This section specifically examines CSC policies and legislation which support SPAC, as well as staff member’s knowledge and application of these; planning, reporting and accountability mechanisms implemented for the strategy; the number and availability of Aboriginal human resources operating within Aboriginal corrections (including Elders); as well as cultural competence among staff members.

3.1 Policies Supporting SPAC Objectives

This section examines relevant legislation and policies that have been implemented in support of SPAC’s goal to release Aboriginal offenders at the earliest possible time in their sentence. Specifically, this includes Sections 81 and 84 of the CCRA, CD 702: Aboriginal Offenders and many other relevant CDs.

Sections 81 and 84 of the CCRA define the provisions for offenders to be transferred to a community-operated Healing Lodge or released into an Aboriginal community, respectively. In the 2005-06 OCI Report, CSC was asked to “significantly increase the number of Aboriginal offenders appearing before the National Parole Board^{Footnote 84} at their earliest eligibility dates; and, build capacity for and increase the use of Sections 81 and 84 agreements with Aboriginal communities” (OCI, 2006).

One of the most comprehensive policies regarding Aboriginal offenders is CD 702. The objective for this CD is: “To contribute to rehabilitation, reintegration and public safety by providing clear and concise direction regarding CSC’s responsibility to respond to the specific needs of Aboriginal offenders through the provision of effective interventions” (CSC, 2008a). The directive outlines a multitude of specific responsibilities which are to be carried out through each stage of correctional supervision to ensure that culturally-appropriate interventions are available to Aboriginal offenders within the Continuum of Care. In addition to implementing CD 702 specifically for the needs of Aboriginal offenders, CSC has integrated Aboriginal components within various CDs^{Footnote 85} pertaining to correctional planning and offender case management, where Aboriginal status should be considered in the decision making process.

The majority of staff and management respondents indicated that they were ‘moderately’ to ‘very’ familiar with the policies and procedures contained within CD 702 (81%; n = 84 and 86%; n = 64, respectively), as well as with Section 81 (68%; n = 72 and 75%; n = 57, respectively) and Section 84 (75%; n = 80 and 80%; n = 61, respectively) of the CCRA. Most staff and management (72%; n = 67 and 88%; n = 65, respectively) respondents indicated that CSC has shown improvement in establishing clear policies and procedures to guide the implementation of Aboriginal-specific interventions and services.

Although staff members reported an awareness of policies and legislation, qualitative responses from the management survey identified challenges in the areas of Aboriginal-specific policy application and case management (57%; n = 39). In particular, these included: a lack of common understanding/interpretation of guidelines and procedures for correctional planning (32%; n = 22); and, the untimely and inconsistent completion of assessments, reviews, and Healing Plans by Elders and staff members (19%; n = 13) as was discussed in Theme One.

Additionally, recent audits have identified compliance issues with Section 81 and Section 84 processes. CSC’s Audit of Pre-release Decision Making within the Case Preparation and Release Framework (CSC, 2011e) and the Audit of Offender Intake Assessment (2009c) found that the overall compliance rate for all CSC policy items was approximately 80% “when excluding the unique assessments completed for Aboriginals” (CSC, 2009c). When examining evidence of compliance with Aboriginal-specific policies, the rates of compliance were much lower. Specifically, auditors found lower rates of compliance in the following areas: integration of Section 84 release plans into reports (25%); working collaboratively with the ACDO and community representatives in preparing Section 84 releases (36%); and, evidence of consultation with the ACDO (25%) and Elders (11%; CSC, 2011e). Similarly, the Audit of Offender Intake Assessment found low compliance rates for Aboriginal-specific policy requirements (39%) and Aboriginal social history (36%; CSC, 2009c).

In summary, policy to support the functioning of SPAC has been established and is articulated in CD 702 and in many other policies. Staff and management report being aware of these policies and procedures; yet some concerns were identified in the areas of Aboriginal-specific policy application, case management and compliance with policy requirements.

CSC’s third corporate priority strives for “enhanced capacities to provide effective interventions for First Nations, Métis and Inuit offenders.” As such, the Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP), Departmental Performance Report (DPR), Strategy for Aboriginal Corrections Accountability Framework: Template for Results Reporting and Monitoring and the Aboriginal Corrections Accountability Framework Year End Report report on the current status of Aboriginal offenders within federal corrections and monitor the expected results of SPAC.

In the RPP from FY 2006-07 to 2011-12 (CSC, 2006d; CSC, 2011f), CSC articulates its commitment concerning Aboriginal corrections. In accordance with these reports, CSC is committed to reducing the gap in correctional results between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders by identifying initiatives and activities to bridge the gap. The DPR outlines CSC's achievements against the planned performance expectations and commitments as set out in CSC's RPP. The DPR plays a key role in the planning, monitoring, evaluating and reporting of results, and has tracked some of the SPAC key results.^Footnote86

Another important accountability tool is the Strategy for Aboriginal Corrections Accountability Framework (2009). The Framework was created to operationalize the intended objectives of SPAC, as well as measure, monitor and report on results. It also lists SPAC’s expected intermediate results for the next five years (as listed in Table 2). Following the Framework was the Template for Results Reporting and Monitoring (2009d) which specified the necessary actions and anticipated results in the short, medium and long-term to eliminate the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders’ correctional results. The tool also includes timelines for actions and expected results for 2009 and future years.

Recently, the Aboriginal Corrections Accountability Framework Year End Report (2011) was released internally byAID. This report included data results for specific indicators identified within Aboriginal corrections.

Despite having established reporting mechanisms, it is important to note that the Year End Report revealed a number of limitations. Specifically, the report acknowledged that “CSC’s capacity to report on progress in this area [the Aboriginal Continuum of Care] is somewhat limited but improving.”AID explained that despite the addition of the OMS screens in 2008, which were designed to capture data concerning Aboriginal offenders’ involvement in the Continuum of Care interventions (e.g., Elder Reviews, Pathways, Sections 81 and 84, etc.), appropriate utilization of these screens varies from region to region, thereby impacting the quality of the data extracted and subsequently reported on. Perhaps related to the limitations identified byAID, concerns were noted by the evaluation team surrounding the descriptive nature of the data presented in the report. In addition, limited information was provided on analyses that would demonstrate the correctional outcomes of Aboriginal offenders who participated in specific Continuum of Care interventions, and no data was offered concerning rates of Section 84 releases and offenders’ success on this type of release.

