Correctional Service Canada
Symbol of the Government of Canada

Common menu bar links

Research Reports

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

An Examination of Healing Lodges for Federal Offenders in Canada

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The disproportionate involvement of Aboriginal persons in the criminal justice system has been recognized for some time. This paper examined one of the initiatives in place by Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) to address the issue of Aboriginal over-representation - the establishment of healing lodges for offenders. Section 81 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) provides the legislation relating to the development of healing lodges - it allows Aboriginal communities to provide correctional services. Healing lodges are meant to aid Aboriginal offenders in their successful reintegration by using traditional healing methods, specifically, holistic and culturally-appropriate programming.

There are two types of healing lodges in place within the CSC framework: CSC-run and section 81 healing lodges. CSC-run healing lodges focus on traditional Aboriginal ideologies but are considered CSC correctional facilities. Section 81 healing lodges are privately run by Aboriginal communities in an agreement with CSC for the provision of correctional services. Two healing lodges (Okimaw Ohci in Saskatchewan and Pê Sâkâstêw in Alberta) are CSC-run and four (Stan Daniels in Alberta, Ochichakkosipi in Manitoba, Wahpeton in Saskatchewan and Waseskun in Quebec) are section 81 healing lodges. In addition, there are currently two section 81 facilities being developed - Willow Cree Healing Lodge (in Saskatchewan) and Kwikwèxwelhp (in British Columbia).

The purpose of this report is to examine federal healing lodges currently in operation in Canada. This includes a physical description of healing lodges, a profile of those who have resided in healing lodges, and an examination of outcome. It also includes an examination of how staff in federal correctional institutions, staff in healing lodges, and residents view the healing lodge experience. Finally, the report discusses issues facing healing lodges.

i


The project involved an examination of information from case files for 530 offenders who resided at healing lodges from January 1995 through October 2001. It also included interviews with 18 staff from healing lodges and 56 staff from federal facilities who had been involved in transferring offenders to healing lodges. It also included interviews with 20 residents of healing lodges.

It is clear that there is great variation among the healing lodges currently in place in Canada. Physically, they differ dramatically in size, location and design. Some house only about five federal offenders, while others accommodate more than 50 federal offenders. They differ in location from remote to urban areas. Finally, some facilities resemble small correctional facilities while others are very traditional in design. The operation of the healing lodges also differ. In terms of programming, some healing lodges offer structured programs while others do not offer programs per se.

Along a continuum, CSC-run healing lodges are similar to minimum-security CSC facilities in terms of day-to-day operations. Those that were once CSC-run are somewhat in the middle of the continuum, maintaining many of the procedures and regulations, but incorporating a traditional approach. Facilities that were built specifically as section 81 healing lodges are more focused on Aboriginal traditions but do not maintain the structured approach of a CSC facility.

From the time that the first healing lodge opened (1995) until October 2001, 530 offenders have resided at healing lodges. Overall, the socio-demographic and criminal history profile of healing lodge residents is similar to Aboriginal offenders in minimum security who have not been transferred. For instance, similar to Aboriginal offenders who have not been transferred, large proportions of healing lodge residents (65%) were currently incarcerated for a violent offence, and 90% had previous adult convictions.

However, they are assessed as having more difficulties in some areas. At the time of admission to the federal facility, larger proportions of healing lodge residents were rated as high risk to re-offend (53% versus 45%) and high need (64% versus 50%), as

ii


compared to Aboriginal offenders in minimum security. Further, healing lodge residents were rated as having lower reintegration potential (45% versus 33%) than Aboriginal offenders in minimum security. This is important, because it indicates that it is not the "easiest" cases that are being transferred to healing lodges.

In terms of outcome, of the 426 residents who were released, 19% (83) were readmitted for a new offence within four years of release. This percentage is significantly higher than among Aboriginal offenders released from minimum security (13%).

Those who reside at healing lodges said were satisfied with their experience at the healing lodge. It was noted that the healing lodge helped them better understand themselves and furthered their healing journey. The overall sense seemed to be that they were less angry and more in control of themselves. It was also noted that the staff cared about them.

Staff from healing lodges and federal facilities have some common perceptions about healing lodges. They both said that there is poor communication between federal institutions and healing lodges. Some concerns were that federal institutions lacked an understanding of the role of healing lodges and section 81, lacked confidence in healing lodges' ability to manage offenders and lacked commitment to the implementation of section 81. According to some of the federal staff, they felt that they had a good understanding of section 81, but less understanding of what occurs at healing lodges. Furthermore, some federal staff felt that the healing lodges were not effectively managing offenders.

It was noted that some of the most beneficial aspects of the healing lodge include the Aboriginal culture and tradition. Another benefit was providing residents with the opportunity to heal. As was also noted by the offenders, staff expressed that improvements to facilities would be useful (e.g., more space, security). They also said that more funding was necessary in order to increase the space, improve programming, hire more staff and interact with community more fully.

iii


Respondents were asked what federal institutions could do to help healing lodges implement section 81. It was suggested by a number of respondents that, in order to get a better understanding of healing lodges, federal staff visit healing lodges and interact with staff and residents. Similarly, healing lodge staff could spend more time at federal facilities. This could also facilitate relationships between healing lodge and federal staff. It was also suggested that staff from the federal institutions could help train healing lodge staff on the implementation of section 81.

Many respondents noted that success in a healing lodge will vary depending on the offender and the healing lodges. Some respondents said that healing lodges may work for offenders who are sincere and motivated. Similarly, certain structures of healing lodges may work better for some offenders than others.

Finally, it was suggested that healing lodges have more involvement with families of offenders and communities in general.

Generally, some of the following issues were noted:

  • Resources - a number of the issues facing healing lodges relate to a lack of resources. The strain on resources has directly affected the way the lodge operates, especially in terms of buildings, staff, training, programming, technical infrastructure and community interaction.
  • Transfers - although the transfer process is functional, there are a number of changes that could be made that would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of transfers.
  • Relationship between Healing Lodges and Federal Institutions - at the individual level, relationships between federal staff and staff at the healing lodges are generally very positive. However, overall, there is a lack of communication between healing lodges and federal institutions. The lack of communication has lead to distrust on the part of federal staff regarding the lodges' ability to manage offenders and a lack of understanding of each others' roles and responsibilities.

iv


  • Community Involvement - community involvement is essential for the effective operation of healing lodges. However, in many instances, there is a lack of community involvement in the day-to-day operations of healing lodges. Some of this is due to resource constraints, because it is difficult to foster community support without adequate time to do so.

v


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to take this opportunity to thank a number of people who, without their help, this project could not have been completed. First and foremost, we would like to thank the Aboriginal Issues Branch at CSC for funding the project. Specifically, we would like to thank Gina Wilson for encouraging us to undertake this project. We would also like to thank Paul Sonnichsen for providing knowledge and an abundance of information on the topic.

We would also like to thank Gerry Cowie (Prairie Region) and Alvin Kube (Pacific Region) for providing information on the healing lodges in their regions.

A special thanks to Daphne Cameron, Kristie Einnarsson, Justin Rutten, Cindy Gee, Dan Erickson, Doreen Decore, and Don Scott, for organizing the interviews with the staff at their respective institutions, it was greatly appreciated. Also, we would like to thank the institutional staff for not only participating in the study and contributing their thoughts and ideas, but also for being so welcoming for the interviewers.

There were a number of individuals working at the healing lodges that aided in the completion of this project. Clare McNab, Murray Pelletier, Rarihokwats, Bob Allen, Rob Davies and Stan Cudek deserve special thanks for taking the time to participate and providing us with the information we needed. Also, we would like to thank the staff at Stan Daniels, Wahpeton, Waseskun and Ochichakkosipi for participating in this project.

We would like to thank a number of staff at CSC’s Research Branch. Martha Michelle helped to design and conduct the interviews. John-Patrick Moore helped to conduct the interviews and provided statistical expertise. Chris Rastin conducted analyses on recidivism. A special thanks to Mark Nafekh for providing SAS support and expertise. Finally, thank you to Michael Jeffery and Vicky Charron-Bourdon for providing data input services, and Cathy Delnef for french editing.

vi


Finally, we would like to thank all of the offenders who participated in the study and provided us with their opinions. Your views about the healing lodge process provided us with greater insight.

vii


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

PAST RESEARCH

CURRENT PROJECT

METHOD

PROCEDURES

SUBJECTS

DESCRIPTION OF HEALING LODGES

COMPARISON OF HEALING LODGES

OFFENDER PROFILE

RESIDENTS

WOMEN OFFENDERS TRANSFERRED TO OKIMAW OHCI

THE HEALING LODGE EXPERIENCE

OFFENDERS

HEALING LODGE STAFF

FEDERAL INSTITUTION STAFF

ISSUES FACING HEALING LODGES

RESOURCES

CONCEPT OF HEALING LODGES

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HEALING LODGES AND FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS

TRANSFERS

RECORD KEEPING

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

CONCLUSION

CHARACTERISTICS OF HEALING LODGES

OFFENDER PROFILES

ISSUES

SUMMARY

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: TABLES

APPENDIX B: TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRES FOR HEALING LODGES

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW FOR FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL STAFF

APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW FOR HEALING LODGE STAFF

APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW FOR FEDERAL OFFENDERS

viii


INTRODUCTION

The disproportionate involvement of Aboriginal persons in the criminal justice system has been recognized for some time. As reported by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996) "Reports and inquiries… have not only confirmed the fact of over-representation [of Aboriginal offenders in the criminal justice system] but, most alarmingly, have demonstrated that the problem is getting worse, not better". The problems being faced by Aboriginal peoples in Canada has sparked a movement by the current government to act. From a criminal justice standpoint, the 2001 Speech from the Throne emphasized this point, stating:

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

There are a number of strategies underway to help address the criminal justice problems facing Aboriginal people. For example, there is now a section in the Criminal Code that states that judges must consider all other options instead of imprisonment when sentencing an Aboriginal offender (Criminal Code of Canada, 2002). The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has developed a strategy called "Gathering Strength - Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan" (DIAND, 1997) which is a response to the recommendations from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. In addition, the Department of Justice Canada has created an "Aboriginal Justice Strategy" (Department of Justice Canada, 1998) that aims to decrease crime and incarceration rates in Aboriginal communities, and the Solicitor General Canada has established the Aboriginal Policing Directorate.

The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) has also responded to the issue of Aboriginal over-representation in the criminal justice arena. One of CSC’s corporate

1


objectives relates directly to Aboriginal offenders. It states that CSC aims "to contribute to the reduction of the incarceration rate of Aboriginal offenders" (CSC, 2002a). In meeting this objective, CSC has undertaken a number of initiatives, including Aboriginal Pathways1, the development of Aboriginal-specific programming, and agreements and partnerships with Aboriginal communities to provide services for Aboriginal offenders (CSC, 2002c).

The purpose of this paper is to focus on one of the initiatives undertaken jointly by CSC and Aboriginal communities for the establishment of healing lodges for offenders. In 1992, the government enacted the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) that governs the way CSC operates. Sections 79 through 84 deal specifically with Aboriginal people within corrections. In particular, section 81 of the CCRA states:

81. (1) The Minister, or a person authorized by the Minister, may enter into an agreement with an Aboriginal community for the provision of correctional services to Aboriginal offenders and for payment by the Minister, or by a person authorized by the Minister, in respect of the provision of those services.

Scope of agreement:

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), an agreement entered into under that subsection may provide for the provision of correctional services to a non-Aboriginal offender.

Placement of offender:

(3) In accordance with any agreement entered into under subsection (1), the Commissioner may transfer an offender to the care and custody of an Aboriginal community, with the consent of the offender and of the Aboriginal community.

1 Pathways is “a strategy that will establish a continuum of Aboriginal-specific institutional and community healing programs and services that will contribute to the reduction of the incarceration rate of Aboriginal offenders” (CSC, 2002b).

2


In order to facilitate the practical implementation of section 81, CSC initiated the development of healing lodges. From CSC's perspective, the purpose of a healing lodge is to aid Aboriginal offenders in their successful reintegration by using traditional healing methods, specifically, holistic and culturally-appropriate programming (Bennet, 2000). The staff at these facilities are primarily Aboriginal which creates an environment which may be more conducive to healing than a federal institution.

The idea of using healing lodges as a means to promote healing was re-enforced by the report by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996). One of the recommendations of the report was the development of community-based healing lodges through partnerships with various government agencies. According to the Commission’s report, the purpose of healing centres is to provide services in a culturally suitable manner.

There are currently two types of healing lodges within the CSC framework. The first are CSC-run facilities that focus on traditional Aboriginal ideologies but are primarily minimum-security CSC facilities. The second type of healing lodge are those run by Aboriginal communities in an agreement with CSC for the provision of correctional services. These privately-run lodges are required to operate within certain guidelines as outlined in their contracts with CSC. The transfer of an offender from a CSC institution to an Aboriginal-run healing lodge can only be done under section 81 of the CCRA.

The first healing lodge opened in Saskatchewan in November 1995. The facility, Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge, is a CSC-run facility for women offenders. Since Okimaw Ohci opened, five more lodges, all for male offenders, have been opened. These include Pê Sâkâstêw Centre (Hobbema, Alberta), which opened in August, 1997, Wahpeton Spiritual Healing Lodge (Prince Albert, Saskatchewan) which also opened in August 1997, and Stan Daniels Community Corrections Centre (Edmonton, Alberta) which was a CSC-operated community correctional facility until correctional operations were transferred to Native Counselling Services of Alberta in September 1999 to run a healing lodge. Ochichakkosipi Healing Lodge (Crane River, Manitoba) opened in

3


February 2000. The most recent lodge, Waseskun (St. Alphonse-de-Rodriquez, Quebec) was opened in August 2001. In addition, there are currently two lodges in the process of becoming section 81 facilities. The first is currently a CSC-run facility, Elbow Lake Institution, in Harrison, British Columbia. This institution is in transition to become an Aboriginally-run healing lodge. The lodge, which has been renamed Kwikwèxwelhp, should be operational by April 2003. The other facility, Willow Cree Healing Lodge, in Duck Lake, Saskatchewan is under construction. It is also scheduled to be open to accept offenders in June 2003.

There has not been a great deal of research on healing lodges or the transfer process. This report will attempt to fill in some of the gaps regarding healing lodges, including a description of the lodges, a profile of offenders, experiences with healing lodges, and some of the issues facing the healing lodges.

Past Research

Little research is available on Aboriginal healing lodges or section 81 of the CCRA. However, a review of studies on Aboriginal offenders in the correctional system can be helpful in understanding the need for healing lodges and the unique approach healing lodges take.

The need for culturally-appropriate facilities and programs has become apparent for a variety of reasons. Clearly, Aboriginal people are over-represented among the correctional population. According to Statistics Canada, Aboriginal people comprise approximately 2% of the adult population in Canada (Statistics Canada, 1996) but they make up 17% of the federal offender population (Boe, 2000; Trevethan, Tremblay & Carter, 2000).

Another issue relates the extent to which Aboriginal offenders apply for, and are granted, parole. Further, once released, how successful are they in remaining out of the correctional system? It is important to look at success upon release, since one of

4


the main goals of CSC is to prepare offenders for their eventual release into the community. Consequently, recidivism is often viewed as the determinant of success upon release.

A few studies have found that Aboriginal offenders do not apply for temporary absences or parole as often as non-Aboriginal offenders (Grant & Porporino, 1993; Motiuk & Belcourt, 1996; Welsh, 2000). Furthermore, when they do apply, they are not granted temporary absences or parole as often as non-Aboriginal offenders. These findings may indicate that Aboriginal offenders spend a larger proportion of their sentence incarcerated. This may impact on their successful reintegration.

The general finding among studies that have examined recidivism is that Aboriginal offenders tend to have higher recidivism rates than non-Aboriginal offenders (Bonta, LaPrairie, & Wallace-Capretta, 1997; Bonta, Lipinski, & Martin, 1992; Hann & Harman, 1989; Sioui & Thibault, 2001). Interestingly, Sioui and Thibault (2001) found that Elder involvement and participation in cultural and spiritual activities was associated with a decrease in recidivism. These findings are important because they seem to indicate that cultural factors can contribute to a decrease in recidivism. Since healing lodges include Elders and focus on cultural and spiritual activities, the use of healing lodges may contribute to a reduction in recidivism. This may ultimately result in a decrease in Aboriginal incarceration rates.

Over the last few years, CSC has made a commitment to offer Aboriginal-specific programming in an effort to more successfully reintegrate Aboriginal offenders upon release. There is some research that indicates the appropriateness of this approach. A number of studies have found that culturally-appropriate programs and environments for Aboriginal offenders may contribute to program completion, successful reintegration and decreases in recidivism (Ellerby & Ellerby, 1998; Ellerby & MacPherson, 2001; Johnston, 1997; Sioui & Thibault, 2001). For instance, Ellerby and MacPherson (2001) found that traditional Aboriginal healing methods are more effective than non-Aboriginal approaches for Aboriginal sex offenders.

5


Some research has also suggested that it is not only important to offer Aboriginal-specific programs, but that delivery of these programs by Aboriginal staff may also be important. Johnston (1997) found that Aboriginal offenders were more comfortable dealing with Aboriginal staff. The offenders viewed native liaisons, and especially spiritual leaders and Elders, as being more trustworthy than non-Aboriginal staff.

Two studies have specifically examined section 81 of the CCRA. Braun (2001) examined Aboriginal offenders in selected institutions and found that about one-fifth (21%) had applied for a section 81 release. Some of the reasons for not applying were that they were not aware of the option, felt they were too close to their statutory release date, were not from a reserve, or were not interested in this type of release. The author noted that there was a general misconception that section 81 is only available for status Indians who maintain a connection to their reserves. This indicates the need for education in the institutions for staff and offenders regarding section 81 and healing lodges.

