Knowt
Note
Studied by 1 personNoteStudied by 19 peopleNoteStudied by 58 peopleNoteStudied by 12 peopleNoteStudied by 254 peopleNoteStudied by 11 people
Lecture 7 - Indigenous Offenders
TERMINOLOGY
Clarification of terminology before lecture begins
The term "Indigenous" will be used throughout the lecture
The second edition of the textbook uses "Aboriginal" due to terminology at the time of print
Terminology changed to "Indigenous" in March 2021
Definition of Indigenous identity from StatsCan: includes individuals identifying as First Nations, North American Indian, Metis, or Inuit
Those registered under the Indian Act of Canada are also included
The term "Indian" will only be used in reference to legal policies and statutes, as terminology has not changed in that context
"Aboriginal populations of Canada" are defined in the Constitution Act of 1982, Section 35 (includes Indian, Inuit, and Metis peoples)
"Indigenous" serves as an umbrella term encompassing various groups, including Metis, Inuit, and others
Research and statistics often do not differentiate between different Indigenous populations, thus the use of "Indigenous" is preferred.
INDIGENOUS OVERREPRESENTATION IN THE CJS
Indigenous populations have long been overrepresented in the criminal justice system, a trend seen in other countries like Australia and New Zealand.
Despite efforts to reduce this overrepresentation in Canada, improvements have not been realized, with legal representation increasing.
In 2016, Indigenous peoples comprised 4.1% of the adult Canadian population but accounted for 29% of provincial and territorial custodial admissions and 28% at the federal level.
In 2018-2019, Indigenous representation in provincial and territorial custody rose to 31% and 29% federally.
Custodial sentencing in Canada has decreased overall since 2016-2017, except for Indigenous populations, which continue to see disproportionate increases.
In 2020-2021, Indigenous adult females represented 42% of federal custodial admissions, while Indigenous males accounted for 30%.
By 2022-2023, Indigenous women in federal custody reached 49% of female admissions, with over 50% recorded in April 2022.
There are systemic factors and discrimination affecting Indigenous women’s risk of contact with the criminal justice system.
For Indigenous youth, they represented about 40% of youth admissions to provincial and territorial corrections, despite making up 8% of the Canadian population.
Once in contact with the system, Indigenous youth are more likely to receive custodial sentences over community sentences.
Indigenous females account for 55% of female youth custody, highlighting a significant overrepresentation compared to their male Indigenous counterparts at 44%
OVERREPRESENTED AS VICTIMS OF CRIME & CJS
Indigenous persons are overrepresented as victims of crime, particularly violent offenses.
In 2019, violent victimization among Indigenous people aged 15 and over was double that of non-Indigenous counterparts.
High rates of violent victimization, especially among Inuit and Metis populations.
63% of Indigenous women have experienced physical or sexual violence in their lifetime.
First Nations and Metis women report higher rates of victimization compared to Inuit and non-Indigenous women.
In 2019, no statistically significant differences were found in the rates of violent victimization between Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth, but age was a higher risk factor.
Indigenous individuals are overrepresented as victims of homicide, accounting for 25% of all homicides in Canada in 2023 despite making up 4-5% of the population.
In 2023, the homicide rate for Indigenous people was over six times higher than for non-Indigenous people, with a rate of 4.74 victims per 100,000 for Indigenous women.
Indigenous federal offenders often face harsher classifications and higher security measures in prisons.
70% of Indigenous offenders classified as medium security and 16% as maximum security, compared to 65% and 13% for non-Indigenous offenders.
Indigenous federal offenders account for about 40% of admissions to administrative segregation (solitary confinement).
In March 2022, 49% of individuals in structured intervention units (replacing administrative segregation) identified as Indigenous.
Indigenous offenders have lower rates of day and full parole granted compared to non-Indigenous offenders.
Higher percentages of Indigenous individuals serve statutory releases, leading to longer times served before release compared to non-Indigenous offenders.
Indigenous offenders are more likely to die in custody and suffer from severe mental health issues than non-Indigenous offenders.
RECIDIVISM
Recidivism rates are a significant concern for Indigenous populations in the criminal justice system.
Indigenous individuals tend to have a higher recidivism rate than their non-Indigenous counterparts, particularly at the federal level.
A 2002 study examined recidivism rates of approximately 30,000 male offenders released on parole or statutory release from federal penitentiaries in Canada.
Recidivism in the study included both technical violations (e.g., failing to check in, associating with prohibited individuals) and new offenses occurring within six months of release.
In this study, 84% of offenders were non-Indigenous, while 16% were Indigenous.
The study followed cases for three years to assess potential readmission into federal custody.
Findings confirmed statistically significant differences in profiles between Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders, indicating higher recidivism rates among Indigenous peoples.
Indigenous offenders were typically younger than non-Indigenous offenders, with an average age of 35.
Indigenous individuals were less likely to be granted day parole but more likely to receive statutory releases.
Indigenous offenders were more frequently classified as high risk, with approximately twice the weight of non-Indigenous offenders.
READMISSION TO FEDERAL CUSTODY WITHIN 6 MONTHS (SIOUI & THIBAULT, 2002)
A larger proportion of Indigenous offenders were readmitted to federal custody within six months.
This pattern holds true regardless of whether they were on day parole, full parole, or statutory release.