Although monitoring, reporting and accountability mechanisms have been implemented, the above suggests that improved efforts made at the site level to ensure that complete and accurate data entry is occurring would enhance CSC’s ability to report on the correctional outcomes of Aboriginal offenders participating in Continuum of Care initiatives.

The representation of Aboriginal peoples among CSC employees is an important component of SPAC’s third objective to “address systemic barriers internally and increase CSC cultural competence” (CSC, 2006a). Within this evaluation, representation of Aboriginal employees was measured against workforce availability (WFA). The Public Service Commission of Canada defines WFA as following:

The WFA for Aboriginal peoples employed within CSC was set higher than that of the core public administration as a whole (6% vs. 3%) because the proportion of Aboriginal peoples was higher in the areas where CSC workplaces are located (CSC, 2010e; TBS, 2009b).^{Footnote 88} WFA was calculated for each of CSC’s regions by TBS, and as shown in Table 13, Aboriginal representation met or exceeded the WFA estimates in all regions excluding the Prairie Region. The Prairie Region had a significantly higher WFA estimate than the other regions because of the higher population of Aboriginal residents in the province and communities surrounding CSC’s facilities.

In a ten year period (FY 2000-01 to 2009-10 inclusively),^{Footnote 89} the number of Aboriginal employees^{Footnote 90} within CSC increased by 74% (792 to 1,377). This increased the Aboriginal representation within CSC from 6% in FY 2000-01 to 8% in FY 2009-10, exceeding the national CSC WFA. Within the same timeframe, NHQ demonstrated the largest increase in Aboriginal employees, followed by the Atlantic and Ontario Regions respectively (see APPENDIX K for regional breakdown).

In 2009-10, the majority of Aboriginal people employed by CSC were found in four classification groups: Correctional Services (CX), Welfare Programmes (WP), Administrative Services (AS), and Clerical and Regulatory (CR). These four groups also constituted the largest classification groups for all CSC employees. Also, within the same ten year timeframe (2000-01 to 2009-10), there was an increase in the number of Aboriginal employees occupying management positions within CSC (227%; 37 to 121). Furthermore, while there were only 10 Aboriginal employees in executive (EX) positions in 2010, this was an increase from four at the end of 2000-01 and met the national WFA of 5.2% for the CSC EX classification (see APPENDIX L for additional details).

3.2.3 Aboriginal-Specific Positions at CSC

According to HRMS data, CSC currently staffs approximately 200 Aboriginal-specific positions nation-wide, including ACDOs, ACPOs, ALOs and ACLOs^{Footnote 91} (refer to the Program Profile section for a description of these positions). Of CSC’s 57 institutions, at least one Aboriginal-specific position existed at 50 of these sites. ^{Footnote 92} As shown in Figure 5, two-thirds (66%; n = 125) of all Aboriginal-specific positions were active and filled in 2011, where more than half (57%; n = 71) of these were for ALO positions. It is important to note however that some of the Aboriginal positions had never been filled, had been vacant for some time, or were now considered inactive positions.^{Footnote 93 Footnote 94}

Figure 5

Source: HRMS (2011).

In addition, the majority of all active, filled Aboriginal-specific positions were found in the Prairie Region (38%; n = 48), followed by the Pacific (24%; n = 30) and Ontario Regions (22%; n = 27; see Figure 6).

Figure 6

Source: HRMS (2011)

Elder Availability

Elders work on a contractual basis with CSC and are not technically CSC employees. Following the implementation of SPAC, CSC has increased offender access to Elders by increasing the number of contracted Elders. Since the 2008-09 FY, ^{Footnote 95}CSC has entered into contract with approximately 297 Elders, 89% of which were full-time contracts^{Footnote 96} and 11% were part-time contracts. The regional breakdown of Elders working within CSC is provided in Table 14.

Source:AID (2011).

Funding allocations for Elder positions are determined byAID and are based on an Elder to Aboriginal offender ratio, where the following allocations are applied (see Table 15).

Source:AID (2011).

When questioned on the availability of Elders, more than half (57%; n = 59) of offenders who met with an Elder noted that the amount of time they spend with the Elder was sufficient. Of the offenders that felt they required more time with the Elder (43%; n = 44), many reported they would benefit from additional ceremonies (32%; n = 14), teachings (23%; n = 10), and one-on-one meetings (20%; n = 9).

Nearly half (46%; n = 31) of management respondents identified challenges regarding the availability and recruitment of Elders. Elder interviewees also noted some issues surrounding their ability to perform expected duties. Many agreed that the resources necessary to support Elder services are not always readily available (i.e., ceremonial objects/ instruments, office space, Aboriginal-specific staff), and security considerations often make it difficult to perform certain activities or ceremonies. Similar findings were noted during the observations, where most sites presented a lack of designated office space for Elders to perform their routine activities (e.g., interview offenders for Elder Reviews, conduct one-on-one counselling, complete paperwork, etc.).

ALO Services

ALOs provide a support function to Elders and assist them with Elder Reviews, Healing Plans and with the use of OMS. They also plan and facilitate Aboriginal-specific activities in addition to a variety of other necessary functions (for a detailed position description, refer to the introduction section). Given that ALOs often provide a bridge between offenders and non-Aboriginal staff, they also serve a vital function to Aboriginal offenders.

The number of ALO positions allocated to each institution is based on the Aboriginal offender population within the institution. Funding allocations for ALO FTEs have been determined, where the following formula is applied: 0.5 FTE (costed out at WP-03 level) for 12.5 Aboriginal offenders and 0.5 supplementary FTE for each additional 25 Aboriginal offenders. If there are fewer than 12 Aboriginal offenders at the institution there will not be an ALO provided to assist the Elder and respond to the specific cultural needs of offenders. Without an ALO, a gap in service could result where Aboriginal offenders may not have access to cultural/traditional interventions, Elder Reviews or Healing Plans.

3.2.4 Cultural Competence throughout CSC

Developing and enhancing cultural competence among staff members is one of the key objectives of SPAC. CSC policy states that staff members working with Aboriginal offenders, as well as with certain Aboriginal-specific interventions (i.e., Pathways Units and Healing Lodges) require an appropriate level of cultural competence and this competence is a consideration during the recruitment and hiring process (CSC 2008a). As well, CSC’s Transformation Agenda has highlighted the continued importance of acquiring and maintaining culturally competent staff, outlining the various initiatives that have been implemented to foster this (CSC, 2010b). CSC has defined cultural competence as the:

A large proportion (90%; n = 95) of staff survey respondents reported that they directly supervise or work with Aboriginal offenders and just over half (52%; n = 55) self-identified as an Aboriginal person. The majority of staff and management surveyed indicated that they were ‘moderately’ to ‘very’ familiar with Aboriginal culture, teachings and ceremonies (76%; n = 81 and 80%; n = 61, respectively), as well as with culturally-sensitive approaches to working with Aboriginal offenders (79%; n = 84 and 82%; n = 62, respectively). When asked to assess their own level of cultural competence, the majority (86%; n = 89) of respondents rated themselves as having a ‘medium’ to ‘very high’ level of cultural competence.

