Research Reports

Pê Sâkâstêw Centre: An In-Depth Examination of a Healing Lodge for Federally Incarcerated Offenders

Shelley Trevethan, Nicole Crutcher, John-Patrick Moore and Joseph Mileto

Research Branch
Correctional Service of Canada

August 2007

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) has undertaken a number of initiatives to address the over-representation of Aboriginal offenders in the criminal justice system.  One such initiative was the development of healing lodges in order to provide culturally appropriate programming and a holistic environment for Aboriginal offenders to facilitate healing.  The purpose of this study was to provide an in-depth examination of one healing lodge: Pê Sâkâstêw Centre in Hobbema, Alberta.  The primary objective of the Centre is to prepare all offenders for their safe release and encourage community support and involvement of Aboriginal organizations in offenders’ reintegration.  A number of areas were examined such as the physical layout of the Centre, staff, programs, services, residents, community and culture.  The study also provided a profile of residents and examined the effectiveness of the Centre.  Information was gathered from offender files, as well as through interviews with staff and offenders.

Pê Sâkâstêw Centre is a minimum-security facility with a 60-bed capacity.  It is very unique in design because of the strong Aboriginal influence that is found throughout the Centre.  In 2003, there were 48 staff employed at Pê Sâkâstêw, of which 52% were Aboriginal.  Although staff have assigned roles, many of them take on a number of tasks.  Residents are selected using a variety of methods with the main requirement being that they are classified as minimum-security.  An important selection criterion, however, is an interest in learning about Aboriginal culture, and tradition is viewed as very important.

Many cultural activities are provided at the Centre, especially during the summer months.  The residents are able to participate in activities such as pow wows and vision quests.  A variety of programs and services are offered to the residents in the areas of substance abuse, anger and emotions management, cognitive skills, counselling and health.  Residents also have access to the “In Search of Your Warrior” program.

Overall, staff and offenders identified a number of benefits to the Centre, in particular the importance of culture and its impact on the healing process of the offenders.  The majority of residents interviewed (88%) agreed that culture was a very important aspect of the Centre.  Traditional Aboriginal activities such as drumming and carving are encouraged and allow residents to take pride in their accomplishments.  The close ties between staff and residents were seen as a very positive component of the Centre.  Community supports such as Citizens’ Advisory Committees (CACs) appear to be an important link between the community and the Centre.  The use of escorted temporary absences (ETAs) and unescorted temporary absences (UTAs) in promoting the reintegration of offenders is also viewed as key to ensuring successful reintegration.  Lastly, the Centre’s close proximity to several Aboriginal communities and an urban centre (Edmonton) allows for greater involvement with Aboriginal communities and employment opportunities for the residents.  Overall, the open and relaxed atmosphere of the Centre has contributed to an environment that is positive and conducive to healing.

Between April 1, 1997, and March 31, 2003, 440 offenders entered Pê Sâkâstêw Centre.  The majority of residents transferred to Pê Sâkâstêw are Aboriginal.  However, the number of non-Aboriginal offenders has increased in recent years.  A profile of the residents shows individuals who are likely to be married or in common-law relationships, have less than a grade 10 education, are unemployed at the time of their arrest, and have fairly extensive criminal histories.  A large proportion of the residents also have committed offences that are violent in nature.  Further, a large proportion were identified at intake as being at high risk to re-offend, with moderate levels of motivation for intervention, and to have a lower level of reintegration potential.  Residents are generally depicted as having “some” or “considerable” needs for improvement in areas such as substance abuse, personal/emotional issues, and employment.

In contrast to what some may think, the residents are similar to a comparison group of Aboriginal offenders in minimum-security facilities (comprised of all Aboriginal offenders in the five minimum-security institutions in the Prairie region) in terms of offence characteristics and risk/need profile.

Outcome

Interviews conducted at Pê Sâkâstêw indicate that the residents are satisfied with their experience at the Centre.  Furthermore, staff and residents report that the Centre is effective in aiding reintegration into the community.  Qualitative information from interviews is important because some quantitative outcome data may not be sensitive enough to measure the changes resulting from the healing lodge experience.  Those interviewed said that the effectiveness of Pê Sâkâstêw Centre stems from its cultural environment, staff, community involvement and use of temporary absences.  Of particular importance is the cultural component of the Centre, which is thought to aid the residents in their healing journey.