Only one study to date has examined the effectiveness of healing lodges. Pfeifer and Hart-Mitchell (2001) examined provincial offenders at Wahpeton Healing Lodge in Saskatchewan. Although the sample size for this study was very small, some interesting results were revealed. Many of the offenders said that they were more comfortable participating in cultural activities at the lodge because the staff were more attentive and non-judgmental than institutional staff. They also viewed the environment as more appropriate. The cultural teachings of the lodge were the main reason why offenders requested a transfer and the offenders generally felt that the culturally-appropriate programming will enable them to trust people, stay out of trouble, and deal more positively with their problems.

When examining the research conducted to date, it appears that Aboriginal offenders tend to be released later than non-Aboriginal offenders. Further, once released, there appear to be higher recidivism rates for Aboriginal offenders. These two factors ultimately effect the overall proportion of Aboriginal offenders in the criminal justice and

6


correctional systems. Other research suggests that certain factors may contribute to the situation in corrections, including inappropriate programs, environments, and even correctional staff. Therefore, the importance of examining healing lodges becomes clear. Healing lodges may provide an environment that is more culturally appropriate for both programs and staff and this may aid in the successful reintegration and reduction of recidivism for Aboriginal offenders.

Current Project

The current project attempts to fill some of the gaps regarding what works for Aboriginal offenders by examining one of the initiatives that CSC has been involved in. This project examines healing lodges currently in operation, how those who work in the institutions and the healing lodges view the process, how the transferred offenders view the transfer process and the healing lodge experience, and issues that the lodges are facing. In addition, a profile of the offenders who have been transferred is provided. A specific examination of the women offenders at Okimaw Ohci is also included. The following are the research questions this report addresses:

1.
  
What is the description of the healing lodges in place for federal offenders?
2.
  
What is the profile of offenders who have been transferred to healing lodges?
3.
  
How do offenders' view the healing lodge experience?
4.
  
How do staff from healing lodges view the healing lodge and their relationship with federal facilities?
5.
  
How do staff from federal institutions view the healing lodges?
6.
  
What are the issues facing healing lodges?

7


METHOD

Procedures

This study involved two components. The first gathered information from CSC's Offender Management System (OMS) on offenders who had been residents of a healing lodge between January 1, 1995 and October 31, 2001. This included information on all CSC-run and section 81 healing lodges where section 81 offenders had resided. Information was examined from the Offender Intake Assessment (OIA). CSC’s OIA process collects and stores information on each federal offender’s criminal and mental health background, social situation and education, factors relevant to determining criminal risk (such as number, variety of convictions and previous exposure, response to youth and adult corrections), and factors relevant to identifying offender dynamic needs (such as employment history, family background, criminal associations, addictions, attitudes). While the results help determine institutional placement and correctional plans, a distribution of selected criminal history and case need variables can result in a comprehensive profile of the federal offender population. In addition to information from the OIA, incidents while incarcerated and re-admissions, were also examined.

Once residents of healing lodges were identified, statistical analyses were conducted to provide a profile of federal offenders who had been transferred to a healing lodge2. A profile of Aboriginal offenders at minimum security who had not been transferred to a healing lodge during the same timeframe served as a comparison group.

The second component of the study involved interviews with key people involved in the transfer process at federal correctional facilities and at the healing lodges, as well as some residents of healing lodges. A set of interview questions was developed and administered to all the directors or assistant directors of each of the healing lodges

2 A comparison between CSC-run and section 81 healing lodges was not undertaken because the numbers would be too small for analysis. Furthermore, there is currently no section 81 healing lodge for women.

8


(Appendix B). With the exception of the interview for Ochichakkosipi, which was conducted in person, all interviews were completed by phone. A second questionnaire was developed and administered to selected federal institutional staff, such as Native Liaison workers, Elders, case managers, in-house parole officers and intake officers (Appendix C). These questionnaires were administered to staff in person at the various federal institutions that had been involved in the transferring of offenders under section 81. A third questionnaire was developed and administered to staff at the section 81 healing lodges (Appendix D)3. This questionnaire was administered in person to the staff at Ochichakkosipi, Wahpeton, and Stan Daniels. Finally, a fourth questionnaire was designed and administered in person to a sample of offenders who were currently residing at the healing lodge as a result of a section 81 transfer (Appendix E). There were currently offenders at Stan Daniels and Ochichakkosipi.

Subjects

There were five groups of subjects in this study. The first group included all federal offenders residing at a healing lodge between 1995 and October 2001 (including CSC-run healing lodges and section 81 facilities). There were a total of 652 transfers to healing lodges, however 70 offenders had more than one transfer (including a few offenders who had up to 20 separate transfers). The duplicate offenders were removed leaving a total of 530 offenders who have been residents of a healing lodge.

Telephone interviews were conducted with directors or assistant directors from each of the six healing lodges. Personal interviews were also conducted with 56 staff from the following federal institutions: Stony Mountain and Rockwood (Manitoba); Riverbend and Saskatchewan Medium-Security Institution (Saskatchewan); and, Grierson Centre, Bowden and Drumheller (Alberta). Additionally, 18 staff were interviewed from three of the section 81 facilities (Ochichakkosipi, Stan Daniels, and Wahpeton). Finally, 20

3 Interviews were only conducted at section 81 healing lodges because the Evaluation Branch of CSC had previously, or were in the process of, conducting evaluations at Pê Sâkâstêw and Okimaw Ohci. Since Waseskun had just begun accepting offenders, it was decided that it was premature to interview the staff.

9


interviews were completed with offenders residing at Ochichakkosipi and Stan Daniels. There were no offenders at Wahpeton or Waseskun under section 81 that could be interviewed.

10


DESCRIPTION OF HEALING LODGES

This section provides a description of the six healing lodges that are currently in operation, as well as the two that are under development. The two CSC-run healing lodges, Pê Sâkâstêw and Okimaw Ohci, were not visited in person. Therefore, the lodges provided the description for them. Furthermore, since Kwikwèxwelhp and Willow Cree Healing Lodge are under development, interviews were not conducted. However, brief descriptions are also included.

Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge for Women

Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge is a CSC facility that first opened in November 1995. It is for women offenders only and was the first healing lodge to open in Canada. The 28-bed lodge is located approximately 30 kilometers south of Maple Creek, Saskatchewan. Okimaw Ohci is located on a First Nations reserve, in the Nekaneet First Nation. The

11


area is not isolated, but it is in a remote area of Saskatchewan. Okimaw Ohci is a multilevel facility, taking both minimum and medium security offenders. Including contract staff, approximately 42% of the staff at Okimaw Ohci are Aboriginal.

Pê Sâkâstêw Centre

Pê Sâkâstêw Centre is located just outside Hobbema, Alberta, adjacent to the Samson Cree First Nations community with a population of about 5,000. This minimum-security CSC facility opened in August 1997 and can accommodate up to 60 federal offenders. Of the 60 beds, 40 are reserved for inmates and 20 are for offenders on day parole. Of the approximately 30 staff at the centre, almost one-half are Aboriginal.

12


Wahpeton Spiritual Healing Lodge

Wahpeton Spiritual Healing Lodge is located just outside the main town area of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. The lodge is approximately a ten-minute drive from downtown Prince Albert and about a one-hour drive north of Saskatoon. It is relatively isolated and is located on blessed land. The lodge has an agreement with Prince Albert Grand Council (PAGC) and Saskatchewan Justice (provincial government) for 25 of the 30 beds. The remaining five beds are covered under a section 81 agreement with CSC and PAGC. Wahpeton Spiritual Healing Lodge, which is owned and managed by the community of Prince Albert Grand Council, signed their agreement with CSC in January 1997. At that point, the facilities were built and were open to accepting offenders in August 1997.

There are six log cabins arranged in a circle. The main cabin is larger than the rest and is designated the administrative building. In addition to the main administrative building,

13


there are five cabins - four for residents and one for the Elders. There are also two sweat lodges just outside of the circle of cabins, one that is used in the colder weather and one for the warmer weather.

Of the 12 staff at the lodge, about 95% are Aboriginal.

Stan Daniels Community Corrections Centre is located in downtown Edmonton, Alberta and is run by Native Counselling Services of Alberta. Found on the same grounds is Grierson Centre, a minimum-security CSC facility. Stan Daniels opened as a CSC-run community correctional centre for male federal offenders in 1987. In June 1999, Native Counselling Services of Alberta signed a section 81 agreement with CSC to manage and operate the Centre, including the care and control of offenders. In September

14


1999, the first section 81 transfer occurred and the Centre has been taking transfers ever since. Stan Daniels also accepts offenders with residency requirements who are on day and full parole as well as those on statutory release, and voluntary statutory releases.

This 73-bed facility is a three-story cement building with program rooms, a weight room and a circular room designated for cultural activities. It has a locked entrance where offenders and visitors must sign in and out. Of the beds available at Stan Daniels, approximately 15-20 are reserved for federal offenders. There are approximately 27 staff at Stan Daniels, of which about 65% are Aboriginal.

Ochichakkosipi Healing Lodge

Ochichakkosipi Healing Lodge opened on February 19, 2000. It is located on the Crane River reserve about three and one-half hours north of Winnipeg. The Crane River

15


reserve is home to approximately 300 First Nations peoples. A Métis community is nearby with a population of about 250 people. It is a remote setting and the lodge itself is on a piece of land that juts into Lake Winnipeg.

The facility is currently made up of four log cabins and one house that is designated the administrative office. The houses, intended to be temporary, each have six beds for a total capacity of 24 offenders. At the opposite end of the lodge site, four teepee-inspired lodges are in the midst of construction. These lodges are a little more than halfway completed. Another facility intended to be an administrative building is also in the midst of construction. However, at this point, additional funding to complete them is not available.

The lodge accepts federal offenders on day and full parole, statutory release as well as section 81 transfers. Provincial offenders are welcome at the lodge, but spaces are first reserved for federal inmates.

16


All of the 17 staff at Ochichakkosipi are Aboriginal.

Waseskun Healing Centre

Waseskun Healing Centre is located in the small town of St. Alphonse-de-Rodriquez, approximately one and one-half hours north of Montreal. The lodge was located in Montreal for 12 years, but was moved to the current site in 1998. Prior to becoming a healing lodge, the current facility was a resort and then a treatment centre. Although the town is not an Aboriginal community, the area is Attikamet and Mohawk territory. There are three reserves in the area, with the closest being a one-hour drive.

There is a main building at the front of the site. Further behind are two residences, one with eight rooms, the other with six. The lodge has recently renovated the living quarters to make them into single rooms with a common room for the residents to share. The centre accepts both provincial and federal offenders on day parole, full

17


parole and statutory release (possibly with residency requirements), in addition to the section 81 transfers. Of the 31 beds at Waseskun, 23 are reserved for federal offenders. Of these 23 federal beds, 15 have been designated for section 81 transfers and the remaining eight are for day parolees, full parolees and statutory releases.

Of the 24 staff at the Waseskun Centre, about 71% are Aboriginal.

Kwikwèxwelhp

Kwikwèxwelhp, previously called Elbow Lake Institution, is located near Harrison Mills, British Columbia. It is a CSC facility but is in transition to becoming an Aboriginal healing lodge that will be run by the Chehalis First Nation community. Currently, the facility can accommodate up to 101 male federal offenders but is being redesigned to better reflect the Aboriginal culture of the region.

Willow Cree Healing Lodge4

Willow Cree Healing Lodge, which is still under construction, is located near Duck Lake, Saskatchewan. This 40-bed facility will be run by Beardy's and Okemasis First Nation and will house male Aboriginal federal offenders that are minimum security. The design of the lodge will reflect the Beardy's and Okemasis culture. The approach that will be taken at the lodge will be to provide programs that are holistic and community-based delivered by Elder's from the community.

Comparison of Healing Lodges

There are a number of similarities in the characteristics of healing lodges. However, there is also a great deal of diversity. It is important to note the similarities and differences in order to gain a better understanding of healing lodges. Furthermore, the

4 The lodge is also known by its Cree name, Natawihokamik.

18


discussion may highlight characteristics that seem to work well for healing lodges.

There are some obvious differences between CSC-run and section 81 healing lodges. As noted earlier, CSC-run lodges focus on traditional Aboriginal ideologies but are considered CSC facilities. Section 81 healing lodges are run by Aboriginal communities in an agreement with CSC for the provision of correctional services. These privately-run lodges are required to operate within certain guidelines as outlined in their contracts with CSC. Therefore, Okimaw Ohci and Pê Sâkâstêw, while Aboriginal in focus and design, compared to other healing lodges they maintain some of the characteristics of federal facilities. For instance, some of the staff were CSC correctional officers prior to the lodge becoming a healing lodge. In addition, most procedures in place are similar in nature to those followed at other federal correctional facilities. However, at these two healing lodges, there is much more of a focus on Aboriginal traditions and holistic methods than can be seen in other federal facilities.

Stan Daniels was originally a community correctional centre and Kwikwèxwelhp is currently a minimum-security CSC facility in transition to become a section 81 healing lodge. They may have kept some of the characteristics of minimum-security facilities, however, they have also taken on the characteristics emphasized by the Aboriginal community such as the inclusion of Elders as spiritual advisors in most aspects of the lodge and a focus on traditional methods of healing. The remaining four healing lodges (Ochichakkosipi, Wahpeton, Waseskun and Willow Cree) were originally built as section 81 healing lodges. Therefore, they were designed based on decisions of the Aboriginal community and seem to have incorporated more of the characteristics of the Aboriginal community such as physical location and programs that emphasize the culture.

Overall, the physical aspects of the healing lodges differ dramatically in size, location and design. Waseskun, Wahpeton, Ochichakkosipi, Okimaw Ohci and Willow Cree are similar in size, with approximately 30 beds each. Pê Sâkâstêw, Stan Daniels and Kwikwèxwelhp, are larger with 60, 73 and 101 beds, respectively.

19


There is also a great deal of variation in the location of the lodges. At one end of the spectrum, Stan Daniels is located in downtown Edmonton. In contrast, Ochichakkosipi is on a reserve in a very remote setting, approximately three and one-half hours north of Winnipeg. The other lodges are located in rural areas, but are closer to towns than Ochichakkosipi. Offenders staying at healing lodges that are fairly remote are able to experience a very natural environment that can aid them in their healing. Those that are rural, but near a town or city, may allow better access to programs and employment opportunities. For instance, Stan Daniels may be better situated to help the offenders see their families and obtain employment. Stan Daniels may also be a more realistic setting for offenders who will return to urban settings upon release.

The design of the lodges also differs. For instance, Stan Daniels is in a building that resembles a small correctional facility. Other healing lodges, such as Wahpeton, Okimaw Ohci, Pê Sâkâstêw and Ochichakkosipi, were built with traditional designs in mind and are located in natural environments.

The staffing at each of the lodges tends to be similar. An executive director is responsible for ensuring the facility runs properly and deals with the financial concerns of the lodge. In addition, the executive directors tend to have the most amount of contact with the federal institutions. There are various support staff in place at each facility and many perform double duties and counsel the offenders. Waseskun is the only section 81 healing lodge with CSC staff that act as liaisons between the lodge and the federal institutions. All facilities have at least one Elder or spiritual advisor on staff to counsel the offenders in small groups or one-on-one.

Obviously the transfer process for CSC-run and section 81 healing lodges differs. The transfer to a CSC-run healing lodge is the same as a transfer to any other correctional facility. The transfer to a section 81 healing lodge requires more discussion and documentation. Furthermore, there is a specific approval process in place that is outlined in the contract between the lodge and CSC. Among section 81 healing lodges, the transfer process tends to proceed, more or less, along the same lines. Some

20


lodges, such as Wahpeton and Waseskun, rely primarily on referrals from the institutions whereas Stan Daniels and Ochichakkosipi actively seek transfers.

Regardless of how the transfer begins, all potential transfers fill out an application form for the lodge. The lodge then reviews the offenders file from the federal institution and the application, meet with the offender, and determine whether he/she is an appropriate candidate. At this point in time, section 81 healing lodges can only accept offenders who are rated as minimum security. Other factors, such as involvement in traditional culture, motivation to change, commitment to healing plan and behaviour while in the federal institutional all can effect the lodges' decision to accept an offender. Unlike other healing lodges, Wahpeton has an agreement with the community not to accept an offender who has been convicted of a sexual offence. Once an offender is accepted, the acceptance must be signed-off by the Offender Management Review Board and the warden of the federal institution, as well as the Deputy Commissioner of the region.

All healing lodges have an orientation period that offenders go through upon arrival. However, this process is somewhat unique for each facility. Generally, an offender is told the rules and procedures of the lodge. Each offender transferred to a healing lodge has a healing plan that outlines the areas they will be working on in relation to their spiritual, emotional, physical and mental well-being. If the healing plan has not already been prepared, it is completed upon transfer to the healing lodge. However, other aspects of the orientation differ across healing lodge. For instance, at Ochichakkosipi, the transferred offender is given seven days to decide if he wants to stay. Further, at some healing lodges, welcoming circles are held.

The programming differs greatly between the lodges. All lodges offer certain programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous - sometimes within the lodge or in nearby communities. However, Okimaw Ohci, Pê Sâkâstêw, Waseskun and Stan Daniels offer additional structured programs that deal with the needs of the offenders. These programs differ across these lodges. Ochichakkosipi and Wahpeton do not offer programs per se, but instead see the healing lodge experience as the program. In addition, they use counselling as a way of aiding the offenders along their healing path. Because they

21


have not yet opened, it is unclear exactly what programs will be offered at

Kwikwèxwelhp and Willow Cree. However, it appears that they will both have some structured programs5.