The majority of staff and management also noted that CSC has improved in developing cultural awareness (i.e., sensitivity and understanding) on Aboriginal issues (68%; n = 65 and 83%; n = 63, respectively). Most (54%; n = 41) management respondents also reported that staff members were culturally sensitive to the needs of Aboriginal offenders in their institution/district/office.

Despite the above findings for this evaluation, cultural competence was identified as an issue within the Healing Lodge evaluation (Didenko & Marquis, 2011). Specifically, staff and management members interviewed for that evaluation noted that not all staff members understood the history and the vision behind Healing Lodges and/or followed Aboriginal traditions. Healing Lodge residents also agreed with these findings, where they expressed that it was staff members’ limited understanding of, and connection to, Aboriginal culture that resulted in staff members not being supportive of the traditional healing methods used in the Healing Lodge. As such, several key informants suggested the need for increased Aboriginal awareness training for Healing Lodge personnel. The need to develop staffing procedures that assess cultural awareness and competence was also noted.

CSC Cultural Awareness and Cultural Sensitivity Training

CSC has demonstrated notable efforts in educating employees on various aspects of Aboriginal corrections, culture, and the achievements of Aboriginal employees within the Service. Various mandatory training courses are offered by CSC for specific groups within operations (e.g., Correctional Officers, Primary Workers and Parole Officers) which include Aboriginal-specific components.

The Correctional Training Program (CTP) is part of the initial pre-hiring training for Correctional Officer trainees and provides information on how CSC is responding to the challenges of the increasing Aboriginal offender population (CSC, 2008c). The Parole Officer Continuous Development (POCD) training also incorporates Aboriginal-specific components. The POCD provides parole officers with an overview of CD 702, describes Aboriginal-specific interventions, discusses the importance of collecting social history information on Aboriginal offenders, and how various cultures exhibit different non-verbal cues and understanding/ evaluating what these represent (CSC, 2005). The Parole Officer Structured Decision Making Training highlights the importance of taking into consideration responsivity issues such as, ethnicity, culture and gender during the initial assessment and for program assignment.

Facilitators and Elders responsible for delivering the Aboriginal Offender Correctional Programs must complete initial training specific to these programs and do not complete the mainstream initial training. In addition, the Women-Centered training for those working with women offenders also contains Aboriginal components.

As well, CSC seeks to increase staff cultural competence through the Aboriginal Perceptions Training: First Nations, Inuit and Métis Perceptions course. The course is delivered internally in CSC and is primarily for front-line parole officers (CSC, 2007c). HRMS data showed that within the SPAC period, a total of 768 CSC employees had completed the Aboriginal Perceptions Training course. In addition to Aboriginal Perceptions Training, staff members reported other forms of Aboriginal sensitivity or awareness training including: conferences (43%; n = 19); participation in Aboriginal cultural teachings, ceremonies, or cultural events (16%; n = 7); and, education or self-teachings (16%; n = 7). Other training related to Aboriginal culture is available through the Canada School of Public Service (CSPS); however it was found that only 30 CSC employees had taken one of these courses between FYs 2005-06 and 2009-10.

Finally, in addition to the more formal training options, CSC also uses awareness campaigns as another method to foster cultural sensitivity among staff members. These are communicated through CSC’s news site, News@Work^{Footnote 97}, where articles on Aboriginal events and achievements are regularly shared with CSC employees.

Over two-thirds (69%; n = 24) of survey respondents at the executive level within CSC (EX classification) reported that their performance agreement included a commitment to enhance cultural competence among staff members and more than half (55%; n = 35) of management respondents reported that their institution/ district/ office provided annual Aboriginal cultural awareness training for staff members.

Although nearly half (46%; n = 47) of staff agreed that they had received adequate training to provide interventions and services to Aboriginal offenders, a high proportion (38%; n = 39) reported the contrary. Additionally, the majority (70%; n = 49) of management respondents also indicated that there is a need for more frequent Aboriginal awareness training within their institution.

The need for enhanced cultural competence was further identified during key informant interviews. Specifically, respondents described a lack of cultural understanding and differentiation between First Nations, Métis, and Inuit populations. Approximately one-third (32%; n = 13) of internal key informants noted a need for more staff training, where some identified the need for cultural sensitivity training regarding First Nations, Métis, and Inuit populations.

Results from the 2011 Public Service Employee Survey (PSES) indicated that a slightly higher proportion of Aboriginal CSC employees (33%) reported being discriminated against compared to non-Aboriginal employees (21%; TBS, 2012). When comparing the 2008 and 2011 survey results, fewer CSC employees in the recent survey reported feeling discriminated against (TBS, 2012, TBS, 2009b), which can be viewed as a step in the right direction. As well, the majority of CSC Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal employees agreed that their department works hard to create a workplace that prevents discrimination (59% and 66%, respectively) (TBS, 2012).

In summary, enhancing cultural awareness and competence within CSC is understood as a priority. As such, CSC employees can access a number of opportunities to increase Aboriginal cultural awareness and competence. Respondents noted that CSC has made improvements in developing this area, and generally, CSC staff and management members self-reported high levels of cultural competence. However, some respondents identified a lack of cultural understanding and differentiation between First Nations, Métis, and Inuit populations. Findings seem to suggest that staff members would benefit from additional training on aspects of Aboriginal-specific service delivery, including Aboriginal-specific initiatives and the application of Aboriginal-specific case management strategies.

As identified earlier in the report, concerns surrounding the overrepresentation of Aboriginal peoples in the Canadian correctional system have been well documented in the literature. In addition, a number of correctional gaps between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders have consistently been highlighted throughout the years. In light of these disparities, SPAC was implemented with the ultimate objective of closing the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders. Although the impact of SPAC on the various correctional indicators was intended to occur over a longer timeframe (i.e., over a 10 year period), the evaluation team conducted a preliminary examination of the extent to which the gap between the two populations has changed following the implementation of SPAC.^{Footnote 98} Analyses^{Footnote 99} were conducted on the overall Aboriginal offender population regardless of their participation in the Continuum of Care. A more thorough examination of the reduction in the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders will be undertaken over the next five years as part of the Aboriginal Corrections Accountability Framework.