No differences were found when examining technical violations among these groups.
RECIDIVISM CONT’D
Higher recidivism rates were found among Indigenous offenders, but the specific causes were not clearly identified.
A federal recidivism study from 2019 by Wilton examined reconviction rates of two cohorts (2007-2008 and 2011-2012) of Canadian federally sentenced men and women.
Both cohorts were followed up within the community, focusing on juvenile and violent offending.
For the 2007-2008 cohort, Indigenous male recidivism was nearly 48%, compared to just under 30% for non-Indigenous men.
Indigenous women had a recidivism rate of 33%, while non-Indigenous women were just under 14%.
The trend for violent recidivism showed 32% of Indigenous men versus 16% of non-Indigenous men.
For Indigenous women, violent recidivism was only 4.1%, while non-Indigenous women were at 11-13%.
The follow-up cohort (2011-2012) saw the same trends of higher recidivism rates among Indigenous individuals.
Overall, crime rates were decreasing during this timeframe, but Indigenous overrepresentation in recidivism persisted.
There was a general downward trend in both general and violent recidivism from the first cohort to the second, but Indigenous individuals still showed higher rates compared to non-Indigenous counterparts.
WHY THE INCREASED LEVEL OF RECIDIVISM?
Indigenous offenders tend to reoffend at higher rates than non-Indigenous offenders, especially at the federal level.
The 2002 study by CB and TBO identified several statistically significant differences impacting recidivism.
Indigenous offenders generally have a younger demographic compared to non-Indigenous offenders.
The gap in recidivism rates is wider among younger cohorts at the youth level.
Risk assessment measures are relatively valid for Indigenous populations but have weaker predictive abilities compared to non-Indigenous populations.
Indigenous offenders often present with a higher needs profile upon entering the justice system.
The existing programs may not adequately target the specific needs of Indigenous individuals, leading to insufficient support for reducing recidivism rates
INVOLVEMENT IN CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM (TREVETHAN ET AL., 2002)
No single factor explains the increased recidivism rates among Indigenous offenders.
Two strong predictors of engagement with the criminal justice system and continued criminal behavior include prior involvement with the child welfare system and foster care.
Indigenous offenders are more likely to have been involved in the child welfare system than non-Indigenous offenders, particularly in foster care.
Approximately 65% of Indigenous offenders had a history of foster care during childhood or adolescence.
In contrast, about 36% of non-Indigenous offenders had a history of foster care.
Increased involvement in the child welfare system is suggested to raise the risk of offending and reoffending among Indigenous offenders.
STABILITY OF CHILDHOOD/ADOLESCENCE (TREVETHAN ET AL., 2002)
Higher instability in childhood and adolescence is linked to increased recidivism rates among released Indigenous offenders.
Indigenous offenders are more likely to report having an unstable childhood and adolescence compared to non-Indigenous offenders.
In early childhood, instability is reported at 36% for Indigenous offenders and 26% for non-Indigenous offenders.
More pronounced differences are seen in adolescence, with about 50% of Indigenous offenders reporting instability during this period.
Adolescence is a time where delinquent behaviors often emerge, including testing boundaries, substance use, and minor offenses.
Factors contributing to recidivism during adolescence include antisocial peers, antisocial attitudes, and lack of parental supervision.
Involvement in the foster care system and instability may reduce attachments to guardians, impacting behavior and relationships.
Many Indigenous cultures value collectivism, and separation from stable guardianship can significantly affect youth development and behavior.
WHY THE INCREASED RECIDIVISM?
Many Indigenous youth were stolen from their families until the 1990s, leading to long-term generational impacts.
Study highlights factors contributing to increased recidivism among Indigenous offenders:
Higher rates of family violence during childhood.
Greater prevalence of family drug and alcohol problems.
Challenging economic conditions.
More family members involved in criminal activities.
It’s important to note that while these traumas are significant, they are also experienced by non-Indigenous offenders.
HISTORICAL REASONS FOR OVERREPRESENTATION
Non-Indigenous populations experience mentioned traumas to a lesser degree than Indigenous populations.
Following a short break, the discussion will transition to explanations for Indigenous overrepresentation in the justice system:
Higher Offending Rates: Indigenous individuals commit crimes at a higher rate.
Seriousness of Crimes: The types of crimes committed by Indigenous offenders are generally more serious.
Policy Impact: Criminal justice policies disproportionately affect Indigenous peoples due to social and economic marginalization, leading to harsher sanctions.
Differential Processing: Systemic and racial discrimination result in Indigenous individuals facing different processing in the justice system, often leading them into incarceration instead of alternative interventions.
Culture Clash: Cultural differences contribute to the challenges faced within the justice system.
Colonialism and Cultural Genocide: Historical factors affecting Indigenous populations contribute to their overrepresentation.
1. INDIGENOUS OFFENDING RATES
Increased offending rates suggest Indigenous populations are overrepresented in the criminal justice system due to committing more crimes than non-Indigenous populations.
Research indicates Indigenous individuals have more extensive contact with the criminal justice system compared to non-Indigenous individuals.
64% of incarcerated Indigenous individuals have youth court history, compared to 45% of non-Indigenous offenders.
90% of incarcerated Indigenous offenders have adult court history, against 84% of non-Indigenous offenders.