Finally, each healing lodge maintains a record of the offender but the extent of this differs from lodge to lodge. As mentioned earlier, because they are, or were, CSC-run facilities, Okimaw Ohci, Pê Sâkâstêw, Stan Daniels, and Kwikwèxwelhp have access to the OMS. They access offenders' files and enter their reports and assessments into the system. It has been agreed that Waseskun will also have OMS access and will begin training to enter their information into the system. Currently, Wahpeton and Ochichakkosipi do not have access to OMS and do not provide information for entry into the system. Willow Cree has not yet opened and it is unclear whether they will have access to the OMS.

5 Kwikwèxwelhp currently offers the core CSC programs. However, this may change once they become a section 81 healing lodge. Willow Cree healing lodge is currently developing an extensive array of programs.

22


OFFENDER PROFILE

This section outlines the characteristics of the offenders who have resided at a healing lodge, both CSC-run and under section 81. As stated above, there were a total of 652 transfers to healing lodges between January 1, 1995 and October 31, 2001. Once the duplicate transfers were removed, there were 530 offenders who have resided at a healing lodge. A comparison group of Aboriginal offenders incarcerated in minimum-security institutions during the same timeframe who had not been transferred to a healing lodge was used6.

It should be noted that 13% of the healing lodge residents were non-Aboriginal. This is not particularly surprising since Section 81(2) of the CCRA notes that Aboriginal communities may provide correctional services to non-Aboriginal offenders. To accurately reflect residents of healing lodges, a decision was made to retain these residents in the analyses. However, only Aboriginal offenders were included in the comparison group because it was felt that non-Aboriginal healing lodge residents may differ from those not transferred. In order to ensure that the results were not biased, all analyses were also conducted excluding the non-Aboriginal healing lodge residents. Very few differences emerged between the analyses that included and excluded non-Aboriginal residents7.

Residents

Figure 1 demonstrates the total number of transfers to healing lodges from the time the first one opened in 1995 (also see Table 1). Five of the healing lodges have had transfers: Pê Sâkâstêw, Stan Daniels8, Okimaw Ohci, Wahpeton, and Ochichakkosipi. There were a total of 652 transfers to healing lodges between January 1, 1995 and

6 Since correctional facilities for women typically include minimum- and medium-security women, Aboriginal women who were rated as minimum security were chosen.

7 With non-Aboriginal residents excluded, there were minor changes to a few demographic and offence characteristics. However, the findings relating to risk, need, incidents and recidivism remained the same. 8 Although Stan Daniels only became a section 81 facility in 1999, all transfers to Stan Daniels from 1995 are included in the analysis.

23


October 31, 2001. As illustrated in the figure, Pê Sâkâstêw and Stan Daniels have received the largest number of transfers (47% and 28%, respectively).

Figure 1: Transfers to Healing Lodges - by Lodge

Figure 2 illustrates the number of transfers, as well as the number of offenders who resided at healing lodges, by year. In 1995, there were nine transfers. Over the years this increased to a high of 143 in 2000. By October 31, 2001, there had been 125 transfers, which may have ended in a total higher than in 2000.

A total of 530 offenders have resided at healing lodges since 1995. As with the number of transfers, this began with nine residents in 1995. The number of residents increased to 100 in 1998, 106 in 1999, 104 in 2000 and 104 in 2001 (up to October 31, 2001). Over the last four years, the number of residents appears to have leveled off at around 104 per year. However, the number may increase in the future as there were already

24


Figure 2: Transfers to Healing Lodges - by Year

104 residents by October 31, 2001. In addition, Waseskun has just begun accepting section 81 transfers and, by 2003, two new healing lodges will be in operation (Kwikwèxwelhp and Willow Cree). This may increase the number of residents each year.

Socio-Demographic Information

Of the offenders residing in healing lodges, 85% were men (see Table 2). However, it is interesting to note that although Aboriginal women comprise about 10% of the Aboriginal inmate population in minimum security, 15% of healing lodge residents were women. Furthermore, 87% of healing lodge residents were Aboriginal. Three of the five healing lodges had non-Aboriginal residents: 36% of residents at Stan Daniels were non-Aboriginal (n=49), 16% of those at Okimaw Ohci (n=12), and 2% of those at Pê Sâkâstêw (n=5). This illustrates, as allowed in Section 81 of the CCRA, healing lodges do not only accept Aboriginal offenders, but may instead look for individuals who are interested in following traditional healing methods.

25


Almost one-half (49%) of the residents of healing lodges were married or living in common-law relationships, and a further 41% were single. Almost two-thirds (61%) had less than a grade 10 education at the time of admission and 65% were unemployed at the time of arrest. The mean age at admission to a federal institution for the current offence was 32.6 years. These findings are similar to those of Aboriginal offenders in minimum security. The only significant difference was that a larger proportion of healing lodge residents were married or living in common-law relationships as compared to Aboriginal offenders in minimum security (49% versus 44%).

Current Convictions

As illustrated in Figure 3, for the most serious current offence for which the transferred offenders were currently incarcerated, the three most common offences were homicide (19%), assault (18%), and robbery (15%) (also see Table 3). The three most serious current offences for Aboriginal offenders in minimum security were sex offences (20%), homicide (18%) and robbery (18%). Significantly larger proportions of Aboriginal offenders in minimum security were currently incarcerated for sex offences, when compared to the residents of healing lodges (20% versus 13%). Significantly larger proportions of healing lodge residents were incarcerated for assault (18% versus 12%), drug-related offences (10% versus 6%) and other property offences (6% versus 3%).

The average aggregate sentence length9 for residents of healing lodges was 4.2 years (ranging from 2 to 24 years), and the median was 3 years (see Table 3). This finding is not significantly different from Aboriginal offenders in minimum security. Thirty-one residents were serving indeterminate sentences10.

9 Mean aggregate sentence is calculated with life sentences removed.

10 Those serving indeterminate sentences include those serving life sentences for various offences or those designated as dangerous offenders.

26


Figure 3: Most Serious Current Offence

     Homicide Assault Robbery Sex Offence

     Break and Enter Other CC/Federal Statutes Other Property Impaired Driving Other Violent Attempted Murder

Almost three-quarters (73%) of those transferred had between one and four current convictions and 8% had 10 or more convictions. Again, these findings do not differ substantially from those found for Aboriginal offenders in minimum security.

Victims

It was also possible to examine some information on the victims of the healing lodge residents (see Table 4). Almost two-thirds (64%) of the healing lodge residents had one victim for the current offence. This was similar among Aboriginal offenders in minimum security.

Ten percent of healing lodge residents had victims who were children, 5% had elderly victims, and 1% had handicapped/infirm victims. The proportions of elderly or handicapped victims were similar for Aboriginal offenders in minimum security. However, a larger proportion of Aboriginal offenders in minimum security had victims

27


who were children (15% versus 10%). The reason for this finding may be that some lodges are reluctant or unable to accept these types of offenders (e.g., sex offenders).

When analyzing harm to the victim, the results indicate that 16% of the healing lodge residents had caused the death of their victim, 25% had caused serious physical harm11 and 27% had caused serious psychological harm. A larger proportion of healing lodge residents caused the death of their victims compared those in minimum security (16% versus 11%). However, a smaller proportion of healing lodge residents caused serious psychological damage (27% versus 33%).

Criminal History Risk

In addition to examining the current offence for which the residents of healing lodges were incarcerated, it was also possible to examine past criminal history.

When examining youth and adult criminal histories, it was found that residents of healing lodges had fairly similar criminal histories as Aboriginal offenders in minimum security. Slightly less than one-half (44%) of healing lodge residents had previous youth convictions and 90% had previous adult convictions (see Table 5). However, a larger proportion of residents had 15 or more previous convictions, as compared to Aboriginal offenders in minimum security (45% versus 34%). Similar to Aboriginal offenders in minimum security, more than three-quarters (78%) of the residents had previously served a provincial sentence and 23% had previously served a federal sentence.

It is also possible to describe some of the behaviour of the residents of healing lodges when they were previously incarcerated in the federal institution as well as during previous release periods (see Table 6). When previously released, residents of healing lodges experienced some difficulty in that 57% had failed on a previous community-based sanction and 36% had failed on a prior conditional release. Furthermore, about

11  Serious physical harm has been defined by CSC as “wounding, maiming or disfiguring”.

28


one-fifth (19%) have had less than six months since their last incarceration and 17% had not had a crime free period for one year. These findings are similar to those for Aboriginal offenders in minimum security.

While incarcerated in a federal facility, larger proportions of healing lodge residents than Aboriginal offenders in minimum security were reclassified to a higher level of custody (13% versus 10%), segregated for a disciplinary infraction (25% versus 17%) and had attempted or completed an escape while incarcerated or on an unescorted leave (34% versus 21%).

Overall risk to re-offend was also analyzed upon admission to the federal facility (Table 7). The findings demonstrated that approximately one-half (53%) of the residents of healing lodges were determined to be high risk to re-offend at intake, which is significantly higher than Aboriginal offenders in minimum security (45%). Furthermore, significantly smaller proportions of healing lodge residents were considered to have high reintegration potential at intake, compared to Aboriginal offenders in minimum security (30% versus 42%). However, no significant differences emerged between healing lodge residents and Aboriginal offenders in minimum security on motivation for intervention at intake.

Case Needs

In addition to information on each federal offender's criminal background, CSC's Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) process also collects information on factors relevant to identifying offender needs (such as employment history, family background, criminal associations, addictions, attitudes). While the results help determine institutional placement and correctional plans, a distribution of selected case need variables can result in a comprehensive profile of the federal offender population.

The dynamic needs of the offenders at the time of admission to the federal facility were examined for healing lodge residents. Almost two-thirds (64%) of those transferred

29


were rated as high need and 29% as medium need overall upon admission (see Table 8). Significantly larger proportions of residents were rated as high need overall when compared to minimum-security Aboriginal offenders (64% versus 50%).

Figure 4 indicates individual dynamic needs. As illustrated in the figure, almost all of the residents were rated as having some or considerable need for substance abuse and personal/emotional issues (93% and 91%, respectively). Furthermore, approximately two-thirds were rated as having some or considerable need for employment (71%), associates/social interaction (69%), and marital/family (64%) issues. Smaller proportions had high need in community functioning (45%) and attitude (36%).

Figure 4: Some or Considerable Need

     Substance Abuse Personal/Emotional Employment Associates/Social Interaction Marital/Family Community Functioning

Similar results were found for Aboriginal offenders in minimum security on two domains (attitude and personal/emotional). However, there were significant differences on substance abuse, employment, associates/social interaction, marital/family, and community functioning. In these areas, healing lodge residents were rated as higher

30


need than Aboriginal offenders in minimum security (93% versus 90%; 71% versus 65%; 69% versus 57%; 64% versus 56%; 45% versus 35%, respectively).

Initial Security Placement

An examination of security level upon admission to the federal correctional facility revealed that about one-half (53%) of the healing lodge residents were designated by parole officers as requiring medium security upon admission (see Table 9). A further 41% were designated as minimum security and 6% as maximum security. This was similar for Aboriginal offenders in minimum security.

Incidents While Incarcerated

It is also possible to examine the incidents that residents of healing lodges were involved in when they were in both the federal institution and the healing lodge (see Table 10). Overall, 40% of the healing lodge residents were perpetrators of at least one incident while incarcerated in the federal correctional facility. The three most common incidents the healing lodge residents were involved in while in the institution were intelligence12 (54%), assault13 (43%) and causing disturbances14 (43%)15. Although a larger proportion of Aboriginal offenders in minimum security were involved in incidents in the federal correctional facility (46%), there was more time for an incident to occur because they were not transferred to a healing lodge.

Following their transfer to the healing lodge, there was a decrease in the proportion of residents who committed an incident. One-third (31%) of the residents had perpetrated

12 Intelligence includes getting information through other inmates or institutional staff that an assault, disturbance, possession of an unauthorized item/contraband, self harm, or other form of incident has occurred.

13  An assault includes an assault on a staff member, assault on another inmate and fighting.

14  Disturbance includes disciplinary problems, setting fires, and major and minor disturbances.

15 An offender may have been involved in more than one incident. Therefore, the percentages do not total 100%.

31


an incident following their transfer. The most common incidents were intelligence (42%), “other”16 incidents (30%) and assault (27%).

It appears that fewer of the residents were involved in incidents following their transfer to a healing lodge. However, they also spent less time in healing lodges than in federal facilities (median = 6 versus 10 months), so there was less opportunity to be involved in incidents.

Recidivism

Information regarding recidivism comes from two sources: OMS (re-admission data) and Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC - re-offending data). Once an offender reaches his/her warrant expiry date, CSC no longer has any jurisdiction over him/her and does not maintain the file unless the offender is re-admitted to a federal correctional facility. The CPIC database contains information on any charges incurred by the offender, regardless of whether the offender is re-admitted to a federal institution.

Of the 530 offenders who had resided at healing lodges, 426 (81%) were released by November 1, 2001 (see Table 11)17. On average, they resided at the healing lodges for eight months (239 days, ranging from 5 days to 5¾ years). One-half (53%) of these were released on day parole, 40% on statutory release, and 6% on full parole. Similar proportions of Aboriginal offenders in minimum security were released (82%).

On average, the time between admission to the federal facility for the current conviction and release from the healing lodge was about 2 years (753 days) for healing lodge residents, compared to 1½ years (550 days) for Aboriginal offenders in minimum security.

16 "Other" includes damage to government property, being under the influence and any other incident not specified.

17  One offender was deceased and was not included in the release data.

32


Of the 426 healing lodge residents released, 166 have been re-admitted to a federal facility at some point after release. One-half of the re-admissions (82) were for technical violations and one-half (83) were for new offences. If re-admissions for new offences are examined, the recidivism rate for new offences is 19%18. This percentage is significantly higher than among Aboriginal offenders released from minimum security (13%).

It is important to note that individuals may have spent different lengths of time in the community. Therefore, there may have been differences in time "at risk" to re-offend19. In fact, those released from healing lodges had, on average, less time at risk in the community as compared to Aboriginal offenders in minimum security (2.1 versus 3.0 years). Therefore, even though they had less time in the community, larger proportions re-offended.

Up to six months after their release, 9% of the healing lodge residents who were released had been re-admitted to a federal facility, compared to 5% of Aboriginal offenders released from minimum security. Up to one year after their release, this increased to 13% for healing lodge residents compared to 8% for Aboriginal offenders released from minimum security.

It should be noted that differences existed across various healing lodges. Smaller proportions of residents released from Okimaw Ohci and Stan Daniels were re-admitted for new offences (12% and 13%, respectively), compared to 20% for Ochichakkosipi, 23% for Pê Sâkâstêw and 30% for Wahpeton.

As noted earlier, residents of healing lodges were assessed as higher risk to re-offend than Aboriginal offenders in minimum security upon intake. Therefore, it may be expected that larger proportions would be re-admitted for new offences. However,

18 A technical violation may end up resulting in a new offence. Therefore, there may be an under-counting of new offences.

19 "At risk" was calculated using the following: for those re-admitted - time of release until time of readmission; for those not re-admitted - time of release until end of study period (November 1, 2001).

33


when compared to a matched sample of Aboriginal offenders in minimum security, significant differences in re-admissions for new offences still emerged20.

On average, those released from healing lodges were re-admitted in a shorter period of time than Aboriginal offenders in minimum security. The average amount of time to first re-admission was 275 days (9 months) for those released from healing lodges. This ranged from 19 days to over 3½ years. In comparison, the time to first re-admission for Aboriginal offenders in minimum security was 338 days (11 months). This ranged from 2 days to 6 years.

The preceding analyses examined re-admissions to federal facilities. However, it is possible that those released committed further offences but had not been re-admitted. This may be because the offence had not yet been processed, or the person may have received a different sanction (e.g., provincial incarceration, probation, etc.). In addition to the 83 offenders returned to a federal facility for a new offence, a further 58 had re-offended and were recorded in CPIC, but were not recorded as having been re-admitted to a federal facility for a new offence (Table 12). The largest proportion of offenders who re-offended committed "other" Criminal Code or federal statute offences (34%), property offences (33%), impaired driving (16%) and assault (16%)21.

Women Offenders Transferred to Okimaw Ohci

Okimaw Ohci is the only healing lodge for women. Since differences exist between men and women offenders, it is important to profile the women offenders who have been transferred to healing lodges.

There have been a total of 77 women transferred to CSC-run Okimaw Ohci since it opened in 1995. The lodge averages the transfer of approximately 11 women per year, accounting for 15% of all offenders transferred to a healing lodge (see Table 1).

20 All healing lodge residents released from custody were matched with a comparison group of Aboriginal offenders in minimum security on level of risk.

21  An offender may have committed more than one offence. Therefore, the total does not equal 100%.

34


Demographically, the women and men transferred to healing lodges are similar (see Table 2). One exception is that significantly larger proportions of women than men were unemployed at the time of arrest (88% versus 60%). Further, women tend to be younger at admission both to a federal facility (30 versus 33.1 years) and at transfer to the healing lodge (31.2 versus 35.2 years).

In terms of current most serious offence, significantly more women than men who were transferred were currently incarcerated for homicide (38% versus 15%). Larger proportions of men were currently incarcerated for sex offences (15% versus 0%), break and enter (10% versus 1%), and impaired driving (6% versus 1%) (see Table 3).

Women offenders were more likely to have offended against an elderly person than men (10% versus 3%) (see Table 4). However, larger proportions of men than women offended against a child (12% versus 3%). Not surprisingly, given the finding that the largest proportion of women transferred were convicted of homicide, a significantly larger proportion caused the death of their victims when compared to men who were transferred (37% versus 12%). In addition, while a larger proportion of women had caused serious physical injury to their victims (42% versus 22%), the women were rated as causing less psychological harm than the men (15% versus 30%), perhaps because more men were incarcerated for sexual assault.