Analysis of offender file information demonstrated significant improvement in several need areas for residents after their stay at Pê Sâkâstêw, suggesting that residents are better prepared for life in the community after residing in the lodge.  For instance, the level of need for programming in each of the need domains diminished post transfer (i.e., personal/emotional, substance abuse, attitudes, family/marital, associates/social interaction, employment, community functioning), suggesting that a variety of programming needs were addressed during the offender’s stay at the Centre.  Furthermore, residents were assessed to be at a higher potential for successful reintegration into the community after being transferred to the healing lodge.  An examination across years demonstrated consistency in rating improvements in a number of domains, suggesting that the needs of residents have been consistently addressed over time.  However, no significant differences emerged between the residents and a comparison group in relation to institutional incidents.

A second set of analyses examined whether differences in the residents could be attributed to their stay at the healing lodge.  The findings indicate that the residents had lower need for programming in areas related to personal/emotional issues and substance abuse when compared to a comparison group of Aboriginal offenders in minimum security.

At the time of release, significantly greater proportions of Pê Sâkâstêw residents than those in the comparison group were released on day parole (56% versus 45%) and smaller proportions on statutory release (38% versus 46%) and warrant expiry (0% versus 2%).

While not statistically significant, the average length of stay in federal custody was slightly lower among the residents than the comparison group.  No statistically significant differences emerged between the proportion of residents and members of the comparison group re-admitted to federal custody one year after release. Furthermore, when re-admissions for new offences were examined, a similar proportion of residents and offenders in the comparison group returned to federal custody with a new offence (17% and 15%, respectively).

An examination across years at Pê Sâkâstêw Centre revealed some important findings.  Many of the differences found between the residents and the comparison group occurred in the early years of operation of Pê Sâkâstêw Centre.  This was the case for need for programming on personal/emotional issues and substance abuse, as well for releases on day parole.  In contrast, in the early years of operation, larger proportions of the residents than members of the comparison group were re-admitted to federal custody for a new offence one year post-release.  While not statistically significant, in the last two years of the study, smaller proportions of residents than a comparison group were re-admitted to federal custody for a new offence.  While it is too early to know, Pê Sâkâstêw may be starting to positively influence re-admission rates.

Pê Sâkâstêw is currently faced with a number of resource-related issues.  More funding is required to hire additional Elders and staff.  Another issue arises with the recruitment and retention of Aboriginal staff as there are a number of factors to deal with including tax exemptions from jobs on the reserves and difficulties regarding the relationship between staff and residents.

Residents at Pê Sâkâstêw indicated that it would benefit the Centre to have more Aboriginal staff or more staff that are interested in Aboriginal culture.  In terms of staff, there is general consensus that the appropriate offenders are being selected and transferred to the Centre.

There are a few areas that need to be addressed in order for Pê Sâkâstêw to be more effective.  The Centre views community involvement as very important, and efforts are being made to encourage further interaction.  Another important area is communication between other healing lodges and CSC.  Communication with these groups could be improved.  Lastly, some concerns exist regarding programs offered at Pê Sâkâstêw.  Issues related to the lack of suitable programs, limited resources for facilitators and the need for Aboriginal-specific programming were identified.

Overall, it is clear that the Centre has a number of positive and effective attributes that contribute to a supportive and healing environment for the residents.  Although there are still issues that need to be addressed, it is important to recognize that the Centre is still in a state of growth.  In the years to come, it is expected that the Centre will continue to expand and provide holistic Aboriginal practices within the area of corrections and improve its ability to deliver services that will ultimately aid in the successful reintegration of offenders.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to begin by thanking a number of staff members at Pê Sâkâstêw Centre for their assistance and contribution to the outcome of this research project.  We would like to give a special thanks to Dan Erickson (Director) and Murray Pelletier (Assistant Director) for providing the researchers with valuable information regarding Pê Sâkâstêw.  We would also like to thank Joe Couture (Elder and psychologist) for his continued involvement in the development and realization of this research project.  A special thanks to the staff at Pê Sâkâstêw for not only participating in the interviews but for creating a welcoming environment for the interviewers.  We would also like to extend our gratitude to the offenders for their willingness to participate in our study and have frank and open discussions with us regarding their experiences.