45% of incarcerated Indigenous individuals have 15 or more prior adult court appearances, compared to 31% of non-Indigenous offenders.
Findings indicate incarcerated Indigenous offenders are more likely to have a larger previous criminal history.
Official statistics suggest Indigenous people commit crimes at a significantly higher rate in Canada, more so for those living on reserves.
Higher offending rates do not indicate that Indigenous people are more inclined to commit crimes, as this perspective is misleading and perpetuates negative stereotypes.
Other contributing factors to higher reported offending rates include discriminatory policing practices, lack of social support, lack of youth interventions, and racial profiling.
2.INDIGENOUS OFFENCES
Types of Crimes: Indigenous offenders tend to commit different types of crimes compared to non-Indigenous offenders.
Nature of Crimes: Indigenous crimes are more likely to result in arrests and incarceration, with a higher proportion recorded as violent.
Convictions: Indigenous offenders have higher rates of conviction for assault, causing injury, manslaughter, and sexual offenses, including Schedule 1 offenses.
Homicide Statistics: In 2015, Indigenous people accounted for 33% of homicide accusations, a rate ten times that of non-Indigenous individuals; Indigenous females accused of homicide are about 31 times those of non-Indigenous females.
Population Impact: These numbers may be inflated due to the smaller Indigenous population size.
Violence on Reserves: According to a 2006 Statistics Canada survey, violent crime on reserves is approximately five times higher than in urban and rural areas, though over half of incidents were classified as other criminal code offenses.
Types of Offenses: On reserves, around 25% of crimes are violent, and 21% are property offenses, with robbery rates lower than the national average.
Sentencing Disparity: Indigenous offenders are 25% more likely to receive punitive and longer sentences than non-Indigenous people for committing the same offenses, even when the crimes are of a lower severity.
Context of Crime Statistics: Police-reported statistics don't provide the full picture, as biases affect the data collected.
3. DIFFERENTIAL IMPACT OF CJS POLICIES
Differential Impact of Criminal Justice Policies on Indigenous Individuals:
Socioeconomic Marginalization: Indigenous Canadians face greater socioeconomic disadvantages than non-Indigenous Canadians.
Higher Unemployment Rates: Indigenous people have significantly higher unemployment rates and lower average incomes.
Education Disparities: There are notable differences in education levels and opportunities within Indigenous communities.
Substandard Living Conditions: Issues include inadequate housing, poor health care, and lack of recreational facilities, drinking water, and internet access.
Vulnerability to Legal Practices: Socioeconomic disparities increase Indigenous people's vulnerability to punitive legal practices, particularly regarding monetary fines.
Fine Defaults: Indigenous offenders serve more time due to fines default than non-Indigenous offenders, leading to incarceration for non-payment of fines.
Differential Criminal Justice Processing:
Discriminatory Practices: Indigenous offenders are more likely to be arrested and incarcerated compared to non-Indigenous offenders, influenced by systemic and racial discrimination.
4. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
The discussion highlights two opposing views on the overrepresentation of Indigenous populations in the criminal justice system.
Points for Understanding Higher Reported Crime Rates:
Disagreement exists over whether data indicates Indigenous people commit more crimes or if reported crime rates are influenced by discriminatory criminal justice practices.
Some believe that if racial discrimination explained overrepresentation, Indigenous offenders would serve longer sentences than non-Indigenous offenders, which is not always the case.
Indigenous offenders often receive shorter federal custodial sentences than their non-Indigenous counterparts, even while being sentenced to custody in larger proportions.
Indigenous individuals are 35% more likely to be recommended for maximum security, which can skew the perception of them committing more serious offenses.
Higher rates of remand can lead to shorter sentences since time spent in remand counts towards total sentence length.
Indigenous offenders are more likely to be denied parole and spend longer periods in custody before release, increasing the proportion of their sentences served before release.
Structural Violence Perspective:
The more widely held view attributes Indigenous overrepresentation to structural violence and systemic discrimination within the criminal justice system.
Structural violence refers to social inequalities that result in social injustices, perpetuating exploitation and oppression of certain groups.
Over-policing in Indigenous communities may lead to higher arrest rates, creating the impression of increased crime levels.
Police discretion can vary based on racial identity, leading to harsher treatment for Indigenous individuals.
Indigenous individuals face a lack of legal representation, often appearing in court without adequate legal counsel, which impacts sentencing.
Indigenous individuals experience longer pre-trial detention durations, influencing overall time served.
Perceptions of aggression can result in hostile interactions with law enforcement, contributing to the cycle of violence and discrimination in the justice system.
REASONS FOR OVERREPRESENTATION
Higher Indigenous defunding rates contribute to overrepresentation but reflect arrest and jail rates more than just crime rates.
Indigenous people commit types of offenses that more frequently result in prison terms, often for serious offenses.
Policing practices may inflate crime statistics for Indigenous populations.
Criminal justice policies have a differential impact on Indigenous offenders due to socioeconomic marginalization.
Variances in sanctions and their impacts on Indigenous individuals highlight systemic issues.
Differential processing of Indigenous peoples is influenced by racial discrimination and structural violence.
ROOT CAUSES OF OVERREPRESENTATION
Examination of structurally embedded mechanisms of systemic racism and discrimination is crucial for understanding Indigenous overrepresentation in the criminal justice system.