4.1 Aboriginal Offenders under CSC Supervision

Although CSC is not responsible for the number of Aboriginal offenders that enter the correctional system, a reduction in the overrepresentation of Aboriginal offenders is a desired long term objective that can be impacted by the collaborative initiatives undertaken by SPAC. To date, analyses revealed that the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men offenders has remained; they have spent consistently more time in an institution throughout their sentence than non-Aboriginal offenders and no improvements were found in reducing the overall proportion of time spent by Aboriginal offenders in the correctional system. As for women offenders, the overall gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders regarding the proportion of incarcerated time (vs. community time) has decreased (3%) since SPAC, although the rate has increased in the last year and recently reached higher levels than seen in the pre SPAC period (see Figure 7).

Figure 7: Percentages of Institutional Time (vs. Community Time) Spent by Aboriginal Men (left) and Women (right) Offenders

Source: OMS (2011).

Aboriginal offenders are more often classified at the medium or maximum security levels (86%) than non-Aboriginal offenders (79%; Public Safety Canada, 2010). Select initiatives deployed under SPAC were aimed at reducing the number of Aboriginal offenders initially classified at higher levels.

Results from analyses indicated that the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders regarding the rates of security level increases has remained similar from pre to post SPAC. Although the rate of security level increases has declined among Aboriginal offenders, men and women, they continue to show higher rates of security increase than non-Aboriginal offenders (see Figure 8).

Figure 8: Institutional Security Level Classification Increases^{Footnote 100} Among Aboriginal Men (Left) and Women (Right) Offenders

Source: OMS (2011).

No substantial gap was found between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men offenders in terms of security level decrease, whether pre or post SPAC (see Figure 9). As for Aboriginal women offenders, they have consistently experienced higher rates of security decrease than non-Aboriginal women offenders, indicating a favourable outcome for Aboriginal women. However, as mentioned previously, visual analysis seems to suggest that since the implementation of SPAC, the rates of security decreases for Aboriginal women offenders have declined. That said, the inability to perform statistical analyses,^{Footnote 101} paired with the non-significant trends found in the men’s gap, warrant caution when interpreting this finding. Overall, no improvements have been observed in terms of reducing the rates of medium and maximum security level classifications among Aboriginal offenders. In fact, more Aboriginal offenders are maintaining their initial security classification, thus perpetuating the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders.

Figure 9: Institutional Security Level Classification Decreases^{Footnote 102} Among Aboriginal Men (Left) and Women (Right) Offenders

Source: OMS (2011).

4.3 Day and Full Parole Review Cancellations (Waivers and Withdrawals)^{Footnote 103}

A comparison of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men offender rates of parole waivers and withdrawals revealed that the gap between the two groups has remained similar from pre to post SPAC. As seen in Figure 10, Aboriginal men offenders have consistently had higher proportions of day and full parole review cancelations than non-Aboriginal men offenders.

Figure 10: Percentages of Day and Full Parole Review Cancelations (Waivers and Withdrawals) among Men Offenders

Source: OMS (2011).

As for women, the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders has increased (7%) since the implementation of SPAC with respect to the percentage of day parole review cancelations (see Figure 11). However, the gap has decreased between the average percentage of full parole review cancellations for Aboriginal women offenders and non-Aboriginal women offenders, pre and post SPAC, indicating an improvement.

Figure 11: Percentages of Day and Full Parole Review Cancelations (Waivers and Withdrawals) among Women Offenders

Source: OMS (2011).

In sum, there has been an increase in the proportion of day parole waivers and withdrawals since the implementation of SPAC, whereas slight improvements were made in reducing the proportion of full parole cancellations. Regardless, the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders remained similar throughout the pre and post SPAC periods, with the exception of day parole review cancellations among women offenders, which increased.

The evaluation team examined Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offender releases to identify trends in release types throughout the pre and post SPAC periods. A comparison of the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offender release rates revealed that the gap between the two groups has increased among men (4% for day and 1% for full parole) and women (5% for day and 2% for full parole) offenders since the implementation of SPAC (see Figure 12 and Figure 13). Specifically, prior to SPAC, the percentage of Aboriginal offenders having been granted day and full parole was lower than that of non-Aboriginal offenders. Since the implementation, this difference has further increased, resulting in even lower rates among Aboriginal offenders.

Figure 12: Percentages of Day and Full Parole Releases among Men Offenders

Source: OMS (2011).

Figure 13: Percentages of Day and Full Parole Releases among Women Offenders

Source: OMS (2011).

Similarly, a higher proportion of Aboriginal offenders were released on statutory release in comparison to non-Aboriginal offenders prior to SPAC. This difference was further amplified for men (9%) and women (7%) following the implementation, thereby resulting in a decline of Aboriginal offenders being conditionally released (see Figure 14).

Figure 14: Percentages of Statutory Releases among Men (left) and Women (right) Offenders

Source: OMS (2011).

Aboriginal men offenders were released on WED in a higher percentage than non-Aboriginal offenders, but this gap decreased (4%) following the implementation of SPAC^{Footnote 104}. Aboriginal men offenders are now presenting WED release rates that are more comparable to those of non-Aboriginal men offenders. In the case of women offenders, although the gap was decreasing (2%) around the time of SPAC’s implementation, it has been steadily increasing ever since (see Figure 15).

Figure 15: Percentages of WED Releases among Men (left) and Women (right) Offenders

Source: OMS (2011).

The conditional release failure rates of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders were examined as an indicator of community correctional outcome. Analyses indicated that the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men offenders has significantly increased for both rates of any conditional release failure (29 to 35) and technical conditional release failure (21 to 26) from pre to post SPAC. More precisely, prior to SPAC, Aboriginal men offenders experienced conditional release failure (any and technical) in higher proportions than non-Aboriginal men offenders, as shown in Figure 16. Since the implementation of SPAC, Aboriginal rates have further increased, thereby increasing the gap between the two groups.

Figure 16: Rates of Conditional Release Failure (Any and Technical) among Men Offenders

Source:OMS (2011).

Contrary to men offenders, a visual analysis of rates among women offenders indicated that the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal women offenders has decreased for any conditional release failure (43 to 30) and for technical conditional release failure (35 to 23) from pre to post SPAC. Specifically, the rates of both types of conditional release failure among Aboriginal women have decreased following the implementation of SPAC. Although these rates are still higher among Aboriginal women offenders, the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal women offenders seems to have closed (see Figure 17).