We would also like to thank Gerry Cowie (CSC Prairie Region) for providing information regarding Pê Sâkâstêw.  The support from Lisa Allgaier (Director General of Aboriginal Initiatives) and Paul Sonnichsen (Manager of Aboriginal Community Relations) also aided in the completion of this study.

Finally, we would like to thank some of the members of the Research Branch at CSC.  A special thanks to Mark Nafekh and Collette Cousineau for their assistance with the database.  Also, we would like to acknowledge Michael Jeffery and Vicki Brunet for their efforts in coding and entering the data.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
• INTRODUCTION
  • Past Research
  • Current Project
• METHOD
  • Procedures
  • Participants
• DESCRIPTION OF PÊ SÂKÂSTÊW
  • History
  • Physical Description
  • Staff
  • Transfer Process
  • Orientation Process
  • A Typical Day at Pê Sâkâstêw
  • Programs/Services
  • Release
  • Community Involvement
• RESIDENT PROFILE
  • Socio-Demographic Characteristics
  • Current Convictions
  • Criminal History
  • Failures
  • Initial Security Placement
  • Risk and Reintegration
  • Case Needs
  • Summary
• EFFECTIVENESS
  • Changes in Residents
  • Outcome - Residents versus Comparison Group
  • The Pê Sâkâstêw Experience
  • Summary
• ISSUES
• CONCLUSION
  • Characteristics of Pê Sâkâstêw
  • Resident Profile
  • Effectiveness
  • Issues
  • Summary
• REFERENCES
• APPENDICES
  • Appendix A: Tables
  • Appendix B: Staff Interview
  • Appendix C: Offender Interview

INTRODUCTION

The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) has implemented a number of strategies and initiatives to address the disproportionate involvement of Aboriginal persons in the criminal justice system.  To illustrate its commitment to the issue of Aboriginal over-representation, one of the CSC corporate objectives states that the Service endeavors “to contribute to the reduction of the incarceration rate of Aboriginal offenders” (CSC, 2002a).  This report focuses on one CSC initiative, the use of healing lodges as a means of providing Aboriginal-specific programming and services.

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).  Staff at these facilities are primarily Aboriginal, creating an environment that may be more conducive to healing than a federal institution.

The idea of using healing lodges as a means to promote healing was reinforced by the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996).  One of the recommendations of the report was that community-based healing lodges be developed 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.  The second are healing lodges 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 is accomplished through section 81 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA).  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.

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, six more lodges, all for male offenders, have been opened.  These include Pê Sâkâstêw Centre (Hobbema, Alberta), which opened in April 1997, Wahpeton Spiritual Healing Lodge (Prince Albert, Saskatchewan) 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 (NCSA) in September 1999¹.  Ochichakkosipi Healing Lodge (Crane River, Manitoba) opened in February 2000 but was closed in October 2002, and Waseskun (St. Alphonse-de-Rodriquez, Quebec) was opened in August 2001.  Willow Cree Healing Lodge in Duck Lake, Saskatchewan, opened in June 2004.  Kwikwèxwelhp (Harrison, British Columbia) has been operating as a CSC minimum-security facility and is currently in transition to be co-managed with the Chehalis First Nation.

There has been very little research conducted on healing lodges to date.  This report attempts to address some of the information gaps that have been identified in previous research while at the same time providing an in-depth look at the Pê Sâkâstêw Centre.  This analysis includes a comprehensive description of the Centre, experiences of staff and residents, a profile of the residents, an examination of outcome for residents, and an analysis of the aspects of the Centre that are working well, as well as some of the issues the Centre is facing.

Past Research

As stated above, little research is available on Aboriginal healing lodges.  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 3% of the adult population in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2001).  However, they make up 18% of offenders incarcerated in federal correctional facilities and 13% of those serving time in the community (Trevethan, Moore & Rastin, 2002).

Another issue relates to the extent 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 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, which may have an 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 increase the successful reintegration of Aboriginal offenders into communities 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.