Addressing the crisis requires understanding its origins.
Two root causes of Indigenous overrepresentation will be discussed:
Culture clash
Colonial impact.
CULTURE CLASH
Higher Indigenous overrepresentation is a symptom of larger social problems.
Understanding root causes is essential to addressing the issue.
Culture Clash:
Indigenous and Western concepts of justice differ significantly.
Indigenous views encompass nature, social relationships, and community, contrasting with Western notions of justice.
Indigenous individuals may feel intimidated by white authority figures due to historical oppression, potentially leading to misinterpretation of their behavior.
Indigenous cultures focus on rehabilitation and healing rather than punitive measures often emphasized in Western justice systems.
Misinterpretation of normative behaviors from Indigenous cultures by justice officials may contribute to perceived deception or guilt.
Specific example: Eye contact is regarded differently.
In Western culture, lack of eye contact may indicate deceit or guilt.
In some Indigenous cultures, avoiding eye contact can be a sign of respect.
Understanding these cultural differences is critical to comprehending Indigenous overrepresentation in the criminal justice system.
COLONIALISM: A BRIEF HISTORY OF RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS
Colonial Government Policies: Prior to 1867, colonial governments in Canada aimed to eliminate Indigenous cultures.
Relocation and Marginalization: Indigenous peoples were relocated to reserves, often leading to cultural and social disadvantages.
Residential Schools:
Canadian government partnered with churches to run residential schools starting in the 1870s.
About 139 recognized residential schools, excluding unregistered ones.
Estimated 150,000 Indigenous children attended these schools, facing assimilation efforts.
Forced Attendance:
Mandatory attendance; parents were pressured into compliance or faced imprisonment.
Many children suffered physical and sexual abuse, malnutrition, and were forbidden to speak their languages.
Isolation and Separation:
Children often separated from siblings and families, leading to emotional trauma.
Experiments and Abuse:
Nutritional experiments conducted in the 1940s and 50s caused harm without benefits.
Last School Closure:
Last residential school closed in 1996, coinciding with contemporary awareness of these issues.
Casualties:
Truth and Reconciliation Commission reported over 4,000 Indigenous children died in residential schools due to malnutrition and disease.
Impact of Trauma:
Long-term maltreatment contributes to ongoing structural violence and overrepresentation in the criminal justice system.
Generational Violence:
Cycle of violence and trauma affecting current generations, analogous to other marginalized groups.
Societal Inconsistency:
Examination of societal responses to different marginalized groups reveals inconsistencies in support and advocacy.
THE SIXTIES SCOOP – A LEGACY OF ‘CULTURAL GENOCIDE’
The speaker discusses a gay friend's negative feelings towards lesbians, attributing it to social hierarchy.
The friend expresses a desire to distinguish himself from lesbians, seeing them as lower in status.
The conversation shifts to discussing historical injustices, comparing modern economic struggles to slavery.
The speaker notes Indigenous peoples were given land post-slavery but lacked the means to maintain it, leading to economic marginalization.
Indigenous individuals often hold low-paying jobs due to systemic issues, resembling modern-day slavery.
There is a lack of effective action regarding these issues, highlighting concerns about missing persons and historical events like the Sixties Scoop.
The Sixties Scoop refers to Indigenous children taken from their families without consent and placed into child welfare systems.
Estimates suggest at least 20,000 Indigenous children were affected, many fostered or adopted by non-Indigenous families.
The removals began in the 1950s and continued into the 1980s, often justified by cultural misunderstanding.
Many children experienced attachment issues and abuse, struggling with their identities.
Only a few provinces have formally apologized for their roles in the Sixties Scoop, with Manitoba being the first in 2015.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission criticized the Sixties Scoop as a racist effort to assimilate Indigenous peoples, affecting their cultural identity.
Ongoing issues include Indigenous women facing threats of losing their children and involuntary sterilization.
Historical laws have further complicated Indigenous identity and access to services for those marrying outside their community.
EFFORTS TO REDUCE INDIGENOUS OVERREPRESENTATION
The speaker addresses the historical context and current challenges faced by Indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system.
Numerous initiatives have been launched to understand and address the unique circumstances of Indigenous peoples.
Changes to policing include the introduction of self-administered First Nations police services and senior positions in the RCMP and OPP for Indigenous policing oversight.
Policies now aim to provide Indigenous offenders with culturally appropriate treatment and transfer them to Indigenous communities for access to relevant services and programs.
Insufficient research exists to determine the real effects of these policy changes.
Despite efforts, overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system continues.
Changes to sentencing practices introduced by Bill C41 in 1996 include new sentencing options, such as conditional community sentences.
The bill emphasizes that all reasonable sanctions other than imprisonment should be considered for offenders, particularly Indigenous offenders.
The vagueness in the wording of the bill section is noted as an important factor in the context of Indigenous populations.
GLADUE DECISION
In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the Gladoo court case, interpreting a section of Bill C41.
The interpretation aimed to highlight the issue of overrepresentation of Indigenous individuals in prisons.
The court suggested that Indigenous offenders might receive shorter sentences than non-Indigenous offenders for the same crime under certain circumstances.
This interpretation is seen as contrary to the actual practice, where Indigenous offenders often receive harsher sentences.