Figure 17: Rates of Conditional Release Failure (Any and Technical) among Women Offenders

Source: OMS (2011).

No difference was found from pre to post SPAC in the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders in terms of rates of conditional release failure with a new offence. Aboriginal offenders have presented higher rates of conditional release failure with a new offence all through the timeframe examined, thus maintaining the gap.

The evaluation team examined trends in risk and need profiles of Aboriginal offenders compared to non-Aboriginal offenders during the time SPAC was implemented compared to non-Aboriginal offenders presenting similar risk and need characteristics.^{Footnote 105} As presented in Table 16, results indicated that over the course of their sentence, Aboriginal men offenders were more likely to show an improvement in their overall need, risk, motivation and reintegration potential ratings as well as in five of the seven criminogenic needs ratings when compared to non-Aboriginal offenders presenting similar characteristics at release. Aboriginal men offenders were also less likely than the comparison group of non Aboriginal offenders to experience a decline in their reintegration potential and family/marital need ratings. Significant improvements were not found among Aboriginal women offenders as they presented an equal likelihood to improve as a comparison group of non-Aboriginal women offenders with similar ratings at release. The low number of Aboriginal women in our sample may account for these non-significant results. Nonetheless, this finding suggests that the correctional interventions that specifically target Aboriginal offenders’ high needs and risks, particularly for men, may be responsible for their discernible progress.

EFFICIENCY: The extent to which resources are used such that a greater level of output is produced with the same level of input or, a lower level of input is used to produce the same level of output (TBS, 2009a).

To measure CSC’s efficiency in providing Aboriginal interventions and programs, the evaluation team examined several initiatives under SPAC to determine if the planned outputs were maximized in relation to financial resources used. Specifically, efficiency was examined for the Aboriginal national correctional programs and Healing Lodges (Section 81).^{Footnote 106}

1.1 Aboriginal-Specific National Correctional Programs

A total of $16,049,993 was spent on providing Aboriginal-specific national correctional programs over the first five years of SPAC. A yearly breakdown of spending is provided below in Table 18.

Source: IFMMS (2012).

Efficiency of Aboriginal-specific national correctional programs was measured using the proportion of program costs allocated to actual completion of the program in comparison to costs associated to program non-completion, including population management^{Footnote 107} and program drop outs.

Figure 18

As shown in Figure 18, the majority of costs allocated to Aboriginal national correctional programs resulted in program completion, where the proportion of completions for the various programs ranged from 78 to 86%. Approximately one-fifth of resources were associated with program non-completion, whether due to population management or program drop out. These cost allocations are comparable to those of mainstream national correctional programs reported in a previous evaluation of CSC’s Correctional Programs (Nafekh et al., 2009).

1.2 Healing Lodges

The efficiency of Healing Lodges was measured using financial information obtained from COMO, the signed agreements, as well as bed occupancy rates. Results reported in Chapter One of the SPAC evaluation, Aboriginal Healing Lodges (Didenko & Marquis, 2011), determined that Section 81 Healing Lodges were found to be comparable to minimum security institutions in terms of cost per offender and a more cost-efficient option when compared to CSC-operated Healing Lodges and multi-level security institutions for women. Given that some Healing Lodges (CSC-operated and Section 81) are not operating at full capacity (see APPENDIX G for details), opportunities to improve their efficiency were found by increasing the number of offenders transferred to these facilities. Although this is a simplistic solution, several obstacles limited the potential number of offenders being transferred to Healing Lodges. The main obstacles identified in the Healing Lodge evaluation (Didenko & Marquis, 2011) pertained to Aboriginal offenders not having the appropriate security classification and the remote location of Healing Lodges. These factors must be taken into account in determining a strategy to enhance the efficiency of certain Healing Lodges.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS: : Cost-effectiveness determines the relationship between the resources spent and the results achieved relative to alternative design and delivery approaches.

As articulated in previous chapters, various initiatives provided by SPAC have demonstrated effectiveness in enhancing correctional results among Aboriginal offenders regarding prolonged stay in the community upon discretionary release. In order to establish the value for money of these initiatives, the evaluation team examined the cost of delivering the activities in relation to the effectiveness indicators measured. Specifically, the evaluation established cost-effectiveness for the Aboriginal-specific national correctional violence prevention program, ISOYW, and Section 84 releases.

2.1 Aboriginal-Specific Correctional Violence Prevention Program

Analyses pertaining to effectiveness of Aboriginal-specific national correctional programs found that Aboriginal offenders who participated in the violence prevention program ISOYW were almost twice as likely to be granted discretionary release and had a lower rate of conditional release failure than their non-participant counterparts.^{Footnote 108} Given the reduced cost of maintaining an offender in the community in comparison to in the institution, these results provide a significant opportunity for cost savings.

As presented in Table 18, CSC has spent $3,413,943 to fund the ISOYW program in the five CSC regions. This has resulted in 621 program enrolments since FY 2006-07 (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders included). Therefore, the program cost per participant is estimated at $5,497.49. By contrasting the institutional and community COMO, it was determined that offenders having participated in ISOYW would have to maintain their conditional release for 24 days longer than offenders who were assigned but never enrolled in order for the cost of the program to become beneficial (see APPENDIX P for formula). For each additional day an offender would stay in the community following this threshold, CSC would save an average of $227.83 (see APPENDIX Q for breakdown of days and per institutional level). It is interesting to note that on average, Aboriginal offenders who participated in the program and were granted discretionary release were released 71 days earlier due to their participation^{Footnote 109} and remained 361 days (SD = 302.17) in the community under CSC supervision.^{Footnote 110} This results in a significant cost savings for CSC.

2.2 Section 84 Release Initiative

Over the last five fiscal years, CSC has spent $3,772,123^{Footnote 111} to fund the Section 84 release initiative in the five CSC regions. This has resulted in 92 successful Section 84 release plans being carried out since FY 2006-07.

It was found that Aboriginal offenders released to an Aboriginal community through Section 84 releases presented lower rates of conditional release failure than Aboriginal offenders discretionarily released, but not through the Section 84 process. To establish the cost saving associated with the effectiveness of Section 84 releases, the evaluation team determined the number of days that an offender would have to stay in the community on discretionary release to account for the cost of ACDOs’ involvement in their case work. By contrasting the institutional and community COMO, it was determined that offenders having been released through Section 84 would have to maintain their conditional release for 180 days longer than offenders released through regular discretionary release in order for the cost of the ACDO initiative to become beneficial (see APPENDIX P for formula). For each additional day an offender would stay in the community following this threshold, CSC would save an average of $227.83 (see APPENDIX Q for breakdown of days and per institutional level). It is interesting to note that on average, offenders released through Section 84 have remained 545 days (SD = 410.31) in the community under CSC supervision.^{Footnote 112} This results in a substantial cost savings for CSC.