An analysis of criminal history indicates that the transferred women offenders have a less extensive criminal history than men (see Table 5). Larger proportions of women had no previous adult convictions (23% versus 7%). Similarly, significantly smaller proportions of the women offenders had previously served provincial and federal terms of incarceration than men (55% versus 82%; 10% versus 26%). Interestingly, a larger proportion of women had previous youth court convictions (56% versus 41%). Finally, smaller proportions of the women failed on a previous community-based sanction or conditional release than the men (45% versus 59%; 23% versus 39%) (see Table 6). In addition, the women offenders were significantly less likely than men to have previously attempted or succeeded in an escape or were unlawfully at large (21% versus 36%).

35


When looking at overall risk to re-offend, the largest proportion of women offenders were rated as medium, which is significantly larger than men (54% versus 33%). However, significantly smaller proportions of women were rated as high risk when compared to men (32% versus 57%) (Table 7). Although no significant differences were found for motivation for intervention, a larger proportion of women than men were assessed as having high reintegration potential (45% versus 28%).

Significantly smaller proportions of women than men were rated as high need overall (50% versus 66%) (see Table 8). When examining the individual need domains, a larger proportion of women had some or considerable need in the domains of personal/emotional (99% versus 89%), employment (91% versus 67%) and marital/family (84% versus 60%).

Upon intake, the largest proportion (68%) of women offenders were rated as medium security. In comparison to men, a significantly larger proportion of the transferred women were assessed as maximum security (14% versus 5%) and a smaller proportion as minimum security (18% versus 45%) (see Table 9).

When examining behaviour while incarcerated, 40% of the women transferred to Okimaw Ohci had perpetrated an incident while incarcerated in a federal institution (Table 10). The same proportion of men had perpetrated incidents. The most common incidents committed by women were "other" incidents (58%) and assaults (55%)22. Women committed significantly more self-harm23 and "other" incidents than the male offenders (39% versus 9%; 58% versus 35%, respectively). Following the transfer, significantly larger proportions of women than men were involved in incidents (43% versus 29%). Again, the most common incidents perpetrated were "other" incidents (76%) and assault (45%).

22 An offender may have committed more than one incident and therefore, the percentages will not add up to 100%.

23  Self-harm includes hunger strikes, self-injury and suicide.

36


Similar proportions of women and men were released from healing lodges (78% and 81%, respectively). Significantly larger proportions of women than men were released on full parole (15% versus 5%). Among those released, no significant differences emerged between the proportions of women and men re-admitted to federal correctional facilities (38% and 39%, respectively) or re-offended (40% and 32%, respectively) (see Tables 11-12).

It is important to note that many of the differences illustrated between women and men transferred to healing lodges are characteristic of differences between women and men offenders in general. For example, according to Finn, Trevethan, Carrière and Kowalski (1999), the demographic characteristics of women and men differ, as do the offences for which they are incarcerated.

37


THE HEALING LODGE EXPERIENCE

Interviews were conducted with offenders who have been transferred to Ochichakkosipi and Stan Daniels under section 81. There were no offenders at Wahpeton or Waseskun under section 81 that could be interviewed, and Kwikwèxwelhp and Willow Cree Healing Lodge were not yet open as section 81 facilities.

Interviews were also conducted with staff at Ochicahkkosipi, Stan Daniels and Wahpeton. Finally, interviews were conducted with staff at various transferring institutions24.

The purpose of the interviews was to examine the experience that offenders and staff have had with healing lodges.

Offenders

Interviews were conducted with 20 male offenders who were currently residing at Ochichakkosipi or Stan Daniels as part of a section 81 transfer25. The purpose of the interviews was to examine how offenders view the healing lodge experience. The offenders were asked questions relating to the transfer process, their current stay at the healing lodge, release plans, and some general questions relating to healing lodges.

For the majority of the offenders interviewed (80%), this was their first transfer to a healing lodge (see Table 13). The largest proportion (40%) thought that they would remain at the healing lodge for between one and three months. A further 35% thought they would remain for more than four months and 25% thought they would remain for less than one month.

24 The two CSC-run healing lodges (Pê Sâkâstêw and Okimaw Ohci), were not included in the interview process because evaluations had previously been conducted or were underway. Therefore, it was decided that the focus should be on section 81 healing lodges.

25 Due to the small number of interviews with offenders, and because interviews were only conducted at two healing lodges, the results should be interpreted with caution.

38


Offenders hear about section 81 transfers from a variety of sources. As indicated in Table 13, one-quarter (25%) of the offenders who were interviewed said that they were first told about section 81 transfers from their parole officer/case manager at the institution. A further 20% were told by a healing lodge representative, and 20% by another inmate. Once the offenders applied for a transfer to a healing lodge, 35% said it took between four and six months for the transfer to occur. A further 30% took between one and three months and one-fifth (20%) took less than one month. Almost one-half of those transferred (45%) said that they had been placed on a waiting list. When asked to rate their satisfaction with the transfer process, 78% said that they were somewhat or very satisfied and 22% were not satisfied. One-third (32%) said that they had experienced problems with the process, such as the length of time for the transfer to occur and delays in the process.

As part of their stay at the healing lodge, the offender and staff design a healing plan. A healing plan is similar to a correctional plan in that it outlines the areas the offender needs to work on based on a holistic approach. While at the lodge, the offender works to address the issues outlined in his/her healing plan. Seventy percent of the offenders said that they had prepared a healing plan prior to entering the healing lodge. The components of the healing plans varied among offenders. However, some general components included addressing substance abuse, education, employment, family and personal issues. The great majority of those interviewed (94%) said they were satisfied with the healing plan. When asked how far along they thought they were in their healing plan, 41% said that they were near the middle, 35% at or near the end, and 12% at the beginning or near the beginning of their plan. These responses may be indicative of the amount of time spent at the healing lodge to date.

The offenders were also asked some questions regarding their experiences with the healing lodge staff and their overall experience at the lodge. Sixty percent of those interviewed said that they were very satisfied with the staff at the healing lodge. A further 35% somewhat satisfied and only one resident was not satisfied. One reason for satisfaction with staff was because the staff treated them like real people. Furthermore,

39


some noted that the staff communicated with them and encouraged them. According to one respondent:

[The healing lodge staff are] very interactive. [It's] not like in prison where guards have nothing to do with them. [There is] no tension with staff and inmates [here]. Communication is better, the staff helps [offenders] deal with their problems.

Of those who were somewhat or not satisfied, the main reason seemed to relate to a shortage of staff and high staff turnover.

Fifty-six percent of the offenders said that they were very aware of traditional healing methods prior to entering the healing lodge. However, 74% said that they were currently very aware of traditional healing methods. This would seem to indicate that the offenders residing at healing lodges felt that their awareness of Aboriginal healing methods increased while at the lodge.

The offenders were asked to rate the extent to which the healing lodge experience gave them a better sense of who they were. Three-quarters (74%) of the offenders said that the healing lodge has given them a better sense of who they are. Furthermore, 83% said that the healing lodge has helped them a great deal in their healing process. Many of those who said that the lodge gave them a better sense of themselves were not able to give specific reasons why this was the case. A few mentioned that the access to sweat lodges, cultural activities and Elders made a difference. Others said access to outside activities has helped them understand themselves better. In terms of changes that they have noticed in themselves, the overall sense seemed to be that they were less angry and more in control of themselves. For instance, according to one person:

[I] don't respond violently anymore. Emotionally I feel more at peace with myself [and] don't have negative thoughts anymore.

40


Overall, 80% of the offenders said that they were very satisfied with the healing lodge experience. Some of the most beneficial aspects of the healing lodge appear to be an increase in independence and freedom, the setting of the lodges, access to Aboriginal culture, the use of a holistic approach, and working with staff who care about you. When asked about what could be changed at the healing lodges, many said that nothing needed to be changed. A few suggested physical changes to the facilities (e.g., gym, library, maintenance). Others said that more staff were required, and that some staff needed more extensive training on Aboriginal culture.

The offenders were also asked about their plans for their release. One-half (50%) indicated that they were going to be released to a non-Aboriginal community and 20% to an Aboriginal community. When offenders were asked how being at the healing lodge would help them re-integrate back into an Aboriginal community, 88% indicated that it would be very helpful. Similarly, when asked how being at the healing lodge would aid them in re-integrating into an urban setting, 89% indicated that it would be very helpful.

Lastly, the offenders were asked where they felt the best location for a healing lodge was. Over one-third (35%) indicated that it should be in a rural setting and a further 35% said it should be on or near a reserve or Aboriginal community.

Healing Lodge Staff

Interviews were conducted with 18 staff from Ochichakkosipi, Stan Daniels, and Wahpeton. Of the staff interviewed, 61% were male and 89% were Aboriginal. The positions the staff filled at the lodges varied - there were case managers, Elders, living unit staff, and directors.

As indicated in Table 14, most of the staff at the lodges (75%) said they do not actively seek transfers. This is usually left up to either the directors of the lodges or the lodge relies on referrals from the federal institutions. Overall, among those who were able to

41


respond to the question, those involved in the transferring of offenders viewed it as a fairly efficient process. Almost one-half (46%) said that the transfer process was very efficient and a further 46% said it was somewhat efficient. When asked what the positive aspects of the transfer process were, the most common answer referred to the positive interactions with institutional staff. When asked how the transfer process could be improved, some healing lodge staff suggested better communication between the institutions and healing lodges, and providing more information to offenders about section 81.

When asked about their relationship with the federal institution staff, six of the healing lodge staff did not know or had no interaction with federal staff. Of those who were able to answer the question, 75% viewed their relationship as somewhat or very positive. More than two-thirds (69%) of those who responded indicated that the responsibilities of the federal institutions and the healing lodge were clearly outlined. Further, one-quarter (25%) indicated that they did not experience any problems when communicating with the federal institutions. Of those who did experience problems, some felt that federal institutions lacked an understanding of the role of healing lodges (50%) and section 81 (25%). Some felt the federal institutions did not trust the healing lodges' ability to manage offenders (31%) and others said federal institutions lacked commitment to the implementation of section 81 (25%).

Healing lodge staff were asked what federal institutions could do to help healing lodges implement section 81. It was suggested by a number of respondents that, in order to get a better understanding of healing lodges, federal staff should visit the healing lodge and interact with healing lodge staff and residents. This could also facilitate relationships between healing lodge and federal staff. It was also suggested that staff from the federal institutions could help train healing lodge staff on the implementation of section 81.

Staff were also asked questions regarding the effects the lodge may have on offenders. When asked about people with experience in traditional Aboriginal healing, more than

42


three-quarters (78%) felt that there were enough staff at the lodge with knowledge of traditional Aboriginal healing methods.

Most (94%) felt that the healing lodge experience is very beneficial to the offenders. When asked why the lodge does or doesn't benefit the offenders, the answers from the healing lodge staff were similar to those from the offenders. It was noted that the atmosphere is open and relaxed, staff care about the offenders, and the lodge provides access to cultural experiences. As indicated by one staff member, the benefits of the lodge include:

…lots of personal involvement, staff care about clients [and] want the offender to succeed… Staff go above and beyond trying to be supportive, the staff here have a good understanding of what other staff do, so they have a good idea of what the offender is going through at different times in their healing. People here work like a family - [they] look out for each other and it transfers to the offenders… very open atmosphere and respectful.

When asked about how the lodge aids the offenders in reintegration, almost three-quarters (71%) felt that the lodges were very helpful in reintegration into Aboriginal communities and 67% felt lodges were very helpful in reintegration into urban settings. Furthermore, most (94%) of the staff said that the lodge provided information regarding resources available in an offenders community. Almost two-thirds (63%) said that Aboriginal communities were very involved with the healing lodge. Healing lodge staff were also asked about the extent to which the lodge follows-up with an offender once he/she has been released. More than one-half (56%) felt that the lodge was very good at following-up with an offender upon release. However, it appears that this is more a matter of individual staff taking the time to follow-up, rather than lodge policy. Many staff noted that they do not have the funds to provide automatic follow-up of all offenders.

43


It was noted that some of the most beneficial aspects of the healing lodge include the Aboriginal culture and tradition. Another benefit was providing residents with the opportunity to heal. As was also noted by the offenders, staff felt that improvements to facilities would be useful (e.g., more space, security). They also said that more funding was necessary in order to increase the space, improve programming, hire more staff and interact with community more fully.

Federal Institution Staff

Interviews were conducted with 56 staff from the following federal institutions: Stony Mountain and Rockwood (Manitoba); Riverbend and Saskatchewan medium-security Institution (Saskatchewan); and, Grierson Centre, Bowden and Drumheller (Alberta).

Of the federal staff involved in this study, one-half (50%) were male and 27% were Aboriginal. Three-quarters (73%) of the staff were case managers or parole officers and 16% were Native Liaison officers.

Federal staff were asked about their knowledge and involvement in various aspects of section 81. Overall, it appears that those interviewed had a good understanding of section 81, but less understanding of what occurs at healing lodges. As indicated in Table 15, two-thirds (63%) of the federal staff felt that they had a very good understanding of the purpose of section 81. However, only 30% said they had a very good understanding of what occurs at a healing lodge. Seventy percent said that they had very little or some understanding of what occurs.

Three-quarters (76%) of those interviewed had recommended to an offender that he/she apply for a section 81 transfer and more than one-half (56%) had participated in a transfer. Furthermore, 39% had participated in the development of offenders' healing plans.

44


The staff were also asked to comment on the efficiency of the transfer process. Two-thirds (63%) thought the process was somewhat or very efficient. When asked about the positive aspects of the transfer process, some mentioned that the transfers are very thorough and identify the appropriate offenders who should be transferred. Others noted that it provides an opportunity to involve the offender in the transfer process. Although a few mentioned that the transfer process doesn't take very long, others mentioned that the process took longer than it should. When asked how the transfer process could be improved, some suggestions included: improved communication between the healing lodges and federal institutions; more information for offenders on section 81; less paperwork; and, speeding up the transfer process.

When asked to comment on their relationship with the staff at the healing lodge, of those who deal with the lodges, over one-half (58%) said they maintained a very positive relationship with the staff. Further, 44% said that they did not have any problems when communicating with the healing lodges. Of those who did experience problems, some mentioned a lack of communication, a lack of trust regarding the healing lodges' ability to manage offenders, and a lack of understanding of the role of healing lodges and section 81. About one-half (48%) of the respondents said that the responsibilities of the healing lodge and the federal institution have not been clearly outlined. About one-fifth (22%) said that they thought that the healing lodges were not effectively managing offenders and 43% said they were somewhat able to effectively manage offenders. Only one-third (35%) said they thought they were very effective at managing offenders.

The institutional staff were asked what federal institutions could do to help healing lodges implement section 81. Similar to what was mentioned by healing lodge staff, federal staff suggested that staff from federal institutions could help train healing lodge staff on the implementation of section 81 (including the assessment process, programs, paperwork, CSC process). It was also suggested that CSC should be more supportive of healing lodges and promote the option of healing lodges. Further, it was suggested that there be a staff exchange or visits between healing lodges and federal institutions.

45


This could help staff at lodges to better understand what's going on in penitentiaries and for federal staff to better understand healing lodges. As one person noted:

[CSC staff] have to be more active in reaching out and calling people [in order] to make healing lodge staff more comfortable dealing with CSC staff. A discussion case conferencing would be beneficial - not to tell the healing lodge what to do, but to help them understand development regarding healing plans. If communication was improved… it's been shut-down… [we] need to work at supporting each other. Information goes both ways.

Among the federal staff, one-half (53%) felt that the lodges were very beneficial to the offenders and a further 37% felt they were somewhat beneficial. Some of the benefits that were noted were that healing lodges are more culturally sensitive, provide a chance to get back into the community, healing lodge staff have genuine concern for offenders, and it's a positive environment. Some of those who think that the lodge doesn't benefit the offenders said that lodges did not provide enough structure or programs for offenders. However, many respondents noted that success in a healing lodge will vary depending on the offender and the healing lodges. Some respondents said that healing lodges may work for offenders who are sincere and motivated. Similarly, certain structures of healing lodges may work better for some offenders than others. As noted by one person:

Success depends on the individual who is going there. Success also depends on the lodge… healing is very intense but can be powerful enough to change the offender.

When asked whether they felt the lodges helped offenders reintegrate back into an Aboriginal community, 55% felt that the lodges were very beneficial in aiding the offenders. The staff were also asked how they felt the lodge helps the offender

46


reintegrate into an urban setting for which 46% felt the lodge helped somewhat and 26% maintained the lodge was very beneficial.

Federal staff offered a number of ideas when asked what they thought could be changed at the healing lodge. Some felt that it was necessary to enhance monitoring of offenders and enforcement of rules. For instance, it was suggested that internet access should be removed at healing lodges where it is accessible. In order to keep track of offenders' progress, it was also suggested that healing lodges all have access to the OMS. Similar to the concern among healing lodge staff, a common suggestion among federal staff was that better communication was needed between healing lodges and correctional facilities. This would include training of healing lodge staff on a number of areas. It was also noted that some healing lodges should incorporate more programs and that consistency was needed in culturally-relevant programs. Finally, it was suggested that healing lodges have more involvement with families of offenders and communities in general.

Lastly, the federal staff was asked to what extent the lodge follows-up with the offenders when they were released. Thirty-seven of the 56 staff said that they did not know what the lodges were doing regarding follow-up. Of those who were able to provide a response, 50% indicated that lodges did not attempt to follow-up with offenders once they have been released.

47


ISSUES FACING HEALING LODGES

An important aspect of this project was to examine the issues facing healing lodges. The information was gathered from a number of sources, including phone interviews with the directors of healing lodges, interviews with staff from healing lodges and federal facilities, and interviews with residents of section 81 facilities.