The decision influenced how that section of the law would be interpreted in the future.
Some critics argue that the section provides unequal protection to Indigenous offenders compared to non-Indigenous offenders.
The original intent of the bill was to address overrepresentation and ensure a more equitable treatment, not to create unfair advantages.
Despite the 1999 decision, overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system remains a growing problem.
THREE PRINCIPLES OF GLADUE
Argument against unequal protections for Indigenous offenders is weak.
Principles identified by the federal government and confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Glittoon case:
Marginalization of Indigenous Peoples: Indigenous individuals face ongoing marginalization due to colonial legacy, including:
Endemic poverty
Poor healthcare
Low housing standards
Limited educational and employment opportunities
Experiences of oppression, control, and assimilation
These factors contribute to higher crime rates, especially violent crime.
Systemic Discrimination: Recognition that Indigenous people experience systemic discrimination within the criminal justice system, affecting interactions with police and the courts.
Culturally Relevant Alternatives: Acknowledgment that culturally relevant rehabilitative programs are generally more effective than incarceration for Indigenous individuals.
Restorative justice is highlighted as a more effective approach in addressing recidivism than traditional incarceration.
THE GLADUE COURT
Significant results of the Gladue decision include the development of Indigenous-focused courts in Canada, known as Gladue courts (or peacemaking courts).
These courts consider unique historical, personal, and contextual circumstances of Indigenous offenders in the criminal justice system.
Sentencing alternatives are determined in light of the individual's Indigenous heritage and connection to community.
Gladue courts are accessible to all Indigenous persons (status or non-status) who identify as such, offering services like Indigenous legal aid and court workers.
Cases heard in Gladue courts typically continue until resolved without needing to go to multiple courts.
Gladue courts operate under a framework of cultural understanding and expertise regarding Indigenous peoples’ programs and histories.
They take into account various adverse background conditions influencing Indigenous offenders, such as substance misuse, poverty, racism, family breakdown, and history of residential school attendance.
The courts aim for restorative justice, aligned with Indigenous views of justice, rather than always imposing lenient sentences.
The Gladue factors often overlap with conventional risk factors affecting offenders.
There is a lack of clear guidelines for judges on how to interpret Gladue factors and make decisions.
Legislation such as the Get Tough on Crime and Safer Streets and Communities Act could conflict with the Gladue decision by increasing sentencing lengths and limiting judicial discretion.
RISK ASSESSMENT DEBATE
Research indicates that Indigenous offenders are more likely to re-offend than non-Indigenous offenders, particularly at the federal level.
Not all Indigenous offenders will re-offend; similar to non-Indigenous offenders, many will not recidivate.
Identifying Indigenous offenders at greater risk of reoffending is essential, utilizing risk assessment tools.
There is ongoing debate regarding the use of risk assessment tools with Indigenous offenders:
Pro Argument: Some believe current tools are equally applicable to Indigenous offenders, as they have been validated with non-Indigenous samples.
Con Argument: Others argue that these tools should not be used for Indigenous offenders as they have not been validated with Indigenous samples.
META-ANALYSIS: RISK FACTORS FOR INDIGENOUS OFFENDERS (GUTIERREZ ET AL., 2013)
Research on risk assessment tools for Indigenous offenders emphasizes the importance of identifying risk factors that predict recidivism.
Risk factors predicting recidivism in non-Indigenous offenders may also apply to Indigenous offenders, but this is uncertain.
A 2013 meta-analysis by Gutierrez and colleagues aimed to identify risk factors predictive of recidivism for Indigenous offenders.
The study focused on two specific research questions:
Are validated risk factors, primarily those in the Central 8, predictive of recidivism for Indigenous offenders?
Central 8 risk factors are based on research by James Bonta and Donald Andrews using non-Indigenous samples.
Four of these factors are major risks, and four are moderate risks.
Are these risk factors equally predictive for Indigenous offenders and non-Indigenous offenders?
The need for the second question arises from the possibility that the Central 8 factors may predict recidivism for Indigenous offenders but with different predictive strength.
The meta-analysis reviewed 44 usable sources of data from 32 reports, encompassing approximately 57,000 Indigenous offenders from Canada, the U.S., and Australia, examining both violent and general recidivism.
ADULT RISK FACTORS (GUTIERREZ ET AL., 2013)
All central 8 risk and need factors predictive of general recidivism for Indigenous offenders.
Three risk factors with the highest correlation to general recidivism:
History of antisocial behavior.
Antisocial personality pattern.
Antisocial peers/associates.
All central 8 risk and need factors predictive of violent recidivism for Indigenous offenders.
Three risk factors with the highest correlation to violent recidivism:
History of antisocial behavior.
Antisocial personality pattern.
Antisocial attitudes/cognitions.
Comparison of top 3 risk factors:
General recidivism: antisocial peers/associates.
Violent recidivism: antisocial attitudes/cognitions.
All 8 central risk factors significantly predict both general and violent re-offending among Indigenous offenders.
Findings support that the Central 8 risk factors are valid predictors of re-offending for Indigenous offenders.
Key differences observed between Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders despite the Central 8's predictive validity.
DIFFERENTIAL PREDICTORS (GUTIERREZET AL., 2013)
All central 8 risk factors are significant predictors of general recidivism for Indigenous offenders.