The ACDO evaluation (Jensen & Nafekh, 2009b) found that many Section 84 plans were initiated but not completed. Thus, these plans are not presented to PBC and an unknown proportion of plans that could have been approved are not. If a higher proportion of initiated plans would be completed and presented to PBC, this would result in additional successful plans being approved for parole. This would certainly enhance the cost-effectiveness of Section 84 releases and ACDOs.

During the first five years following the implementation of SPAC, CSC has made progress in achieving the strategy’s key objectives. An Aboriginal Continuum of Care, including culturally-specific correctional assessments, programs and interventions, is now available to Aboriginal offenders interested in following a cultural path. Collaborative initiatives and relationships exist between the various CSC sectors, inter-governmental departments and Aboriginal community organizations. Policies and legislation have been developed, implemented and integrated within CSC’s correctional practices to address the systematic barriers that affect Aboriginal offenders. Although it is early to determine the overall impact of SPAC on the Aboriginal offender population, several individual initiatives comprised in the Strategy have demonstrated enhanced correctional outcomes with respect to discretionary release grants and/or conditional release failure among Aboriginal offender participants (i.e., Aboriginal violence prevention program, Healing Lodges, cultural ETA, Section 84 releases – see Table 19 for summary of results). Various areas of improvement were identified to better meet the needs of Aboriginal offenders. Efforts should be made to ensure that all SPAC initiatives available to Aboriginal offenders are delivered in a way that is truly responsive to their cultural needs and translate into enhanced correctional results. A focus should be placed on initiatives that have demonstrated correctional results and options should be explored to enhance results for interventions that have shown limited or no correctional outcomes. Future evaluations should explore participation in multiple interventions within the continuum of care to determine if there is a combined or cumulative treatment effect. Finally, collaboration with Aboriginal communities and organizations should be further enhanced to expand the development of community supports to facilitate offender rehabilitation during incarceration and offender transition following release.

Alaska Department of Corrections (2009). 2009 Offender Profile. Alaska, US: Division of Administrative Services, Alaska Department of Corrections. Retrieved from: www.correct.state.ak.us/corrections/admin/docs/profile2009final.pdf.

Andrews, D. A., Bonta., J. & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.

Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2006). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (4th Ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis/ Matthew Bender.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2009). Year Book, Australia. Canberra, Australia: Australia Bureau of Statistics, Commonwealth of Australia.

Bonta, J., Lipinski, S., & Martin, M. (1992). The characteristics of Aboriginal recidivists. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 34 (3-4), 517-521.

Bonta, J., Rugge, T. & Dauvergne, M. (2003). The Reconviction Rate of Federal Offenders: 2003-02. (Cat. No.: JS42-100/2002E-IN). Ottawa, ON: Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c.20.

Correctional Service Canada (2005). Parole Officer Continuous Development. Ottawa ON: Author

Correctional Service Canada (2006a). Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections: Innovation, Learning & Adjustment: 2006-07 to 2010-11. Ottawa, ON: Internal Document.

Correctional Service Canada (2006b). Work Description: Aboriginal Liaison Officer. Unpublished internal document: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2006c). Commissioner's Directive 700: Correctional Interventions. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2006d). 2006-2007 Report on Plans and Priorities. Ottawa, ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Correctional Service Canada. (2007). Commissioner’s Directive 705-6: Correctional Planning and Criminal Profile. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2008a). Commissioner’s Directive 702: Aboriginal Offenders. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2008b). Correctional Service of Canada National Advisory Committee Terms of Reference draft. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2008c). Correctional Training Program. Ottawa ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2008d) 2007-2008 Departmental Performance Report. Ottawa, ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Correctional Service Canada (2008e) OMS Bulletin: Aboriginal Enhancements. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service of Canada (2009a). The Changing Federal Offender Population- Aboriginal Offender Highlights 2009. Available at: http://infonet/Sectors/PolicyStrategy/Research/publications2.htm?lang=en.

Correctional Service Canada (2009b). Strategy for Aboriginal Corrections Accountability Framework. Ottawa, ON: Aboriginal Initiatives Directorate, Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2009c). Audit of Offender Intake Assessment. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2009d). Template for Results Reporting and Monitoring. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2010a). Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections Evaluation: Terms of Reference. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2010b). The Transformation Agenda: Report on Key Elements of the Correctional Continuum. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2010c). Commissioner’s Directive 705-5: Supplementary intake assessments. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2010d). Commissioner’s Directive 710-3: Temporary Absences and Work Releases. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2010e). 2009-2010 Departmental Performance Report. Ottawa, ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Correctional Service Canada (2010f). Snapshot of Employment Equity at Correctional Service Canada, Internal Document

Correctional Service Canada (2011a). Aboriginal Corrections Accountability Framework, Year End Report 2010-2011. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2011b). 2010-2011 Departmental Performance Report. Ottawa, ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Correctional Service Canada (2011c). Northern Corrections Framework, Ottawa, ON: Author

Correctional Service Canada (2011d). Our priorities http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/organi/prio-eng.shtml. Accessed December 15, 2011

Correctional Service Canada (2011e). Audit of Pre-release Decision Making within the Case Preparation and Release Framework. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2011f). 2011-2012 Report on Plans and Priorities. Ottawa, ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Correctional Service Canada (2012a). Commissioner’s Directive 705-2: Information Collection. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2012b). Commissioner’s Directive 712-1: Pre-Release Decision Making. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2012c) OMS Bulletin: Additions to the Departure Reason Table in OMS. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (n.d.) Work Description: Aboriginal Community Liaison Officer.Unpublished internal document, Author.

Dehejia, R.H., &n Wahba, S. (2002). Propensity score-matching method for non-experimental casusal studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(1), pgs.151-161

Delveaux, K., Stys, Y., Batten, D., Li, H., Pepin, M., Williams, M., Nolan, A., & Teworte, P. (2007). Evaluation Report: Section 81 Agreement between the O-Chi-Chak_Ko-Sipi First Nation and the Correctional Service of Canada- O-Chi-Chak-Ko-Sipi Healing Lodge. (File # 394-2-70). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). “A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works!” Criminology, 34, 575-607.