Prior to discussing issues that were identified as facing healing lodges, it is important to note some of the more positive aspects of the lodges. First of all, the purpose of healing lodges is to provide holistic and culturally-appropriate programming and an environment that may be more conducive to healing than a federal institution (Bennet, 2000). Many of the healing lodges are located in beautiful physical settings that may aid offenders along their healing path. The environments are conducive to relaxation, which may allow offenders to open up emotionally and begin dealing with the factors that have contributed to their criminal behaviour. Stan Daniels is different in that the setting is not traditional, but it allows offenders to be closer to their families and can provide more opportunities for employment, a significantly high need area for many Aboriginal offenders.

In addition to the setting, most healing lodges focus on Aboriginal culture. They all provide access to Elders or spiritual advisors, as well as a variety of cultural activities such as sweats, ceremonies, dances and feasts. As indicated in the offender interviews, the residents' awareness of Aboriginal culture increases while at the healing lodges. This exposure appears to have a positive impact on them. Perhaps one of the more important impacts may be from offenders who felt fairly ambivalent about their culture or traditions prior to coming to the healing lodge. A number of them reported that they had little or no cultural exposure prior to coming to the lodge. However, once they had the opportunity to learn about their culture, it greatly enhanced how they viewed themselves and others, as well as their behaviour. Many experienced an increase in pride regarding who they are, and where they came from.

48


In addition to feeling at ease at the lodge, many offenders reported feeling more comfortable with the healing lodge staff because the staff were predominantly Aboriginal. Some offenders indicated that they felt more tense when they were in the federal institutions. Working with Aboriginal staff may reduce the general distrust experienced by some of the offenders. This may aid the offenders in their healing progress.

Another positive aspect of the healing lodges was that the staff interviewed expressed a strong desire and commitment to working with the offenders, aiding them in their healing journey and working with CSC to accomplish this objective. This should impact on how effective the healing lodges are. Having staff who believe in what they do creates a positive and accepting environment that should contribute to healing. Staff who are committed to their role would be more likely to help the offenders in feeling secure in expressing their issues, problems and needs.

Although there are many positive aspects of the healing lodges, there were also a number of issues identified as facing the healing lodges. Some of the issues are common to most healing lodges, while others appear more facility-specific. Furthermore, some of the issues affect section 81 healing lodges and not CSC-run facilities.

Resources

One of the most pressing concerns noted by all the section 81 healing lodges is the lack of resources. Although resourcing may also be an issue for CSC-run healing lodges, it affects them differently since they are part of CSC. At the basic level, all of the section 81 lodges are in need of some physical improvements. Ochichakkosipi and Stan Daniels are particularly in need as they have both indicated that they do not have appropriate space to conduct ceremonies. In fact, Ochichakkosipi currently does not have enough space even to hold small indoor gatherings. Stan Daniels has a small ceremonial room in the basement of the facility but could not comfortably seat more

49


than 15 to 20 individuals. In addition, Stan Daniels is an older building that is in need of renovations or the construction of a new facility.

Physical repairs are not the only resource-related issue facing the lodges. There is also a lack of funds for staff. This issue concerns the recruitment, training and retention of lodge staff. Recruiting appropriate staff has been very difficult for all the section 81 healing lodges. One factor that has contributed to this is that Aboriginal people with the skill sets needed at the lodges are in very high demand. The competition for these people means that the salaries have to be high enough to lure them into taking a position and keeping it. The executive director at Stan Daniels indicated that, at best, the centre could offer a salary that is 30% less than what the market dictates.

Unfortunately, CSC may be contributing to this situation in that they can offer higher salaries to qualified Aboriginal people.

Another problem is that there are not enough funds at most lodges for training of staff regarding CSC procedures and protocol on a consistent basis. Stan Daniels is fortunate in that the staff attend training sessions with staff from CSC’s Grierson Centre. Training of staff at Ochichakkosipi and Wahpeton has not been consistent and many staff have expressed a desire for further training. Staff at Waseskun have all received training on the procedures regarding a section 81 transfer as they have just recently begun taking these offenders, however it is unknown whether further training will be undertaken.

The lack of funds has had an impact on the programs that are offered at the lodges. While other healing lodges have structured programs, Wahpeton and Ochichakkosipi do not. Neither healing lodge has the resources to offer, or provide access the types of programs the offenders need.

Lastly, there has been a great deal of concern by the lodges that the per diem rate for the offenders is not high enough to provide the most effective programming and activities. While the per diem may cover housing expenses, it does not leave much for

50


programming and other needs, such as computers and transportation of offenders. Furthermore, it is difficult for the lodges to plan events, ceremonies or any larger purchases as some have budgets that fluctuate, depending on the number of transfers. This is less of a problem for Ochichakkosipi as they have block funding, but the other section 81 lodges are paid when a bed is filled.

Concept of Healing Lodges

Another major issue is the understanding of the role and approach used by healing lodges. Some healing lodge and federal staff felt that federal institutions lacked an understanding of the role of healing lodges, did not trust the healing lodges' ability to manage offenders, and lacked commitment to the implementation of section 81. Furthermore, some federal staff noted that they don't have a great deal of understanding of what occurs at healing lodges. This points to a need for better communication among federal staff and healing lodges, as well as some agreed-upon policies regarding the role of healing lodges.

There is also concern among some federal staff about the healing lodges' ability to effectively manage offenders. CSC institutions are quite structured and track offenders' throughout their sentence. While healing lodges that are, or once were, CSC-run also tend to take this approach, the other lodges do not follow this approach. Instead, these lodges tend to give the offenders greater independence and therefore may not know where the offender is at all times. For example, Wahpeton and Ochichakkosipi are in rural areas with woods surrounding them. Offenders are free to walk in the woods as long as they stay within the lodge grounds. Some lodge staff have indicated that there have been disagreements over this freedom with staff from the federal institutions. Although this is a rather simplistic example, it demonstrates a difference of opinion about the management of offenders.

Another issue related to the concept of healing lodges is that most healing lodges are primarily First Nations in their approach. This limits the extent to which they can offer

51


activities and access to Elders or spiritual advisors for Métis and Inuit offenders. Efforts should be made to either aid the lodges in providing access to Métis and Inuit Elders, programs and ceremonies that reflect these cultures or look into entering into agreements with organizations that represent these groups for future healing lodges.

Relationship between Healing Lodges and Federal Institutions

For all the section 81 lodges, there appears to be a lack of communication between the lodge and the federal facilities. This was emphasized in interviews with both healing lodge and federal staff. This lack of communication contributes to the identification of potential transfers, the effectiveness of the transfer process, and the likelihood of parole officers encouraging offenders to apply to a healing lodge.

Another issue that has affected the relationship between the lodge and the federal institutions is that federal staff are relatively uninformed about what occurs at a healing lodge. This lack of information, coupled with the occurrence of a small number of incidents regarding some lodges, has led to a breakdown in trust for the lodges’ ability to safely manage offenders. Further, for those lodges that rely predominantly on referrals, this lack of trust may impact upon them the most as parole officers will be less likely to start the process to request a transfer.

CSC may need to do more to make its staff aware that transfers are a viable option for some offenders and encourage parole officers and case managers to explain the option to their clients.

Transfers

All non-CSC run healing lodges accept, in addition to section 81 transfers, offenders on day parole, full parole, statutory release, as well as provincial offenders. This can be a problem for the lodges in that these different offenders have a variety of conditions that govern their release that may result in confusion and complication. Furthermore, the needs of these offenders may differ substantially, making it difficult for one lodge to

52


accommodate all the differences. In addition, Ochichakkosipi has allowed offenders who have reached their warrant expiry date to stay on at the lodge. In addition to the added expense of this approach, this may create a crutch for the offenders who should be re-integrating back into society.

Another issue relates to who is being informed about transfers, who applies, and who eventually receives approval for a transfer. It is clear that offenders hear about section 81 transfers from a variety of sources. It may be worthwhile to ensure federal and healing lodge staff all have the same information so that they can adequately inform the offenders. The final decision to transfer an offender usually resides with the Offender Management Review Board (OMRB) at the federal institution. Part of the rationale of the OMRB for deciding who is transferred to a healing lodge may relate to who is motivated and involved in their culture while in the federal institution. While it is clear that some of the transferred offenders did not have prior interest or exposure to traditional methods, there may be others who have applied for a transfer but were denied the transfer by the OMRB for those reasons. Federal staff and the OMRB should be made aware that some individuals may benefit from a healing lodge regardless of whether they had been involved in traditional practices prior to a transfer.

Finally, as noted by residents, healing lodge staff and federal staff, there are some issues relating to the length of time for a transfer. While some of those interviewed thought the process was relatively efficient, others noted that it took a great deal of time for a transfer to occur. The procedures in place may need to be reviewed in order to determine whether the timeframe can be shortened.

Record Keeping

Another issue relates to the lack of records that are kept on an offender once he/she is transferred to a healing lodge. CSC-run healing lodges, and those that were once CSC-run, do not have this problem as they have access to OMS to directly enter the information. Similarly, Waseskun will be getting access to OMS. This is not the case at

53


the other lodges and it means that there is very little information on the offender while at the lodge.

In the event the offender comes back to a CSC facility, information on what he or she has done is unavailable and may effect the correctional plan. In addition, this lack of information makes it more difficult for the National Parole Board when assessing an offender for release. From the healing lodges' perspective, the priority is not paperwork but interacting and helping the offender. However, access to OMS is very important to help facilitate the record keeping abilities of the lodges and would ultimately aid in the relationship between CSC and the healing lodges.

Community Involvement

Community involvement may be one of the main factors that determines the effectiveness of a healing lodge. While some lodges, such as Ochichakkosipi, are located directly on a reserve, there is currently limited community involvement. Some residents from healing lodges work or volunteer in the community. Further, community information sessions have occurred. However, it appears that communities are not involved to any great extent in some healing lodges. In some instances, there may be limited desire among community members to be involved with the lodges. Or, communities may be focusing on what they consider to be more pressing issues such as housing, employment, and poverty. Some lodges, such as Waseskun, may have less involvement with the nearby community because they are not Aboriginal communities, and travelling to Aboriginal communities can be costly.

Stan Daniels appears to have the strongest links with the community. This may be due to the fact that they are run by Native Counselling Services of Alberta (NCSA), who is involved in various aspects of community development. The offenders at the lodge volunteer on a regular basis to help with ceremonies and events that are organized by NCSA. This allows the offenders to partake in cultural activities and aid them in reintegration. This link to the community may also aid the offenders in obtaining

54


employment and housing upon release. At this point, it also appears that

Kwikwèxwelhp and Willow Cree Healing Lodge are developing strong community links.

This is an area that needs more development. At this point, there does not appear to be adequate resources for healing lodges to focus on community involvement. However, it is clear that, in order for healing lodges to be effective, this is a crucial component.

55


CONCLUSION

This purpose of this research project was to examine healing lodges currently in operation across Canada. This included: a description of each healing lodge; a profile of offenders who have resided at healing lodges; an examination of how those who work in the institutions and healing lodges, as well as residents, view healing lodges; and, issues that the lodges are facing.

Characteristics of Healing Lodges

It is clear that there is great diversity among the healing lodges currently in place in Canada. Major differences exist between CSC-run and section 81 healing lodges. Along a continuum, CSC-run healing lodges seem closer to minimum-security CSC facilities in terms of day-to-day operations. Those that were once CSC-run are somewhat in the middle of the continuum, maintaining many of the procedures and regulations, but incorporating a traditional approach. Facilities that were built specifically as section 81 healing lodges are more focused on Aboriginal traditions but do not maintain the structured approach of a CSC facility.

The physical aspects of healing lodges differ dramatically in size, location and design. Some lodges house only a few residents, while others take up to 100 offenders. In terms of location, at one end of the spectrum, Stan Daniels is located in downtown Edmonton. In contrast, Ochichakkosipi is on a reserve in a very remote setting. The design of the lodges also differs, ranging from facilities that resemble small correctional facilities to very traditional designs.

The programming also differs greatly among the lodges. Although all lodges offer access to programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous, some offer structured programs while others do not. There are positive aspects to both approaches. Those that offer structured programs tend to be larger in size and can offer a variety of programs to meet the needs of the offenders. However, the smaller facilities can create a more

56


personal relationship with one-on-one or small group counselling. This may be ideal for addressing the unique situation of each offender.

Offender Profiles

A total of 530 offenders have been residents of healing lodges since 1995. In terms of socio-demographic characteristics and criminal history, residents of healing lodges are similar to minimum-security Aboriginal offenders. However, their current offence profile differs somewhat. Smaller proportions of residents of healing lodges were currently incarcerated for sex offences, and larger proportions for assault, drug offences and property offences excluding break and enter.

The profiles indicate that residents of healing lodges may be dealing with more issues than Aboriginal offenders in minimum security who have not been transferred. They were rated as higher risk to re-offend and to have lower reintegration potential upon admission to the federal facility. Furthermore, they have received various sanctions while incarcerated, such as segregation and re-classification to higher security. Finally, they tend to be assessed as higher need. This is important, because it indicates that it is not the "easiest" cases that are being transferred to healing lodges.

In terms of outcome, following their transfer to a healing lodge, a smaller proportion of the offenders were involved in incidents. However, on average, they were in the healing lodge for less time than the federal facility, so had less time to be involved in incidents.

Of those released, the percentage re-admitted to federal facilities is higher than found among Aboriginal offenders released from minimum security. Furthermore, the differences relate to new offences, rather than technical violations. If only readmissions for new offences are examined, the recidivism rate for healing lodge residents is 19%, compared to 13% among Aboriginal offenders released from minimum security.

57


Issues

Overall, offenders transferred to healing lodges appear to be satisfied with the lodges. They said that the staff encouraged open communication and treated them better than they were treated in the institution. Furthermore, the majority of offenders said they were satisfied with their healing lodge experience and that the lodge helped them in their healing process. Important aspects included Elders, access to sweat lodges, cultural activities, as well as access to outside activities.

It was noted by residents, staff at healing lodges and staff at institutions that some of the most beneficial aspects of the healing lodge include the Aboriginal culture and tradition. Another benefit was providing residents with the opportunity to heal.

There are a number of issues that are currently facing healing lodges. It is important to note that while some of these issues may appear somewhat negative, they are noted as a way of enabling healing lodges to operate in the most efficient and effective way. Furthermore, staff at healing lodges and federal institutions appeared to have common perceptions about the issues facing healing lodges. It is important for CSC to be aware of what it can do to aid the lodges in their objectives. Some of the following issues were noted:

Resources

Perhaps one of the biggest issues facing the lodges is a lack of resources. This includes resources for maintaining and developing the buildings, staff, training, programming, technical infrastructure and ability to encourage community involvement. All of these areas directly affect how the lodges can operate. If lodges are supposed to provide a culturally appropriate environment, this must include the physical surrounding and the appropriate staff. The proper training of the lodge employees is key so they can fully understand and perform their jobs. In addition, appropriate training may reduce some of the stress felt by staff and would ultimately aid in maintaining qualified staff.

58


Transfer

Both staff at healing lodges and in federal institutions noted that, although the transfer process is functional, it is less efficient than it could be. For instance, some respondents noted that the transfer process takes too long. Others noted that the procedures are too complex and sometimes redundant.

Another issue with the transfer process noted by some is that the decision-making process is unclear. Further, the criteria for transfers is not always well understood. This, coupled with the fact that there are fairly large numbers of Aboriginal offenders at medium security, makes the number of appropriate offenders less than it could potentially be.

Only one-quarter of the offenders had heard about the possibility of transferring to a healing lodge from their parole officers or case managers. This may indicate that further effort must go into informing Aboriginal offenders that this is an option available to them.

It is important to address the concerns related to the transfer process raised by staff from federal institutions and healing lodges. Better communication would help address this issue, as would discussion about the criteria for transfers.

Relationship Between Healing Lodges and Federal Institutions

Although at the individual level, staff from healing lodges and federal facilities said they have a good relationship, it was also noted that there is a lack of communication between federal institutions and healing lodges. Some concerns were that federal institutions lack an understanding of the role of healing lodges and section 81, do not trust the healing lodges' ability to manage offenders and lack commitment to the implementation of section 81. Further, about one-half of federal staff said that the

59


responsibilities of the healing lodge and the federal institution have not been clearly outlined.

It appears that staff from healing lodges and federal institutions do not quite understand what occurs in each others' locations. In fact, while many maintained that they understand the concept of section 81, fairly large proportions of federal staff said that they did not understand what occurs in healing lodges.

Other key issues are differences in the understanding of healing lodges, and the relationship between healing lodges and federal institutions. There appear to be some major differences in how federal institution staff and the healing lodges view the care and control of offenders. Lodges tend to give offenders more freedom than is offered in federal facilities. This difference may contribute to a strain in the relationship between the lodges and federal institutions. Further, there appear to be some concerns about communication between federal institutions and healing lodges. The general consensus between the federal institution and healing lodge staff was that when communication occurred, it tended to be positive. However, communication tends not to occur as frequently as it should. Communication appears to be key for the successful transfer of an offender. For example, Stan Daniels and Grierson Centre (a CSC facility) have a close relationship and, as a result, have an effective process for transferring offenders. The lack of communication between many of the federal institutions and healing lodges has likely hindered the transfer of offenders. This could be remedied with an increase in interaction between the transferring institutions and the healing lodges. Information sessions could be set up at the institutions for the healing lodge staff so they understand the procedures CSC follows. Something similar could be undertaken at the lodges for the federal staff. This could help CSC staff to better understand the concept of healing lodges. It could also help the healing lodges better understand the processes and procedures that CSC staff must follow.

60


Community Involvement

Another area of concern is community involvement with the healing lodges. Some of these facilities are located on or near reserves. Ochichakkosipi and Wahpeton are directly on a reserve, whereas Waseskun and Stan Daniels are some distance from the closest Aboriginal community. This may impact on the availability of cultural events for offenders staying at these lodges, or increase the costs in order to travel to Aboriginal communities. However, Stan Daniels is run by NCSA which organizes a number of cultural activities which the residents are often invited to. The situation at Stan Daniels represents a very high level of involvement by the community that is not seen to the same extent at other facilities. Community involvement appears to be a key component in the success of a lodge as it creates a large support system for the offenders who are released to the communities in addition to providing offenders with exposure to the communities to aid in their reintegration. Further analysis of the impact of community involvement is necessary to determine the ways in it affects the release of an offender.