Better predictors of recidivism in non-Indigenous offenders include:
Criminal history.
Antisocial personality pattern.
Substance abuse.
For violent recidivism, no notable differences in predictors between Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders.
Emotional distress, not part of the Central 8, is significantly related to general recidivism for Indigenous offenders.
Found to be as predictive of general recidivism as some Central 8 factors.
Emotional distress is not a significant predictor for non-Indigenous offenders, indicating it may be an Indigenous-specific risk factor.
Suggests that emotional distress should be considered in Indigenous-specific risk assessment scales for predicting general recidivism.
RISK SCALES
Current research examines the efficacy of risk assessment scales for predicting recidivism in Indigenous offenders, many based on Central 8 risk factors.
Various risk measures analyzed include Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R), Statistical Information on Recidivism Scale (SIR), Static-99, and PCL-R.
LSI-R:
Comprises 54 items to assess risk in adult offenders.
Categorizes risk levels into five degrees: low to high.
Supported by empirical research for non-Indigenous offenders; limited research for Indigenous offenders.
Olver et al. (2014) found LSI-R can predict re-offending among Indigenous offenders similarly to non-Indigenous offenders.
SIR Scale:
Consists of 15 static items measuring demographic/criminal history.
Estimates re-offending probability within three years, aiding parole decisions.
Good psychometric properties for non-Indigenous offenders; not widely applied to Indigenous offenders.
Some studies suggest it can be useful for Indigenous populations, with mixed strength in predictive validity.
Research on Static-99 and PCL-R also indicates applicability for Indigenous offenders, though still preliminary.
Notable limitations include small sample sizes and mixed findings, with Indigenous offenders generally showing lower predictive accuracy than non-Indigenous offenders.
MEASURES FOR INDIGENOUS AND NON-INDIGENOUS PERSONS (OLVER, STOCKDALE ET AL., 2022)
Olver, Stockdale et al. (2022) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk assessment measures used in Indigenous correctional populations.
The review included 18 tools (excluding the CRS) and analyzed data from over 300,000 Indigenous and non-Indigenous justice-involved youth and adults across 84 studies.
This review serves as a primary reference for discussing the predictive properties of these assessment tools.
Results are summarized in Table 14.3 in the textbook, with prediction effect sizes presented as AUC (Area Under the Curve) and Cohen's d.
Note about effect sizes:
AUC values: .56 (small), .64 (medium), .71 (large)
Cohen's d values: .20 (small), .50 (medium), .80 (large)
List of risk assessment tools discussed:
PCL-R: Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
PCL:SV: Psychopathy Checklist Screening Version
OGRS: Offender Group Reconviction Scale
RM2000V: Risk Matrix 2000 for Violence
VRAG: Violence Risk Assessment Guide
HCR-20: Historical, Clinical, and Risk Management-20
SIR: Statistical Information for Recidivism
LSI-R: Level of Service Inventory-Revised
VRS: Violence Risk Scale
Source: Adapted from Olver, Stockdale et al. (2022).
FUTURE RESEARCH
Current risk assessment tools show soft results, prompting the need for future research directions for Indigenous offender assessment.
Consideration of culture in Indigenous offender risk assessment tools is suggested, addressing issues like culture clash and disconnection from Indigenous culture.
Researchers should test culturally-specific risk factors (e.g., cultural dislocation) to determine their relationship with re-offending.
Other relevant factors could include:
Historical trauma (e.g., family history of residential school attendance)
Ongoing discrimination
Loss of native language
Lack/loss of pride in heritage.
Very few Indigenous-specific risk assessment instruments currently exist.
One instrument is the Yókw’tól, a risk-management guide for Indigenous violent offenders, derived from input from Indigenous Elders and staff.
Yókw’tól translates to “the understanding of one is complete.”
Unlike traditional instruments which utilize statistical testing, Yókw’tól is based on cultural and contextual insights.
It consists of 20 static and dynamic items to aid effective management of offenders in institutions and communities.
Scientific validation of Yókw’tól as a risk assessment tool has not occurred, and the authors view it more as a guideline than a strict scientific instrument.
Authors emphasize broader outcomes beyond just recidivism, highlighting the importance of Indigenous perspectives on assessment and engagement.
Future research should explore additional risk factors for Indigenous offender recidivism that may not have been previously considered.
INDIGENOUS HEALING LODGES
Designed specifically for Indigenous offenders.
Offer culturally appropriate services and programs incorporating Indigenous values, traditions, and beliefs.
Provide interventions such as Elder services and ceremonies.
Main goal: address incarceration factors and prepare offenders for reintegration.
Incorporate Indigenous concepts of justice and reconciliation.
Utilize a holistic and spiritual approach with individualized programming.
Emphasize community interaction and preparation for release.
Highlight spiritual leadership and life experiences of staff as role models.
Address offender needs through Indigenous teachings, ceremonies, and nature interactions.
Two-Eyed Seeing: Combining Indigenous and Western knowledge for holistic benefits.
Security levels: minimum/medium for women (denoted with *), minimum for men.
CSC assesses public safety risk before transferring offenders to healing lodges.
Non-Indigenous offenders can participate by adhering to Indigenous programming.
In 2019, ~85% of Indigenous offenders engaged with Elders and culturally relevant programming; only ~2% of non-Indigenous offenders did.