Gobeil, R. & Robeson Barrett, M. (2007). Rates of Recidivism for Women Offenders. (Cat. No.: R-192). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Governor General (2011). Speech from the Throne-Here for all Canadians: stability, prosperity, security. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Grant, B.A. & Gal, M. (1998). Case Management Preparation for Release and Day Parole Outcome. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Grant, B. A.& Johnston, S. L. (1998). Personal Development Temporary Absences. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Hawaii Department of Public Safety (2009). 2008 Annual Report. Honolulu, HI: Author.

Jensen, T., & Nafekh, M. (2009a).Evaluation Report: Pathways Healing Units, (File #394-2-77). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Jensen, T., & Nafekh, M. (2009b). Evaluation Report: Aboriginal Community Development Officers, (File #394-2-85). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Johnson, S. (2005). Returning to Correctional Services after release: A profile of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal adults involved in Saskatchewan Corrections from 1999/00 to 2003/04. Juristat, 25(2). Catalogue No. 85-002-XIE. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.

Luong, D., Nafekh, M, Verbrugge, P., & Didenko, E. (2010). Evaluation Report: Community Maintenance Program (File # 394-2-84). Ottawa ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Marquis, B., Didenko, E., & Luong, D. (2010). Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections Evaluation – Terms of Reference. (394-2-49). Ottawa ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Marquis, B. & Didenko, E. (2011). Evaluation Report: Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections – Chapter One: Aboriginal Healing Lodges. (File #394-2-49). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Moore, John-Patrick (2003). First Nations, Métis, Inuit and Non-Aboriginal Federal Offenders: A Comparative Profile. Research Report R-134, Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Motiuk, L.L. & Belcourt, R.L. (1996). Temporary Absence Program Participation and the Release of Federal Offenders. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Nafekh, M., Allegri, N., & Li, H. (2005). Evaluation Report: The Section 81 Agreement between the Native Counselling Services of Alberta and the Correctional Service of Canada: The Stan Daniels Healing Centre (File # 394-2-30). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Nafekh, M., Allegri, N., A, Stys, Y., Jensen, T. (2009). Evaluation Report: Correctional Service Canada’s Correctional Programs (File # 394-2-75). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

New Zealand Department of Corrections (2007). Over-representation of Māori in the criminal justice system: An exploratory report. Wellington, NZ: Policy, Strategy and Research Group: Author.

Office of the Correctional Investigator (2006). Annual Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator 2005-2006. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Office of the Correctional Investigator (2010). Annual Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator 2009-2010. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Office of the Correctional Investigator. (2011). Annual Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator 2010-20111. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Public Safety Canada (2010). 2010 Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview.(Cat. No.: PSI-3/2009E).

Public Service Commission of Canada (2011). PSC Glossary. Retrieved from http://www.psc-cfp.gc.ca/abt-aps/gls/index-eng.htm#w.

R.v. Gladue, (1999) 1 S.C.R. 688

Rockhill, B., Newman, B., & Weinberg, C. (1998). Use and misuse of population attributable fractions. American Journal of Public Health, 88(1), 15-19.

Rojas, E. Y., & Gretton, H. M. (2007). Background, offence characteristics, and criminal outcomes of Aboriginal youth who sexually offend: a closer look at Aboriginal youth intervention needs. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 19(3): 257-283.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996). Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Ottawa: Government of Canada, Minister of Supply and Services Canada.

Sioui, R. & Thibault, J. (2001). The relevance of a cultural adaptation for Aboriginals of the Reintegration Potential Reassessment Scale (RPRS). Research Report R-109. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Solicitor General Canada (1988). Final Report: Task Force on Aboriginal Peoples in Federal Corrections. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Statistics Canada (2005). Projections of the Aboriginal populations, Canada, provinces and territories 2001 to 2017. (Cat. No.: 91-547-XIE).

Statistics Canada (2008). Adult Criminal Court Statistics, 2006/2007. (Catalogue no. 85-002-XIE).

Stewart, L., Hamilton, E., Wilton, G., Cousineau, C., & Varette, S. (2009). An Examination of the Effectiveness of Tupiq: A Culturally Specific Program for Inuit Sex Offenders. Ottawa ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2009a). Policy on Evaluation. Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=15024§ion=text.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2009b). 2008 Public Service Employee Survey. Retrieved from http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pses-saff/2008/report-rapport-eng.asp.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2011a). Demographic Snapshot of the Federal Public Service, 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/res/stats/demo-eng.asp.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2012). 2011 Public Service Employee Survey. Retrieved From http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pses-saff/2011/introduction-eng.asp .

Trevethan, S.& Moore, J.P. (2002). Forum on Correctional Research: Profiling Federally Incarcerated First Nations, Métis, and Inuit Offenders. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Trevethan, S., Moore, J.P., & Naqitarvik, L. (2004a). The Tupiq Program for Inuit Sexual Offenders: A Preliminary Investigation. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Trevethan, S., Moore, J.P., Naqitarvik, L., Watson, A. & Saunders, D. (2004b). The Needs of Inuit Offenders in Federal Correctional Facilities. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Trevethan, S., Crutcher, N., Moore, J.-P. & Mileto, J. (2007). Pê Sâkâstêw Centre: An in-depth Examination of a Healing Lodge for federally incarcerated offenders. Research Report R-170. Ottawa, ON: Research Branch, Correctional Service Canada.

Trevethan, S. (2012). Profile of the Inuit Offender Population. Unpublished Document.

Weekes, J.R. & Millson, W.A. (1994). The Native offender substance abuse pre-treatment program: Intermediate measures of program effectiveness. Research Report R-35. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Zakaria, D. (under publication) Dynamic Factor Identification and Analysis-Revised (DFIA-R): Linking the Old and New Domains. Research Report. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