Summary

Overall, it is clear that healing lodges provide a number of very positive and effective aspects. The culturally-appropriate environments can contribute to the healing process of the offenders. For instance, most people noted that the inclusion of Elders or spiritual advisors at the healing lodges is positive. The offenders appear to respect and listen to what the Elders have to say. Many offenders felt their work with the Elders was the most important part of being at the lodge. In addition, the staff at the lodges, which are predominantly Aboriginal, also contribute to an environment that is more conducive to building respect and positive relationships. Ultimately, this directly affects the offenders' healing.

It should be noted that a number of offenders indicated that they had not been interested in their traditions prior to coming to the lodges. However, the exposure to their traditions and the Elders was very positive for these offenders and resulted in

61


further interest in both their culture and healing. This is important to keep in mind when determining which offenders may succeed at healing lodges.

The smaller facilities, such as Ochichakkosipi, Wahpeton, and Waseskun can provide more in-depth counselling and personal attention but are not able to provide the level of programming that is offered at Stan Daniels and Pê Sâkâstêw. Offenders at Ochichakkosipi are able to experience a very natural environment that can aid them in their healing but Stan Daniels may be better situated to help the offenders see their families and obtain employment.

This issue should be further examined as some offenders will do better in structured environments with set programs, whereas other s need a quiet setting without distractions to begin examining their behaviour and travel along their healing path. Clearly, not all offenders need in-depth, one-on-one counselling which can be provided at some of the smaller lodges. Some offenders need access to employment opportunities and their families. Regardless, some lodges would benefit from outlining exactly what they will provide and the type of offenders it would work best for.

Finally, many of the issues can be resolved by communication between the healing lodges and federal facilities. A better understanding of healing lodges among federal staff, and of CSC policies among healing staff, would go a long way towards helping the relationship and, ultimately improving the services provided to offenders.

62


REFERENCES

Bennet, N. (2000). "Improving partnerships with Aboriginal Communities". Forum on Corrections Research, 12(1), 5-6.

Boe, R. (2000). "Aboriginal inmates: demographic trends and projections". Forum on Corrections Research, 12(1), 7-9.

Bonta, J., LaPrairie, C., Wallace-Capretta, S. (1997). "Risk predictors and reoffending: Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders". Canadian Journal of Criminology, 38, 61-76.

Bonta, J., Lipinski, S., & Martin, M. (1992). "Research notes: The characteristics of Aboriginal recidivists". Canadian Journal of Criminology, 34(3-4), 571-522.

Braun, C. (2001). Aboriginal community accommodations in the Prairie region: A needs analysis. Correctional Service Canada, Aboriginal Programs.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act (1992), c.20, s.81; 995, c.42, s.21(F).

Correctional Service Canada (2002a). 2002-2005 Corporate Objectives. Policy, Planning and Coordination Sector.

Correctional Service Canada (2002b). Aboriginal Pathways. Presented at the 5th Annual Aboriginal Research Meeting, Harrison, B.C., March 18-20.

Correctional Service Canada website (2002c). www.csc-scc.gc.ca.

Correctional Service Canada (2001). Snapshot of Federal Offenders. November, 2001.

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. (2002), c. C-46, s. 718.2.

63


Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (1997). Gathering Strength -Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan.

Department of Justice Canada (1998). The Aboriginal justice strategy: Report on activities, 1996-97 to 1997-98.

Ellerby, L. A., & Ellerby, J. H. (1998). Understanding and evaluating the role of Elders and traditional healing in sex offender treatment for Aboriginal offenders. Aboriginal Peoples Collection, Aboriginal Corrections Policy Unit. Ottawa, ON: Solicitor General of Canada.

Ellerby, L. A., & MacPherson, M. (2001). Exploring the profile of Aboriginal sex offenders: Contrasting Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal sexual offenders to determine unique client characteristics and potential implications for sex offender assessment and treatment strategies. Research Report No. R-122. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Finn, A., Trevethan, S. D., Carrière, G., & Kowalski, M. (1999). "Female inmates, Aboriginal inmates, and inmates serving life sentences: A one-day snapshot".

Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada, Juristat 82-002, Vol. 19(5).

Government of Canada (2001). Speech from the Throne. 1st Sess., 37th Parl., January 30, 2001.

Grant, B. A., & Porporino, F. J. (1993). "Are native offenders treated differently in the granting of temporary absences from federal correctional institutions?" Canadian Journal of Criminology, 34(3-4), 525-532.

Hann, R., & Harman, W. (1989). Risk prediction, a test of the Nuffield scoring system.

Prepared for the Solicitor General Canada.

64


Johnston, J. C. (1997). Aboriginal offender survey: Case files and interview sample.

Research Report No. R-61. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Motiuk, L., & Belcourt, R. (1996). Temporary absence program participation and the release of federal offenders. Research Report No. R-51. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Pfeifer, J., & Hart-Mitchell, R. (2001). Evaluating the effect of healing lodge residency on adult offenders. Canadian Institute for Peace, Justice and Security, University of Regina.

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

Sioui, R., & Thibault, J. (2001). Pertinence of cultural adaptation of Reintegration Potential Reassessment (RPR) scale to Aboriginal context. Research Report No. R-109. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Statistics Canada (1996). Census of Canada.

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

Welsh, A. (2000). "Aboriginal offenders and full parole: A profile". Forum on Corrections Research, 12(1), 61-64.

65


APPENDICES

66


Appendix A: Tables

67


Table 1: Transfers to Healing Lodges                              
                                     
                                     
  Total   %   1995   1996   1997   1998   1999   2000   2001 (1)  
                                     
   Total Transfers (2) 651   100%   9   28   97   118   131   143   125  
      Okimaw Ohci 127   20%   8   13   24   31   24   21   6  
      Pê Sâkâstêw 306   47%   0   0   51   75   55   66   59  
      Ochichakkosipi 13   2%   0   0   0   0   0   0   13  
      Wahpeton 25   4%   0   0   5   7   7   6   0  
      Stan Daniels (2) 180   28%   1   15   17   5   45   50   47  
                                     
                                     
   Total Individuals Transferred (2) 529   100%   9   24   82   100   106   104   104  
      Okimaw Ohci 77   15%   8   9   12   15   12   15   6  
      Pê Sâkâstêw 281   53%   0   0   48   73   52   52   56  
      Ochichakkosipi 13   2%   0   0   0   0   0   0   13  
      Wahpeton 23   4%   0   0   5   7   7   4   0  
      Stan Daniels (2) 135   26%   1   15   17   5   35   33   29  
(1)
  
Information was collected until October 31, 2001.
(2)
  
There was an additional transfer to Stan Daniels, however the year is unknown.

68


Table 2: Demographics                                
                                 
  Offenders Transferred to Healing Lodges         Aboriginal Offenders in
  Men     Women       Total       Minimum Security  
  #   % #     % P #   %   #   % P
                                 
   Gender                 530   100%   1583   100% **
      Men             453   85%   1428   90%  
      Women             77   15%   155   10%  
                                 
   Aboriginal Status 452   100%   75   100% NS 527   100%   1583   100%
      Non-Aboriginal 54   12%   12   16%   66   13%   0   0%  
      Aboriginal 398   88%   63   84%   461   87%   1583   100%  
                                 
   Marital Status 449   100%   74   100% NS 523   100%   1556   100%  
      Married/Common Law 219   49%   38   51%   257   49%   689   44% *
      Divorced/Separated 36   8%   3   4%   39   7%   137   9% NS
      Single 187   42%   30   41%   217   41%   715   46% NS
      Widow 7   2%   3   4%   10   2%   15   1% NS
                                 
   Education 365   100%   73   100% NS 438   100%   1139   100% NS
      < Grade 10 225   62%   42   58%   267   61%   639   56%  
      Grade 10 or more 140   38%   31   42%   171   39%   500   44%  
                                 
   Employment at Arrest 364   100%   73   100% *** 437   100%   1137   100% NS
      Employed 146   40%   9   12%   155   35%   372   33%  
      Unemployed 218   60%   64   88%   282   65%   765   67%  
                                 
Mean Age at Admission to Federal Facility   33.1 yrs       30.0 yrs **     32.6 yrs       33.8 NS
   Mean Age at Transfer     35.2 yrs       31.2 yrs ***     34.6 yrs        

NS = Not Significant; * p<=.05; ** p<=.01; *** p<=.001; … information not available or appropriate.

69


Table 3: Most Serious Current Offence                        
                                 
  Offenders Transferred to Healing Lodges         Aboriginal Offenders in
  Men     Women       Total       Minimum Security  
  #   % #     % P # %     #   % P
                                 
Most Serious Offence 421   100%   68   100%   489 100%   1496   100%  
Homicide 65   15%   26   38% *** 91 19%   270   18% NS
Attempt Murder 1   0%   0   0% NS 1   0%   17   1% NS
Sex Offence 63   15%   0   0% *** 63 13%   294   20% ***
Robbery 60   14%   15   22% NS 75 15%   275   18% NS
Assault 78   19%   10   15% NS 88 18%   184   12% **
Other Violent 1   0%   0   0% NS 1   0%   12   1% NS
Break & Enter 41   10%   1   1% * 42   9%   157   10% NS
Other Property 23   5%   4   6% NS 27   6%   42   3% **
Drug Offences 38   9%   11   16% NS 49 10%   96   6% **
Impaired Driving 24   6%   0   0% * 24   5%   80   5% NS
Other Criminal Code Offences 27   6%   1   1% NS 28   6%   69   5% NS
                                 
  Mean   Median Mean     Median   Mean Median   Mean   Median  
Aggregate Sentence (1) 4.1 yrs   3.0 yrs 4.5 yrs   3.5 yrs NS 4.2 yrs 3.0 yrs   4.2 yrs   3.1 yrs NS
                                 
Current Convictions 351   100%   67   100%   418 100%   1092   100% NS
1 111   32%   31   46% * 142 34%   328   30%  
2 to 4 147   42%   18   27% * 165 39%   468   43%  
5 to 9 68   19%   13   19% NS 81 19%   210   19%  
10 to 14 13   4%   2   3% NS 15   4%   52   5%  
15+ 12   3%   3   4% NS 15   4%   34   3%  

(1) Calculated with life sentences removed and 25 outliers.

NS = Not Significant; * p<=.05; ** p<=.01; *** p<=.001; … information not available or appropriate.

70


Table 4: Victims (Current Offence)                          
                                 
  Offenders Transferred to Healing Lodges         Aboriginal Offenders in
  Men     Women       Total       Minimum Security  
  #   % #     % P #   %   #   % P
                                 
   One Victim 351   100%   67   100% NS 418   100%   1095   100% NS
      No 129   37%   21   31%   150   36%   379   35%  
      Yes 222   63%   46   69%   268   64%   716   65%  
                                 
   Children 352   100%   67   100% * 419   100%   1094   100% *
      No 311   88%   65   97%   376   90%   930   85%  
      Yes 41   12%   2   3%   43   10%   164   15%  
                                 
   Handicapped/Infirm 352   100%   67   100% NS 419   100%   1094   100% NS
      No 346   98%   67   100%   413   99%   1085   99%  
      Yes 6   2%   0   0%   6   1%   9   1%  
                                 
   Elderly 352   100%   67   100% * 419   100%   1091   100% NS
      No 340   97%   60   90%   400   95%   1044   96%  
      Yes 12   3%   7   10%   19   5%   47   4%  
                                 
   Caused Death 352   100%   67   100% *** 419   100%   1096   100% **
      No 310   88%   42   63%   352   84%   976   89%  
      Yes 42   12%   25   37%   67   16%   120   11%  
                                 
   Serious Physical Injury (1) 351   100%   66   100% *** 417   100%   1091   100% NS
      No 275   78%   38   58%   313   75%   867   79%  
      Yes 76   22%   28   42%   104   25%   224   21%  
                                 
   Serious Psychological Harm 341   100%   61   100% * 402   100%   1042   100% *
      No 240   70%   52   85%   292   73%   697   67%  
      Yes 101   30%   9   15%   110   27%   345   33%  

(1) Defined as wounding, maining or disfiguring.

NS = Not Significant; * p<=.05; ** p<=.01; *** p<=.001; … information not available or appropriate.

71


Table 5: Previous Convictions                          
                                 
  Offenders Transferred to Healing Lodges         Aboriginal Offenders
  Men     Women       Total       Minimum Security
  #   % #     % P #   %   #   % P
                                 
   All Previous Convictions 352   100%   67   100%   419   100%   1094   100%  
      0 26   7%   16   24% *** 42   10%   131   12% NS
      1 18   5%   5   7% NS 23   5%   73   7% NS
      2 to 4 44   13%   10   15% NS 54   13%   167   15% NS
      5 to 9 51   14%   10   15% NS 61   15%   208   19% *
      10 to 14 42   12%   7   10% NS 49   12%   141   13% NS
      15+ 171   49%   19   28% ** 190   45%   374   34% ***
                                 
   Previous Provincial Term 352   100%   67   100% *** 419   100%   1094   100% NS
      No 63   18%   30   45%   93   22%   290   27%  
      Yes 289   82%   37   55%   326   78%   804   73%  
                                 
   Previous Federal Term 352   100%   67   100% ** 419   100%   1094   100% NS
      No 262   74%   60   90%   322   77%   875   80%  
      Yes 90   26%   7   10%   97   23%   219   20%  
                                 
   Youth Court Convictions 350   100%   66   100% * 416   100%   1084   100% NS
      No 206   59%   29   44%   235   56%   623   57%  
      Yes 144   41%   37   56%   181   44%   461   43%  

NS = Not Significant; * p<=.05; ** p<=.01; *** p<=.001; … information not available or appropriate.

72


Table 6: Failures

Previously failed on community-based sanction

No Yes

Previously failed on conditional release

No Yes

6 months or more since last incarceration

No Yes

Crime free period of 1 year

No Yes

Previously reclassified to higher custody

No Yes

Previously segregated for disciplinary infraction

No Yes

Previous attempted/successful escape/UAL

No Yes

Offenders Transferred to Healing Lodges   Aboriginal Offenders
Men       Women       Total       Minimum Security
#   %   #   % P #   %   #   % P
                               
352   100%   67   100% * 419   100%   1090   100% NS
144   41%   37   55%   181   43%   476   44%  
208   59%   30   45%   238   57%   614   56%  
                               
348   100%   66   100% * 414   100%   1083   100% NS
214   61%   51   77%   265   64%   728   67%  
134   39%   15   23%   149   36%   355   33%  
                               
351   100%   67   100% NS 418   100%   1092   100% NS
70   20%   8   12%   78   19%   212   19%  
281   80%   59   88%   340   81%   880   81%  
                               
351   100%   67   100% NS 418   100%   1094   100% NS
57   16%   16   24%   73   17%   166   15%  
294   84%   51   76%   345   83%   928   85%  
                               
351   100%   66   100% NS 417   100%   1072   100% *
299   85%   62   94%   361   87%   967   90%  
52   15%   4   6%   56   13%   105   10%  
                               
344   100%   62   100% NS 406   100%   1045   100% ***
258   75%   46   74%   304   75%   870   83%  
86   25%   16   26%   102   25%   175   17%  
                               
352   100%   67   100% * 419   100%   1093   100% ***
225   64%   53   79%   278   66%   865   79%  
127   36%   14   21%   141   34%   228   21%  

NS = Not Significant; * p<=.05; ** p<=.01; *** p<=.001; … information not available or appropriate.

73


Table 7: Risk and Reintegration                                
                                 
  Offenders Transferred to Healing Lodges   Aboriginal Offenders
  Men       Women       Total       Minimum Security
  #   %   #   % P #   %   #   % P
                                 
   Risk to Re-offend 423   100%   76   100%   499   100%   1412   100%  
      Low 43   10%   11   14% NS 54   11%   202   14% *
      Medium 141   33%   41   54% *** 182   36%   568   40% NS
      High 239   57%   24   32% *** 263   53%   642   45% **
                                 
   Reintegration Potential at Intake 385   100%   64   100%   449   100%   1226   100%  
      Low 180   47%   20   31% * 200   45%   400   33% ***
      Medium 99   26%   15   23% NS 114   25%   317   26% NS
      High 106   28%   29   45% ** 135   30%   509   42% ***
                                 
   Motivation for Intervention at Intake 367   100%   62   100% NS 429   100%   1097   100%  
      Low 18   5%   3   5%   21   5%   90   8% *
      Medium 225   61%   41   66%   266   62%   620   57% NS
      High 124   34%   18   29%   142   33%   387   35% NS

NS = Not Significant; * p<=.05; ** p<=.01; *** p<=.001; … information not available or appropriate.