Healing lodges may be fully operated by CSC or managed by community partner organizations under Section 81 of CCRA.
Currently, 10 CSC-funded healing lodges in Canada (4 by CSC, 6 by Indigenous communities).
Aim to integrate self-motivated healing, cultural identity, spirituality, community reconnection, reducing likelihood of reoffending.
INDIGENOUS-SPECIFIC TREATMENT PROGRAMS
Indigenous persons are more likely to re-offend than non-Indigenous individuals, particularly at the federal level.
This situation necessitates examining ways to reduce recidivism among Indigenous offenders.
Research has primarily focused on comparing culturally appropriate treatment programs to traditional correctional interventions for effectiveness in reducing recidivism.
Many Indigenous offenders have been raised without access to Indigenous language, culture, teachings, or ceremonies, which are crucial for the healing process.
A cultural-based approach that reintroduces Indigenous culture and spirituality may help offenders manage their risk of re-offending.
Since 1985, CSC has introduced policies emphasizing the importance of Indigenous culture and developing correctional programs to meet their needs.
Since 1992, Indigenous-specific programs have been required under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
CSC’s policy acknowledges different cultural learning approaches and mandates the provision of culturally-specific programs and Elder services for Indigenous offenders.
The loss of Indigenous culture contributes to offending behavior; thus, reconnecting with Indigenous culture is viewed as vital for addressing overrepresentation and aiding successful reintegration of offenders.
Correctional Service Canada (CSC) employs the Indigenous Continuum of Care for Indigenous corrections.
Introduced in 2003 in consultation with Indigenous stakeholders, including Elders.
Provides culturally responsive approaches to meet the needs of Indigenous offenders.
Acknowledges the importance of Indigenous communities in supporting offenders during their healing and reintegration.
Links offenders to their history, culture, and spirituality.
Goal: Assist offenders in safely transitioning back into the community.
Offers a range of Indigenous-specific treatment programs in provincial, federal custody, and community settings.
Includes traditional correctional interventions (e.g., anger management, substance misuse programs) and Indigenous practices (e.g., spiritual practices, literacy classes, sweat lodge ceremonies, drumming classes).
Integrates cognitive behavioral-based interventions with traditional Indigenous healing approaches.
A 2005 survey identified 23 healing programs: 13 federal and 10 provincial.
Treatment needs of Indigenous offenders are often similar to those of non-Indigenous offenders but differ in the level of need.
Indigenous offenders rated as high need across multiple domains, except antisocial attitudes.
INTEGRATED INDIGENOUS CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT APPROACHES
Indigenous correctional treatment integrates mainstream corrections with cultural rituals, beliefs, and practices.
Successful completion may lead to transfer to an Indigenous healing lodge for further healing and reintegration.
CSC's Pathways Initiative is an Elder-driven, intensive healing program based on the Indigenous Medicine Wheel.
The initiative encourages healing as a way of life for motivated and committed inmates.
Participants must be willing to engage in traditional healing continuously.
Pathways prepares inmates for transfers to lower security, conditional release, and supports their ongoing healing journey in the community.
Reinforces traditional Indigenous lifestyles through:
Intensive one-on-one counselling
Increased access to ceremonies
A healing path consistent with traditional values.
Programs may vary; some are day programs while others have dedicated Pathways units.
Different types of Pathways initiatives include:
Pre-Pathways for maximum security (day program)
Pathways initiatives for medium security
Pathways transition houses for minimum security
A continuum for women offender institutions.
The Medicine Wheel symbolizes life's cycle and reflects cultural teachings as core to Indigenous identity and healing.
Correctional interventions should consider the past, present, and future of Indigenous individuals and communities.
Many interpretations of the Medicine Wheel exist, emphasizing balance in emotional, mental, spiritual, and physical wellbeing.
The circle symbol represents interconnectivity and the relationship with the natural world.
Cultural transmission occurs orally, necessitating Elders' involvement in the healing process for Indigenous offenders.
THE GENERAL IMPACT OF INDIGENOUS TREATMENT PROGRAMS
Question: Do integrated Indigenous programs and healing lodges work?
Importance of exploring cultural relevance in corrections empirically.
Definition of "effectiveness" varies among researchers:
Focus on reducing recidivism
Consideration of perceptions and opinions of Indigenous offenders about the treatment.
Mixed results from existing studies on effectiveness:
Encouraging results for some Indigenous-specific treatment programs.
Culturally appropriate programs improve program completion and reduce recidivism.
Evidence suggests Indigenous offenders:
More likely to complete treatment in culturally-based programs, impacting re-offending likelihood.
Canadian study by Sioui and Thibault (2001) findings:
Cultural and spiritual activities correlated with decreased recidivism.
Elder involvement strongly correlated with lower recidivism rates.
Employment and education programs reduced recidivism when culturally specific.
Research focused on Indigenous treatment within Correctional Service of Canada facilities, not on healing lodges.
Importance of Indigenous staff: 1997 Johnston study found Indigenous offenders feel more comfortable and view Indigenous staff as more trustworthy.
Native Sisterhood program (Yuen & Pedlar, 2009):
Helped women overcome trauma in a culturally supportive environment.