APPENDIX A: Current Aboriginal Offender Profile Data (2011)
APPENDIX B: SPAC Evaluation Matrix
APPENDIX C: Detailed Methodology and Statistical Tests
APPENDIX D: Offender Cohort Profile Information
APPENDIX E: Analyses of Conditional Release Failure Among Aboriginal Men and Women Offenders – Participation in National Correctional Programs
APPENDIX F: Analyses of Conditional Release Failure Among Aboriginal Men and Women Offenders – Participation in a Culturally-Specific Living Environment
APPENDIX G: Average Daily Number of Offenders and Occupancy Rates in Healing Lodges between FYs 2006-07 and 2010-11
APPENDIX H: List of Section 84 communities having received an Aboriginal offender from a S84 release since the implementation of SPAC
APPENDIX I: Analyses for Conditional Release Failure Among Aboriginal Offenders Released Through Section 84 of the CCRA..
APPENDIX J: Analyses for Conditional Release Failure Among Aboriginal Men and Women Offenders – Participation in Temporary Absences
APPENDIX K: Number and percentage of CSC and Aboriginal employees – 2010
APPENDIX L: Percentage of Change in employees by Classification from FY 2001 to 2010
APPENDIX M: Average Pre and Post SPAC Rates (and Rate Percentages) and ITSA Results
APPENDIX N: Improvement and Decline in Ratings for Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Men Offenders
APPENDIX O: Formula for Cost-Effectiveness Linked to Higher Chances of Discretionary Release Grant - Aboriginal National Correctional Violence Prevention Program (ISOYW)
APPENDIX P: Formula for Cost-Effectiveness of Aboriginal-Specific National Correctional Violence Prevention Program (ISOYW) and Section 84 Release Initiative
APPENDIX Q: Cost-Effectiveness Indicators for the Aboriginal-Specific National Correctional Violence Prevention Program and Section 84 Release Initiative - Breakdown of By Institutional Level

Source: OMS Snapshot (2011).

Source: OMS Snapshot (2011).

Source: OMS Snapshot (2011).

Source: OMS Snapshot (2011).

Source: OMS Snapshot (2011).

APPENDIX B: SPAC Evaluation Matrix

Aboriginal Offender Release Cohort

To examine the likelihood of discretionary release grants, the evaluation team used the logistic regression model. This approach was used to assess the effects of participation (vs. non-participation) in the three SPAC initiatives (i.e., correctional programs, culturally-specific living environments and temporary absences) on the type of conditional release. Since many of the SPAC initiatives are only available to offenders presenting specific need and risk characteristics, the analyses conducted with logistic regression accounted for differences in offender profiles. Specifically, these analyses controlled for levels of overall need and risk assessed prior to release when significantly associated with the outcome.

Analyses of the rate of conditional release failure were accomplished by using the sequential Cox proportional hazards regression model. This approach was used to examine the effects of participation (vs. non-participation) in the three SPAC initiatives (i.e., correctional programs, culturally-specific living environments and temporary absences) and several covariates known to be associated with re-offending (see, for example, Gendreau, Little & Goggin, 1996; Johnson, 2005). Statistical analyses performed for conditional release failures among Aboriginal men and women offenders were fitted so that they only included covariates that were found to be significantly associated with the outcomes (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001). Initially, the following contributing factors were included in all analyses: age at release; type of conditional release (day parole vs. other types of release); previous federal sentences; and, levels of overall need and risk assessed prior to release.

For the purpose of these analyses, all data pertaining to correctional programs (i.e., assignment, participation and outcome) were structured using the Level of Need and Intervention (LNI) model. This model was developed in response to data limitations identified in previous evaluations regarding the concept of program need (e.g., Luong et al., 2010; Nafekh et al., 2009). The LNI model is designed to assess an offender’s level of need and participation in correctional programming based on program assignment. This model thereby considers that assignments are given to offenders with identified program needs (see limitation section for further details). In the context of the SPAC evaluation, the LNI model was modified for Aboriginal offender as follows:

LNI Level 0: No program assignment
LNI Level 1: Program assignment, no program start
LNI Level 2a: Program assignment, partial mainstream program completion
(i.e., drop out, population management, unsuccessful completion)
LNI Level 2b: Program assignment, partial Aboriginal-specific program completion
(i.e., drop out, population management, unsuccessful completion)
LNI Level 3a: Program assignment, successful mainstream program completion
LNI Level 3b: Program assignment, successful Aboriginal-specific program completion

Outcomes of offenders in the intent-to-treat group (LNI Level 1) were contrasted with those of offenders who had received any exposure to a program (LNI Levels 2a and 3a), as well as successfully completed the program (LNI Levels 2b and 3b).

Therefore, the analyses compared the correctional outcomes of Aboriginal offenders based on their level of program need and intervention. In cases where offenders participated in more than one program, the highest level of program completion was selected. Due to low frequencies in certain LNI levels, this model was sometimes modified.

Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Offender Release Cohort

Analyses using the logistic regression procedure were performed on the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offender release cohort data to examine the difference between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders with respect to their likelihood of improvement or decline in each of the seven criminogenic need domains, as well as on overall ratings of need, risk, motivation and reintegration potential. In the case of criminogenic need assessments based on the Dynamic Factors Identification and Analysis – Revised (DFIA-R), it was necessary to reconcile the rating levels with those of the original DFIA, in order to have comparable data for valid analyses. The reconciliation was informed by the preliminary research of Zakaria (in publication) who statistically compared different linking strategies to find the most appropriate option, the evaluation team proceeded to recoding the five level rating categories of the DFIA-R into the four level rating categories of the DFIA, as illustrated below:

Source: Zakaria (in publication).

Section 84 and Non-Section 84 Offender Release Cohort

Procedures performed on this cohort involved analyses of the rate of conditional release failure which were accomplished by using the sequential Cox proportional hazards regression model as described above. Statistical analyses performed for conditional release failures among Aboriginal men and women offenders were fitted so that they only included covariates that were found to be significantly associated with the outcomes (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001). Initially, the following contributing factors were included in all analyses: age at release; type of conditional release (day parole vs. other types of release); previous federal sentences; and, levels of overall need and risk assessed prior to release.

Rate-Based Data

An Interrupted Time Series Analysis (ITSA) design was used to establish whether the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders has significantly changed since the implementation of SPAC. ITSA is a statistical procedure that is used to examine whether an event or intervention had an impact on a time-series process. To account for the serial dependency between each consecutive rate, the evaluation team used the ARIMA model to identify and remove trends and patterns that carried over from one month to another. Once trends and patterns in the data were removed, basic statistical tests, equivalent to an independent sample t-test, were performed on the residuals to examine the mean of rates pre and post implementation and determine if significant change had occurred. ITSA data consists of a set of measurements, taken at regular intervals, and ordered by time. The ideal number of data points is 50 before and 50 after the intervention. Due to low monthly correctional event counts for women offenders, it was not possible to create stable and reliable monthly rates. Consequently, ITSA was not used for women.

Aboriginal Release Cohort

Source: OMS (2011).

Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Release Cohort

Source: OMS (2011).

Source: OMS (2011).

Source: OMS (2011).

Source: OMS (2011).