Some research has also suggested that it is not only important to offer Aboriginal-specific programs, but 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 liaison officers, and especially spiritual leaders and Elders, as being more trustworthy than non-Aboriginal staff.

There have only been a few studies that have specifically examined Aboriginal-run healing lodges and 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 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.

Pfeifer and Hart-Mitchell (2001) completed a study that examined the effectiveness of Wahpeton Healing Lodge in Saskatchewan.  Although the sample size for this study was small and only dealt with provincial offenders, some interesting results were revealed.  Many of the offenders said that they were more comfortable participating in cultural activities at the lodge because 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 to the lodge, and the offenders generally felt that the culturally appropriate programming would enable them to trust people, stay out of trouble, and deal more positively with their problems.

Finally, a recent study examined federal offenders in Canadian healing lodges (Trevethan, Crutcher & Rastin, 2002).  This study found that there was a great deal of variation among the different healing lodges in Canada.  CSC-run healing lodges were very similar to other CSC-run minimum-security institutions in terms of their day-to-day operations with the primary difference being that the healing lodges had incorporated a traditional approach.  The facilities that were once CSC-run but were transferred to Aboriginal communities tended to maintain many of the procedures and regulations, but also added a traditional perspective.  Facilities that were built specifically as Aboriginal-run healing lodges tended to be more focused on Aboriginal traditions but did not maintain the structured approach of a CSC facility.  This is an important finding as some of the research reported above has indicated the importance of a cultural component for Aboriginal offenders.

The report by Trevethan, Crutcher and Rastin (2002) focused primarily on the lodges that were Aboriginal-run and outlined the findings of interviews with healing lodge residents and staff, as well as staff in federal institutions.  Overall, the residents at Aboriginal-run healing lodges indicated that being at the lodge helped them a great deal, with particular emphasis placed on staff-resident relationships.  In addition, many residents indicated that they had noticed positive changes in their attitudes, personality and physical well-being during their time at the healing lodge.

There were some issues between the staff at the healing lodges and the staff in the federal institutions, such as problems with communication.  The lack of communication appears to have contributed to a misunderstanding on the part of federal institutional staff regarding the role of a healing lodge, lack of confidence in the lodges' ability to manage offenders and a lack of commitment to the implementation of section 81.  The staff from the federal institutions indicated that they had less understanding of what occurred in a healing lodge and some questioned the lodges' ability to effectively manage offenders.  Finally, the study found that the impact of community involvement in healing lodges was a possible factor in the effectiveness of a healing lodge.

The concept of healing lodges as a means of improving the effectiveness of corrections for Aboriginal offenders has been examined as a potential model in the American criminal justice system (Nielsen, 2003).

When examining the research conducted to date, it appears that Aboriginal offenders tend to be released later in their sentence than non-Aboriginal offenders.  Further, once released, there appear to be higher recidivism rates for Aboriginal offenders.  These two factors ultimately affect the overall proportion of Aboriginal offenders in the criminal justice and correctional systems.  Other research suggests that certain factors may contribute to the situation in corrections, including inappropriate programs, environments, and even correctional staff.  An analysis of Aboriginal-run healing lodges has highlighted some of the positive aspects of healing lodges as well as some of the issues they are facing.  Specifically, healing lodges appear to provide an environment that is more culturally appropriate for both programs and staff.  Therefore, the next step in addressing healing lodges is to conduct an in-depth examination of individual healing lodges to determine the success factors associated with them while, at the same time, addressing some of the problems they face that may have an impact on their effectiveness.

Current Project

The current project further addresses some of the issues raised in the report by Trevethan, Crutcher and Rastin (2002).  This study is an in-depth analysis of one of the CSC-run healing lodges currently in operation - the Pê Sâkâstêw Centre in Hobbema, Alberta.  A number of areas are examined, including how the lodge began, staff organization, day-to-day processes, programs, services, characteristics of residents, community interaction, outcome information and the cultural approach at the Centre.  In addition, the project focuses on what factors contribute to the effectiveness of the healing lodge.  Factors that may hinder the lodge from being effective are also identified.  Finally, the project outlines some of the problems and issues that are facing the Pê Sâkâstêw Centre.