REHABILITATION PROGRAMS
Tupiq Program: A culturally specific high-intensity program for moderate- to high-risk Inuit sex offenders.
Found to have:
Very high program completion rates.
Lower rates of general and violent recidivism among participants (Stewart et al., 2015).
AOSAP (Indigenous Offender Substance Abuse Program): High-intensity program.
Participants returned to custody at a lower rate during follow-up.
Spirit of a Warrior Program: High-intensity violence prevention program.
Positive results include:
Increase in self-esteem.
Decrease in anger type and intensity.
Improved personal distress management, family issues, community functioning, social interactions, and reduced pro-criminal attitudes (Trevethan et al., 2005).
Circles of Change Program: Moderate-intensity program for Indigenous women offenders.
Most participants reported high satisfaction, positive group interactions, and facilitator experiences.
Overall, Indigenous offenders achieve significant treatment gains after completing correctional programs.
Indigenous offenders participating in these programs have a 1.45 times greater odds of success compared to those who do not participate.
SURVEYS OF OFFENDERS SERVING TIME IN HEALING LODGES
Indigenous offenders view healing lodges positively based on survey responses.
Many believe they benefit from serving time in healing lodges.
A 2001 study by Pfeifer and Hart-Mitchell interviewed provincial offenders in Saskatchewan, revealing:
Offenders felt more comfortable in cultural activities and programs.
Staff were seen as more attentive and non-judgmental compared to institutional staff.
The environment of the lodge was perceived as more appropriate.
Cultural teachings were a significant reason for requesting transfers to healing lodges.
Offenders felt culturally-appropriate programming helped them:
Trust others
Stay out of trouble
Positively manage their problems.
A 2002 study by Trevethan and Crutcher showed that 80% of interviewed offenders were satisfied with their healing lodge experience.
Time spent in healing lodges helped offenders:
Understand themselves better
Alleviate anger
Gain control over behavior.
Findings are encouraging but should be interpreted cautiously due to reliance on self-report data from offenders.
STUDIES OF RECIDIVISM AFTER HEALING LODGES
Studies on the effectiveness of healing lodges for Indigenous offenders focus on objective measures like recidivism rates.
Research is limited, and findings have been mixed.
Trevethan and colleagues (2002) found higher recidivism rates among healing lodge residents (19%) compared to Indigenous offenders in minimum security facilities (13%).
Healing lodge residents reoffended more quickly post-release (average 275 days) compared to minimum security offenders (average 338 days).
Recidivism rates varied by healing lodge: Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge (12%) vs. Spiritual Healing Lodge (30%).
Variation suggests some healing lodges are more effective at reducing recidivism.
Male Indigenous offenders were primarily held in medium- and maximum-security facilities, raising questions about the effectiveness of minimum-security healing lodges for addressing specific needs.
Some studies show more positive outcomes for Indigenous-specific treatment programs:
Traditional Indigenous healing methods reduced recidivism among sex offenders (8.1%) compared to non-Indigenous approaches (25.5%).
Cultural program participants had lower recidivism rates (3.6%) than those who didn’t participate.
Sioui and Thibault (2001) found offenders involved with Elders had lower recidivism rates (12.9%) compared to those without Elder involvement (26.8%).
Lack of clarity on why some healing lodge programs are more effective; Elder involvement appears to be crucial.
Future research may enhance healing lodge programs, potentially reducing Indigenous overrepresentation in the criminal justice system.
Gutierrez et al. (2018) meta-analysis of 7 studies involving 1,731 Indigenous persons found culturally relevant programming associated with a 28% decrease in recidivism odds.
Indigenous offenders in culturally relevant programs had a 9% lower recidivism rate (39%) than those in generic programs (48%).
IS AN END TO INDIGENOUS OVERREPRES ENTATION IN SIGHT?
Efforts are being made to address Indigenous overrepresentation in the criminal justice system, including the development of Indigenous courts and changes to policing.
Despite these efforts, an end to Indigenous overrepresentation is not in sight.
Over the past thirty years, initiatives like the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and changes to the Criminal Code have been introduced to improve equity for Indigenous Peoples in corrections.
The Indigenous Continuum of Care model was introduced in 2003 to decolonize prisons.
Overall changes have fallen short of effectively addressing systemic discrimination and overrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples in corrections.
While the overall incarcerated population has declined, Indigenous overrepresentation has persisted and even increased.
Since 2012, the federal incarcerated population decreased by 16.5%, and the white incarcerated population decreased by 23.5%, while the Indigenous custodial population increased by 22.5%.
Indigenous offender population (incarcerated and community) has increased by 40.8% over the last decade.
Indigenous Peoples account for approximately 5% of the adult population but represent 28% of federally sentenced individuals and 32% of individuals in custody.
Continuing historical impacts of colonization, such as the residential school system, forced relocation, and the Sixties Scoop, adversely affect Indigenous communities.
Indigenous individuals often face social, economic, and institutional marginalization, systemic racism, and discrimination, leading to trauma and challenging circumstances.
Until proper reparations are made, these factors will continue to play a significant role in Indigenous overrepresentation in the criminal justice system and as victims of crime.
NoteStudied by 1 personNoteStudied by 19 peopleNoteStudied by 58 peopleNoteStudied by 12 peopleNoteStudied by 254 peopleNoteStudied by 11 people