74


Table 8: Dynamic Needs                              
                                 
  Offenders Transferred to Healing Lodges         Aboriginal Offenders in
  Men     Women       Total       Minimum Security  
  #   % #     % P #   %   #   % P
                                 
   Overall Need 423   100%   76   100%   499   100%   1412   100%  
      Low 29   7%   5   7% NS 34   7%   94   7% NS
      Medium 114   27%   33   43% ** 147   29%   617   44% ***
      High 280   66%   38   50% ** 318   64%   701   50% ***


 


 


 
 
 

                                 
   Employment 423   100%   76   100% *** 499   100%   1413   100% *
      Asset/None 138   33%   7   9%   145   29%   489   35%  
      Some/Considerable 285   67%   69   91%   354   71%   924   65%  
                                 
   Marital/Family 423   100%   76   100% *** 499   100%   1413   100% **
      Asset/None 168   40%   12   16%   180   36%   627   44%  
      Some/Considerable 255   60%   64   84%   319   64%   786   56%  
                                 
   Associates/Social Interaction 423   100%   76   100% NS 499   100%   1413   100% ***
      Asset/None 136   32%   20   26%   156   31%   605   43%  
      Some/Considerable 287   68%   56   74%   343   69%   808   57%  
                                 
   Substance Abuse 423   100%   76   100% NS 499   100%   1413   100% *
      None 31   7%   6   8%   37   7%   148   10%  
      Some/Considerable 392   93%   70   92%   462   93%   1265   90%  
                                 
   Community Functioning 423   100%   76   100% NS 499   100%   1413   100% ***
      Asset/None 240   57%   34   45%   274   55%   913   65%  
      Some/Considerable 183   43%   42   55%   225   45%   500   35%  
                                 
   Personal/Emotional 423   100%   76   100% ** 499   100%   1413   100% NS
      None 46   11%   1   1%   47   9%   159   11%  
      Some/Considerable 377   89%   75   99%   452   91%   1254   89%  
                                 
   Attitude 423   100%   76   100% NS 499   100%   1413   100% NS
      Asset/None 269   64%   49   64%   318   64%   868   61%  
      Some/Considerable 154   36%   27   36%   181   36%   545   39%  

NS = Not Significant; * p<=.05; ** p<=.01; *** p<=.001; … information not available or appropriate.

75


Table 9: Initial Security Designation                        
                                 
  Offenders Transferred to Healing Lodges         Aboriginal Offenders in
  Men     Women       Total       Minimum Security  
  #   % #     % P #   %   #   % P
                                 
   Security Level at Admission 404   100%   65   100%   469   100%   1293   100% NS
      Minimum 180   45%   12   18% *** 192   41%   492   38%  
      Medium 205   51%   44   68% * 249   53%   731   57%  
      Maximum 19   5%   9   14% ** 28   6%   70   5%  

NS = Not Significant; * p<=.05; ** p<=.01; *** p<=.001; … information not available or appropriate.

76


Table 10: Incidents                                
                                 
  Offenders Transferred to Healing Lodges     Aboriginal Offenders in
  Men     Women       Total   Minimum Security  
  #   % #     % P #   %   #   % P
                                 
   Perpetrated an Incident Prior to Transfer 453   100%   77   100% NS 530   100%   1583   100% *
      No 273   60%   46   60%   319   60%   859   54%  
      Yes 180   40%   31   40%   211   40%   724   46%  
                                 
   Incidents Prior to Transfer (1) 180       31       211       724      
      Assault (2) 73   41%   17   55% NS 90   43%   280   39% NS
      Disturbance (3) 75   42%   15   48% NS 90   43%   255   35% NS
      Unauthorized Item/Contraband (4) 26   14%   9   29% NS 35   17%   203   28% ***
      Self Harm (5) 16   9%   12   39% *** 28   13%   60   8% NS
      Intelligence (6) 101   56%   13   42% NS 114   54%   277   38% *
      Other (7) 63   35%   18   58% * 81   38%   343   47% **
                                 
   Perpetrated an Incident After Transfer 453   100%   77   100% * 530   100%    
      No 320   71%   44   57%   364   69%    
      Yes 133   29%   33   43%   166   31%    
                                 
   Incidents After Transfer (1) 133       33       166              
      Assault (2) 29   22%   15   45% *** 44   27%    
      Disturbance (3) 17   13%   9   27% ** 26   16%    
      Unauthorized Item/Contraband (4) 13   10%   5   15% NS 18   11%    
      Self Harm (5) 4   3%   8   24% *** 12   7%    
      Intelligence (6) 59   44%   10   30% NS 69   42%    
      Other (7) 24   18%   25   76% *** 49   30%    
(1)
  
These percentages are based the number of offenders who have committed an incident and will therefore not add up to 100%.
(2)
  
Includes assault on staff, other inmates and fighting.
(3)
  
Includes disciplinary problems, setting fires, major and minor disturbance.
(4)
  
Includes possession, receiving or transporting unauthorized items or contraband.
(5)
  
Includes hunger strike, self-injury and suicide.
(6)
  
Indicates that a CSC staff has either heard from another inmate or witnessed activities to suggest an incident has occurred.
(7)
  
Includes damage to government property, being under the influence and other incidents.

NS = Not Significant; * p<=.05; ** p<=.01; *** p<=.001; … information not available or appropriate.

77


Table 11: Re-admission (OMS)                                
                                   
  Offenders Transferred to Healing Lodges           Aboriginal Offenders
  Men (1)     Women         Total       in Minimum Security (2)
  #   % #     % P #     %   #   % P
                                   
   Released 452   100%   77   100% NS   529   100%   1579   100% NS
      No 86   19%   17   22%     103   19%   289   18%  
      Yes 366   81%   60   78%     426   81%   1290   82%  
                                   
   Release Type 366   100%   60   100%     426   100%   1290   100% NS
      Day Parole 197   54%   28   47% NS   225   53%   613   48%  
      Full Parole 17   5%   9   15% **   26   6%   93   7%  
      Statutory Release 149   41%   22   37% NS   171   40%   568   44%  
      Warrant Expiry 2   1%   1   2% NS   3   1%   11   1%  
      Other (3) 1   0%   0   0% NS   1   0%   5   0%  
                                   
   Re-admitted to Federal Facility 366   100%   60   100%     426   100%   1290   86%  
      No 223   61%   37   62% NS   260   61%   856   66% *
      Yes - Technical Violation 67   18%   15   25% NS   82   19%   254   20% *
      Yes - New Offence 76   21%   7   12% *   83   19%   173   13% *
      Yes - Other Reason (4) 0   0%   1   2% *   1   0%   7   1% NS
                                   
   Length of Time (in months) Mean   Median Mean   Median   Mean   Median   Mean   Median  
      Federal Facility (prior to transfer) 22.9   10.1 14.2   6.2 NS 21.6   9.9      
      Healing Lodge (until release) 7.4   5.6 11.5   8.6 ***   8.0   5.9      
      Federal Facility & Healing Lodge 25.5   16.3 22.8   16.0 NS 25.1   16.2   18.3   10.3 **
      To Re-admission 9.1   6.7   9.9   7.3 NS   9.2   7.0   11.3   7.6 *
(1)
  
One offender was deceased and was not included in the release data.
(2)
  
Four offenders were deceased and were not included in the release data.
(3)
  
Releases under "other" include court ordered freedom and court ordered to other jurisdiction.

(4) One women offender from a healing lodge and seven from minimum security were re-admitted for other reasons, such as a transfer from another country.

NS = Not Significant; * p<=.05; ** p<=.01; *** p<=.001; … information not available or appropriate.

78


Table 12: Re-offending (CPIC)                            
                               
  Offenders Transferred to Healing Lodges       Aboriginal Offenders
  Men (1)     Women         Total in Minimum Security (2)
  #   % #     % P #     % # % P
                               
   Released 452   100%   77   100% NS 529   100% 1579 100% NS
      No 86   19%   17   22%   103   19% 289 18%  
      Yes 366   81%   60   78%   426   81% 1290 82%  
                               
   Re-offended (CPIC) 366   100%   60   100% NS 426   100%      
      No 249   68%   36   60%   285   67%      
      Yes 117   32%   24   40%   141   33%      
                               
   Re-Offence Type (3) 117       24       141          
      Homicide 0   0%   1   4% *   1   1%      
      Attempted Murder 0   0%   0   0% NS   0   0%      
      Sex Offence 4   3%   0   0% NS   4   3%      
      Robbery 6   5%   3   13% NS   9   6%      
      Assault 18   15%   4   17% NS   22   16%      
      Other Violent 0   0%   0   0% NS   0   0%      
      Property Offences 38   32%   8   33% NS   46   33%      
      Drug Offences 10   9%   0   0% NS   10   7%      
      Impaired Driving 21   18%   1   4% NS   22   16%      
      Other CC/Federal Statute Offences 39   33%   9   38% NS   48   34%      
(1)
  
One offender was deceased and was not included in the release data.
(2)
  
Four offenders were deceased and were not included in the release data.
(3)
  
An offender may have committed more than one offence. Therefore, the total does not equal 100%.

NS = Not Significant; * p<=.05; ** p<=.01; *** p<=.001; … information not available or appropriate.

79


Table 13: Offender Interviews              
                 
  #   %   #   %  
                 
   Transferred before? 20   100% Satisfaction with healing lodge staff 20   100%  
      No 16   80% Not satisfied 1   5%  
      Yes 4   20% Somewhat satisfied 7   35%  
        Very satisfied 12   60%  
   Estimated duration of stay 20   100%          
      < 1 month 5   25% Aware of traditional healing - before 18   100%  
      1-3 months 8   40% Not aware 4   22%  
      4-6 months 1   5% Somewhat aware 4   22%  
      7 months or more 6   30% Very aware 10   56%  
                 
   Who told you about section 81? 20   100% Aware of traditional healing - now 19   100%  
      Parole officer/case manager 5   25% Not aware 1   5%  
      Healing lodge representative 4   20% Somewhat aware 4   21%  
      Another inmate 4   20% Very aware 14   74%  
      Elder/Aboriginal group in institution 2   10%          
      Family/friend 2   10% Lodge gave better sense of who you are 19   100%  
      Other 1   5% Not at all 3   16%  
      Don't know 2   10% Somewhat 2   11%  
        Very 14   74%  
   Length of time for transfer 20   100%          
      < 1 week 2   10% Helped in healing process 18   100%  
      1-4 weeks 2   10% Not at all 1   6%  
      1-3 months 6   30% Somewhat 2   11%  
      4-6 months 7   35% Very 15   83%  
      More than 6 months 3   15%          
        Satisfaction with healing lodge 20   100%  
   Put on waiting list? 20   100% Not satisfied 0   0%  
      No 11   55% Somewhat satisfied 4   20%  
      Yes 9   45% Very satisfied 16   80%  
                 
   Satisfaction with transfer process 18   100% Release 20   100%  
      Not satisfied 4   22% CSC probation officer 1   5%  
      Somewhat satisfied 1   6% Aboriginal community 4   20%  
      Very satisfied 13   72% Non-Aboriginal community 10   50%  
        Other 5   25%  
                 
   Problems with transfer? 19   100% Lodge helps reintegrate into Aboriginal community 17   100%  
      No 13   68% Not at all 1   6%  
      Yes 6   32% Somewhat 1   6%  
        Very much 15   88%  
                 
   Healing plan prior to entering lodge? 20   100% Lodge helps reintegrate into urban setting 9   100%  
      No 6   30% Not at all 1   11%  
      Yes 14   70% Somewhat 0   0%  
        Very much 8   89%  

80


Table 13 Continued: Offender Interviews        
                 
  #   %   #   %  
                 
   Satisfaction with healing plan 18   100% Best location 20   100%  
      Not satisfied 0   0% Reserve/Aboriginal community 6   30%  
      Somewhat satisfied 1   6% Near reserve/Aboriginal community 1   5%  
      Very satisfied 17   94% Rural setting 7   35%  
        Urban setting 1   5%  
   Progress in healing plan 17   100% Other 5   25%  
      At or near beginning 2   12%          
      Near middle 7   41%          
      At or near end 6   35%          
      Don't know 2   12%          

81


Table 14: Healing Lodge Staff Interviews          
                 
  #   %   #   %  
                 
   Seek section 81 transfers? 16   100% Lodge helps reintegrate into Aboriginal community 17   100%  
      No 12   75% Not at all 0   0%  
      Yes 4   25% Somewhat 5   29%  
        Very much 12   71%  
   Efficiency of transfer process 13   100%          
      Not at all efficient 1   8% Lodge helps reintegrate into urban setting 9   100%  
      Somewhat efficient 6   46% Not at all 0   0%  
      Very efficient 6   46% Somewhat 3   33%  
        Very much 6   67%  
   Relationship with federal staff 12   100%          
      Not positive 3   25% Lodge provides community resources information 16   100%  
      Somewhat positive 4   33% Not at all 0   0%  
      Very positive 5   42% Somewhat 1   6%  
        Very much 15   94%  
   Responsibilities clearly outlined 13   100%          
      Not at all 2   15% Aboriginal community involved 16   100%  
      Somewhat 2   15% Not at all 2   13%  
      Very 9   69% Somewhat 4   25%  
        Very 10   63%  
   Main problems (1) 16              
      No problems 4   25% Lodge follow-up 16   100%  
      Lack of understanding re. s81 5   31% Not at all 2   13%  
      Lack of commitment to s81 4   25% Somewhat 5   31%  
      Lack of understanding re. role of lodge 8   50% Very much 9   56%  
      Lack of trust 5   31%          
      Other 3   19%          
                 
   Staff have enough traditional experience? 18   100%          
      No 4   22%          
      Yes 14   78%          
                 
   Does lodge benefit the offender? 17   100%          
      Not at all 0   0%          
      Somewhat 1   6%          
      Very much 16   94%          
                 
   (1) More than one response was possible.                

82


Table 15: Federal Staff Interviews              
                 
  #   %   #   %  
                 
   Understand s81 56   100% Responsibilities clearly outlined 42   100%  
      Not at all 3   5% Not at all 20   48%  
      Somewhat 18   32% Somewhat 11   26%  
      Very 35   63% Very 11   26%  
                 
   Understand what occurs at healing lodge 53   100% Does lodge effectively manage offenders? 49   100%  
      Not at all 16   30% Not at all 11   22%  
      Somewhat 21   40% Somewhat 21   43%  
      Very much 16   30% Very much 17   35%  
                 
   Recommended s81? 55   100% Does lodge benefit the offender? 49   100%  
      No 13   24% Not at all 5   10%  
      Yes 42   76% Somewhat 18   37%  
        Very much 26   53%  
   Participated in s81? 54   100%          
      No 24   44% Lodge helps reintegrate into Aboriginal community 44   100%  
      Yes 30   56% Not at all 7   16%  
        Somewhat 13   30%  
   Involved in developing healing plan? 56   100% Very much 24   55%  
      No 34   61%          
      Yes 22   39% Lodge helps reintegrate into urban setting 35   100%  
        Not at all 10   29%  
   Efficiency of transfer process 46   100% Somewhat 16   46%  
      Not at all efficient 17   37% Very much 9   26%  
      Somewhat efficient 15   33%          
      Very efficient 14   30% Lodge follow-up 18   100%  
        Not at all 9   50%  
   Relationship with healing lodge staff 38   100% Somewhat 4   22%  
      Not positive 5   13% Very much 5   28%  
      Somewhat positive 11   29%          
      Very positive 22   58%          
                 
   Main problems (1) 50              
      No problems 22   44%          
      Lack of understanding re. s81 6   12%          
      Lack of commitment to s81 4   8%          
      Lack of understanding re. role of lodge 7   14%          
      Lack of trust 9   18%          
      Communication 10   20%          
      Other 6   12%          
                 
   (1) More than one response was possible.                

83


Appendix B: Telephone Interview Questionnaires for Healing Lodges

84


Questions for Healing Lodges

1.
  
Can you provide a description of your healing lodge? (minimum security)?
2.
  
How long has your facility been in operation?
3.
  
How many people do you have on staff or volunteer at your facility?
4.
  
What are their roles?
5.
  
What is the process for identifying an offender who may be eligible for transfer to your facility or release into the community and then following through with an application?
6.
  
Do you have any information on the criteria for eligibility?
7.
  
Do you have a list of offenders that have been transferred to your facility? (FPS#'s, DOB, etc.)
8.
  
Once and offender is admitted, are separate assessments done other than what has already been done at intake to federal institutions? If yes, could you please describe these assessment tools/procedures?
9.
  
What data are collected on offenders? Is it input into OMS? (e.g. offender characteristics, current offence and sentence, criminal history, programs - type, status, incidents, release date, follow-up, etc.) If it is not entered into OMS, what is done with the data?

10. Do you have a specific data entry form? If yes, request a copy.

11. Do you have program descriptions?

12. Once an offender is ready to be released into the community, what sort of follow-up is done? Is there a plan in place that helps the offender find a place to live/work? To what extent is your facility involved in the post-release period for the offender?

13. Do you feel that there are enough resources in place to help these people once they are in the community?

14. What information do you think we need on offenders?

15. Is there anything else about the section that you want to comment on?

Thank you so much for your participation. If you have any questions or comments that come to you later, please do not hesitate to contact me.

85


Appendix C: Interview for Federal Correctional Staff

86


FEDERAL STAFF INTERVIEW

My name is (first name) and I'm involved in a project to examine healing lodges in order to get a better understanding of how to improve the implementation of section 81 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA). We're interviewing offenders in healing lodges, and staff in healing lodges and federal correctional facilities. The purpose of this interview is to ask you some questions about your experiences with healing lodges. For instance, I will be asking you questions about transfers to healing lodges, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of healing lodges. The interview will take approximately ½ an hour to complete. Do you have any questions?

Province:   Interview Date:
 

Institution:   Interviewer:
 

Respondent #:      
   
 
         
Sex: <1> Male   <2> Female  
Aboriginal: <1> Yes   <2> No  

Position:
_________________________________

Length of time in position:
_______

Describe Role:

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

Describe Background (positions, past positions, etc.):

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • How were you first informed about section 81 transfers?

    ___________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all" and 5 being "very", to what extent would you say that you understand the purpose of section 81 (circle one):
    Not at all Somewhat Very

1

<7> Don't Know

2

<8> Refused

3

4

5

SECTION A: SELECTION PROCESS

I'm going to begin by asking you some questions about how potential candidates for transfers to the healing lodge are identified.

87


1. Have you ever recommended to an offender that they apply for a transfer?

   <1> Yes   <7> Don't Know   <9> Not Applicable  
   <2> No   <8> Refused      
           
2. Have you ever participated in having an offender transferred?  
   <1> Yes   <7> Don't Know   <9> Not Applicable  
   <2> No   <8> Refused      
  • Can you describe the process for identifying potential candidates for a healing lodge?

    _________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • What do you think could be done to improve the identification of potential transfers?

    __________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

SECTION B: TRANSFER PROCESS

Now I'm going to ask you some questions about the transfer process.

  • Can you describe the transfer process at this institution? For instance, once a person has been identified as a potential transfer, how does the transfer process typically proceed?

    ___________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all efficient" and 5 being "very efficient", how efficient would you say the present procedure is for transferring an offender
    (circle one):
    Not at all Somewhat Very

1

<7> Don't Know

2

<8> Refused

3

4

5

88


  • What do you think are the positive aspects of the transfer process?

    __________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • How do you think the transfer process could be improved?

    ___________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all positive" and 5 being "very positive", how would you characterize your relationship with the staff from the healing lodge (circle one):
    Not at all Somewhat Very

1

<7> Don't Know

2

<8> Refused

3

4

5

  • Why would you characterize the relationship with the staff from the healing lodge as positive/not positive?

    _________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all" and 5 being "very", to what extent would you say the responsibilities of the healing lodge and the federal institution have been clearly outlined (circle one):
    Not at all Somewhat Very

1

<7> Don't Know

2

<8> Refused

3

4

5

  • Why would you say the responsibilities are/aren't clearly?

    _________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

89


  • What are the main problems you face when communicating with the healing lodges
    (check all that apply):
    <1> No problems
    <2> Lack of understanding regarding section 81 <3> Lack of commitment to implementing section 81
    <4> Lack of understanding as to the role of the healing lodge
    <5> Lack of trust regarding the healing lodges' ability to manage offenders
    <6> Other - specify
    _____________________________________________________________
    <7> Don't Know <8> Refused

10. What do you think the federal institution could do to help the healing lodge implement section 81?

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

SECTION C: HEALING LODGE

Now I'm going to ask you some questions about the healing lodge.

1. Have you ever been involved with the development of a healing plan?

<1> Yes (go to follow-up question) <7> Don't Know

<2> No

<8> Refused

  • If yes - we're trying to get a better understanding of healing plans. Could you please describe how healing plans are developed?

    _____________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

<9> Not Applicable

  • On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all" and 5 being "very", to what extent would you say you have a good understanding of what occurs at a healing lodge (circle one):
    Not at all Somewhat Very

1

<7> Don't Know

2

<8> Refused

3

4

5

  • On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all" and 5 being "very", to what extent do you think the healing lodges are able to effectively manage offenders (circle one):
    Not at all Somewhat Very

1

<7> Don't Know

2

<8> Refused

3

4

5

90


  • On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all" and 5 being "very", to what extent do you think the healing lodge benefits the offenders (circle one):
    Not at all Somewhat Very

1

<7> Don't Know

2

<8> Refused

3

4

5

  • Why do you think the healing lodge does/doesn't benefit the offenders?

    ____________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all" and 5 being "very", to what extent would you say that the healing lodge helps the offender reintegrate into Aboriginal communities (circle one):
    Not at all Somewhat Very

1

<7> Don't Know

2

<8> Refused

3

4

5

  • How does/doesn't the healing lodge help the offender reintegrate into Aboriginal Communities?

    ____________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all" and 5 being "very", to what extent would you say that the healing lodge helps the offender reintegrate into urban settings
    (circle one):
    Not at all Somewhat Very

1

<7> Don't Know

2

<8> Refused

3

4

5

  • How does/doesn't the healing lodge help the offender reintegrate into urban settings?

    _____________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

10. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all" and 5 being "very", to what extent do you think the healing lodge makes attempts at following-up with an offender once he has been released or transferred out of the facility (circle one):

Not at all 1 <7> Don't Know

Somewhat 3

Very 5

2

<8> Refused

4

91


11. How does/doesn't the healing lodge follow-up with offenders?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

12. What do you think are the most beneficial aspects of the healing lodge?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

13. What do you think could be changed at the healing lodge?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

14. What more do you think the healing lodge could do for the offenders while at the healing lodge?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

Do you have anything else that you would like to add?

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Do you have any questions? Thank you very much for your time.

92


Appendix D: Interview for Healing Lodge Staff

93


HEALING LODGE STAFF INTERVIEW

My name is (first name) and I'm involved in a project to examine healing lodges in order to get a better understanding of how to improve the implementation of section 81 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA). We're interviewing offenders in healing lodges, and staff in healing lodges and federal correctional facilities. The purpose of this interview is to ask you some questions about your experiences in a healing lodge. For instance, I will be asking you questions about transfers to this healing lodge, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of healing lodges. The interview will take approximately ½ an hour to complete. Do you have any questions?

Province:   Interview Date:
 

Institution:   Interviewer:
 

Respondent #:      
   
 
         
Sex: <1> Male   <2> Female  
Aboriginal: <1> Yes   <2> No  

Position:
_________________________________

Length of time in position:
_______

Describe Role:

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

Describe Background (positions, past positions, etc.):

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

SECTION A: SELECTION PROCESS

I'm going to begin by asking you some questions about how potential candidates for transfers to the healing lodge are identified.

1. Do you actively seek potential section 81 transfers?

<1> Yes <2> Sometimes <3> No

<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

94


  • Can you describe the process for identifying potential candidates for the healing lodge?

    _______________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • What do you think could be done to improve the identification of potential transfers?

    ________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

<7> Don't Know

<8> Refused

<9> Not Applicable

SECTION B: TRANSFER PROCESS

Now I'm going to ask you some questions about the transfer process.

  • Can you describe the transfer process? For instance, once a person has been identified as a potential transfer, how does the transfer process typically proceed?

    ________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all efficient" and 5 being "very efficient", how efficient would you say the present procedure is for transferring an offender
    (circle one):
    Not at all Somewhat Very

1

<7> Don't Know

2

<8> Refused

3

4

5

  • What do you think are the positive aspects of the transfer process?

    ________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

95


  • How do you think the transfer process could be improved?

    ________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all positive" and 5 being "very positive", how would you characterize your relationship with the staff from the federal institution
    (circle one):
    Not at all Somewhat Very

1

<7> Don't Know

2

<8> Refused

3

4

5

  • Why would you characterize the relationship with the staff from the federal institution as positive/not positive?

    _______________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all" and 5 being "very", to what extent would you say the responsibilities of the healing lodge and the federal institution have been clearly outlined (circle one):
    Not at all Somewhat Very

1

<7> Don't Know

2

<8> Refused

3

4

5

  • Why would you say the responsibilities are/aren't clearly outlined?

    ________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • What are the main problems you face when communicating with the federal institutions (check all that apply):
    <1> No problems
    <2> Lack of understanding regarding section 81 <3> Lack of commitment to implementing section 81
    <4> Lack of understanding as to the role of the healing lodge
    <5> Lack of trust regarding the healing lodges' ability to manage offenders
    <6> Other - specify
    _____________________________________________________________
    <7> Don't Know <8> Refused

96


10. What do you think the federal institution could do to help the healing lodge implement section 81?

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

SECTION C: HEALING LODGE

Now I'm going to ask you some questions about the healing lodge.

  • Once an offender has been transferred to the healing lodge, what is the process they go through upon coming into your facility?

    ________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • We're trying to get a better understanding of healing plans. Could you please describe how healing plans are developed?

    ________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • Can you describe some of the components in a typical healing plan?

    ________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • Do you think there are enough people with experience in traditional Aboriginal healing methods on staff at the lodge?

<1> Yes <2> No

<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all" and 5 being "very", to what extent do you think the healing lodge benefits the offenders (circle one):
    Not at all Somewhat Very

1

<7> Don't Know

2

<8> Refused

3

4

5

97


  • Why do you think the healing lodge does/doesn't benefit the offenders?

    _________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all" and 5 being "very", to what extent would you say that the healing lodge helps the offender reintegrate into Aboriginal communities (circle one):
    Not at all Somewhat Very

1

<7> Don't Know

2

<8> Refused

3

4

5

  • How does/doesn't the healing lodge help the offender reintegrate into Aboriginal communities?

    _________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all" and 5 being "very", to what extent would you say that the healing lodge helps the offender reintegrate into urban settings
    (circle one):
    Not at all Somewhat Very

1

<7> Don't Know

2

<8> Refused

3

4

5

10. How does/doesn't the healing lodge help the offender reintegrate into urban settings?

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

11. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all" and 5 being "very", to what extent do you think the healing lodge provides the offenders with information as to the resources available in their communities (circle one):

Not at all 1 <7> Don't Know

Somewhat 3

Very 5

2

<8> Refused

4

98


12. In what way does the healing lodge provide the offenders with information about the resources available in their communities OR why doesn't the healing lodge provide the offenders with information about the resources available in their communities?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

13. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all" and 5 being "very", to what extent do you think the healing lodge makes attempts at following-up with an offender once he has been released or transferred out of the facility (circle one):

Not at all 1 <7> Don't Know

Somewhat 3

Very 5

2

<8> Refused

4

14. How does/doesn't the healing lodge follow-up with offenders?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

15. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all" and 5 being "very", to what extent would you say that Aboriginal communities are involved in healing lodges?

Not at all 1 <7> Don't Know

Somewhat 3

Very 5

2

<8> Refused

4

16. Could you describe why Aboriginal communities are/aren't involved in the healing lodge?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

17. What do you think are the most beneficial aspects of the healing lodge?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

99


18. What do you think could be changed at the healing lodge?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

19. What more do you think the healing lodge could do for the offenders while at this facility?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

Do you have anything else that you would like to add?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

Do you have any questions? Thank you very much for your time.

100


Appendix E: Interview for Federal Offenders

101


HEALING LODGE OFFENDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

My name is (first name) and I'm involved in a project to examine healing lodges in order to get a better understanding of how to improve the implementation of section 81 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA). You're one of a number of people we'll be interviewing over the next few weeks. The purpose of this interview is to ask you some questions about your transfer and your experiences within a healing lodge. For instance, I will be asking you questions about your transfer to this healing lodge, your experiences while at the lodge, and your plans upon release. In addition to this interview, I will be getting some general information from your file, such as your current offence, sentence length, etc.

Your participation in this interview is voluntary and will be kept strictly confidential. You may stop at any time and if there are questions that you do not feel comfortable answering, please let me know and we will move on. Please feel free to ask me questions during the interview if you need further clarification on anything.

The interview will take approximately ½ an hour to complete. Do you have any questions? Can you please sign this to indicate your agreement to participate?

I agree to participate in the interview

Print name:
_________________________________

___________________________________________
(participant signature)

________________
(date)

102


Province: Institution: Respondent #:

   OFFENDER INTERVIEW
 
Interview Date: _____________

Interviewer: ________________

SECTION A: TRANSFER

I'm going to begin by asking you some questions about your transfer to the healing lodge.

  • When did you first hear about the possibility of being transferred to a healing lodge
    (check one):
    <1> In remand <4>Other (specify):
    ____________________

<2> During intake assessment

<7> Don't Know

<3> Within 1 month of being incarcerated <8> Refused

  • Who first told you about Section 81 transfers (check one):
    <01> Parole Officer/Case manager at institution <08> Another inmate

<02> Native liaison at institution <03> Elder <04> Aboriginal group inside institution <05> Aboriginal group outside institution <06> Healing lodge representative <07> Healing lodge pamphlet

<09> Family member <10> Friend

<11>Other (specify):
___________________
<77> Don't Know <88> Refused

  • Once your application to the healing lodge was accepted by the lodge, how long did it take until you were transferred (check one):
   <1> Less than 1 week   <5> Other   (specify):  
       
 
   <2> 1 to 4 weeks   <7> Don't Know  
   <3> 1 to 3 months   <8> Refused  
   <4> 4 to 6 months          
           
4. Were you put on a waiting list for the healing lodge?  
   <1> Yes   <7> Don't Know      
   <2> No   <8> Refused      
  • Can you describe the transfer process? For instance, once you found out about Section 81, who you spoke to, how the application was made, how it was approved, etc.

    _______________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

103


  • On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all satisfied" and 5 being "very satisfied", how satisfied would you say you were with the transfer process (circle one):
    Not at all Somewhat Very

1

<7> Don't Know

2

3

4

5

<8> Refused

  • Why would you say you were/weren't satisfied with the transfer process?

    ______________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • Did you encounter any problems in the transfer process? (this can be for any transfer)

<1> Yes <2> No

<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • If yes, can you describe the problems you encountered?

    ______________________________________________________________


___________________________________________________________________

         <7> Don't Know <8> Refused <9> Not Applicable  
     
SECTION B: CURRENT STAY    

   
     
Now I'm going to ask you some questions about your current stay in this healing  
lodge.    
     
1. How long have you been at this healing lodge (for the current transfer) (check one):  
      <1> Less than 1 month <5> 10 to 12 months  
      <2> 1 to 3 months <6> More than 1 year  
      <3> 4 to 6 months <7> Don't Know  
      <4> 7 to 9 months <8> Refused  
     
2. What do you think will be the duration of your stay at the healing lodge (for the  
   current transfer) (check one):    
      <1> Less than 1 month <5> 10 to 12 months  
      <2> 1 to 3 months <6> More than 1 year  
      <3> 4 to 6 months <7> Don't Know  
      <4> 7 to 9 months <8> Refused  
     
3. Have you been transferred to a healing lodge before?  
      <1> Yes <7> Don't Know  
      <2> No <8> Refused  

4. Did you have a healing plan prior to entering the healing lodge?

<1> Yes <2> No

<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

104


  • Could you describe how your healing plan was developed? For instance, who was involved in developing it, how it was agreed upon, etc.

    ______________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • We're trying to get a better understanding of healing plans. You do not have to go into all of the personal aspects of it, but could you generally describe some of the components in your healing plan?

    _____________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all satisfied" and 5 being "very satisfied", how satisfied are you with your healing plan (circle one):
    Not at all Somewhat Very

1

<7> Don't Know

2

3

4

5

<8> Refused

  • Why would you say you are/aren't satisfied with your healing plan?

    _____________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • How far along in your healing process would you say you are (circle one):
    Beginning Near Middle End

1

<7> Don't Know

2

3

4

5

<8> Refused

10. Why would you say you are at that stage of the healing process?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

11. How has the lodge helped/not helped you in your healing process?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

105


12. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all satisfied" and 5 being "very satisfied", how satisfied are you with the staff in the healing lodge (circle one):

Not at all 1 <7> Don't Know

Somewhat 3

Very 5

2

4

<8> Refused

13. Why would you say you are/aren't satisfied with the staff?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

14. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all aware" and 5 being "very aware", to what extent were you aware of traditional Aboriginal healing methods (circle one):

Not at all   Somewhat   Very   Don't   Refused  
                    Know      
   A. Prior to Healing Lodge: 1   2   3   4   5   7   8  
   B. Currently: 1   2   3   4   5   7   8  

15. Why are/aren't there differences in your awareness of traditional Aboriginal healing methods?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

16. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all" and 5 being "very", to what extent has the healing lodge experience given you a better sense of who you are (circle one):

Not at all 1 <7> Don't Know

Somewhat 3

Very 5

2

<8> Refused

4

17. How has the lodge given you a better sense of who you are?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

18. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all" and 5 being "very", to what extent has the healing lodge helped you in your healing process (circle one):

Not at all 1 <7> Don't Know

Somewhat 3

Very 5

2

<8> Refused

4

106


19. How has the lodge helped/not helped you in your healing process?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

20. What changes have you noticed in yourself since you've been at the healing lodge?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

21. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all satisfied" and 5 being "very satisfied", to what extent are you satisfied with the healing lodge experience (circle one):

Not at all 1 <7> Don't Know

Somewhat 3

Very 5

2

<8> Refused

4

22. Why are you satisfied/not satisfied with the healing lodge experience?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

23. What do you think are the most beneficial aspects of the healing lodge? What are the best parts of the healing lodge?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

24. What do you think needs to be changed at the healing lodge?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

107


SECTION C: RELEASE PLANS

Now I'm going to ask you some questions about your plans for release.

1. When you leave the healing lodge, where do you think you will go (check one):

<1> Transferred back to a correctional facility   <5> Other (specify):  
   
 
<2> Released with a CSC probation officer   <7> Don't Know  
<3> Released to an Aboriginal community/reserve   <8> Refused  
<4> Released to a non-Aboriginal community      
  • On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all" and 5 being "very", to what extent do you think the healing lodge will help you reintegrate into the community (circle one):
    Not at all Somewhat Very

1

<7> Don't Know

2

<8> Refused

3

4

5

  • How do you think the healing lodge will help/not help you reintegrate into the community?

    _______________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all" and 5 being "very", to what extent do you think the healing lodge will help you reintegrate into an urban setting (circle one):
    Not at all Somewhat Very

1

<7> Don't Know

2

<8> Refused

3

4

5

  • How do you think the healing lodge will help/not help you reintegrate into an urban setting?

    _________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

  • What are your concerns regarding your release from the healing lodge?

    _________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
<7> Don't Know <8> Refused

108


SECTION D: GENERAL QUESTIONS  


 
     
Now I'm going to ask you a few questions about healing lodges in general.
     
1. In your opinion, what do you think the main purpose of a healing lodge should be?

   <7> Don't Know <8> Refused  
     
2. Where do you think is the best location for a healing lodge (check one):
<1> On a reserve/Aboriginal community <7> Don't Know
<2> Near a reserve/Aboriginal community <8> Refused
      <3> In a rural setting    
      <4> In an urban setting    
<5> Other - specify  

 
     
3. Why do you think this would be the best location?

   <7> Don't Know <8> Refused  
     
4. How long do you think is the optimum time to spend at a healing lodge?

   <7> Don't Know <8> Refused  
     
Do you have anything else that you would like to add?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

Do you have any questions? Thank you very much for your time.

109