The research questions are as follows:

1. What is the description of Pê Sâkâstêw Centre?
2. What are the characteristics of residents at Pê Sâkâstêw and has this changed over time?
3. What are the characteristics of Pê Sâkâstêw that are effective?
4. What are the issues Pê Sâkâstêw is facing?

¹ Stan Daniels originally opened in 1987 as a CSC-run community correctional centre.  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.

METHOD

Procedures

This study involved four components: an in-depth description of Pê Sâkâstêw Healing Centre; a profile of residents; an examination of effectiveness; and, a discussion of the issues the Centre is facing.  In order to collect this information, two data sources were utilized: offender case files; and interviews with residents and staff at Pê Sâkâstêw.

Offender case files

Offender case file information was gathered through CSC's Offender Management System (OMS).  Data were gathered on offenders who had been transferred to Pê Sâkâstêw since it opened on April 1, 1997, to the study end date of March 31, 2003.  Information on the offenders transferred to Pê Sâkâstêw was examined using data from the Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) process.  CSC’s OIA process collects and stores information on each federal offender’s criminal and mental health background, social situation and education, factors relevant to determining criminal risk (such as number/variety of convictions and previous exposure, response to youth and adult corrections), and factors relevant to identifying offender dynamic needs (such as employment history, family background, criminal associations, addictions, attitudes).  While the results help determine institutional placement and correctional plans, a distribution of selected criminal history and case need variables can result in a comprehensive profile of the federal offender population.  In addition to information from the OIA, incidents during incarceration and re-admissions were also examined.

Once residents at the healing lodge were identified, statistical analyses were conducted to provide a profile of federal offenders who had been transferred to Pê Sâkâstêw.  A comparison group was utilized consisting only of Aboriginal offenders in minimum-security institutions in the Prairie Region (institutions included: Rockwood, Riverbend, Drumheller Annex, Grande Cache and Grierson).  Of all the offenders transferred to Pê Sâkâstêw and minimum-security institutions, multiple transfers of the same individual in a given fiscal year were excluded from the analysis.  In such cases, their first record was analyzed.  A total of 440 residents and 1,552 offenders in minimum-security were included in the study.  Offenders appearing more than once between fiscal years (i.e., an offender entering in 1998 and released but re-admitted in 2000) were included in the analyses.  However, for demographic information (i.e., Aboriginal status, marital status, education, employment, etc.), only the first record within the six-year period was captured.

In order to determine whether Pê Sâkâstêw Centre had an impact on the residents, various indicators of outcome were analyzed.  Unlike the profile information, in cases of multiple transfers, outcome analyses only examined data from the first transfer.  This decision was made because some data are over-written in the OIA and pre-post data could not always be obtained for each individual transfer.  Furthermore, this approach ensured that each offender could be followed for the specified period of one year.  Therefore, for outcome data, 387 residents and 1,206 members of the comparison group were examined.

The first indicator of outcome involved an examination of dynamic needs for programming, reintegration potential and motivation for intervention among the residents.  Pre-post testing was conducted on these variables to determine whether any significant changes occurred from the time the offender entered the federal facility for their current conviction to their most recent information following their transfer to Pê Sâkâstêw Centre.  Further, a comparison between the residents and the comparison group on their most recent rating of these indicators was conducted, to determine whether there was greater improvement among the residents.

A second indicator of outcome involved comparing the number of incidents (in which the residents were perpetrators) while they were in the federal facility to the number of incidents during their stay at Pê Sâkâstêw.  Incidents were examined for a one-year timeframe in both locations.

The final indicator of outcome was re-admission to federal custody following release.  A separate database of releases from Pê Sâkâstêw and from among the comparison group was developed.  Information on the release (e.g., time to release, type of release) was examined for the residents and the comparison group.  In addition, re-admissions within a one-year timeframe following release were compared.

Interviews

The second component of the study involved semi-structured interviews (see Appendix B) with key staff at Pê Sâkâstêw, including the Executive Director and other management staff, parole officers, and primary workers².  With the exception of one interview, all were conducted in person.  A second semi-structured interview (see Appendix C) for the residents at Pê Sâkâstêw was developed and administered in person.  Several key areas were examined in the interviews: the process and satisfaction of their transfer and healing plan, their cultural experiences and their adjustments to the Centre.  In addition, unstructured interviews were conducted with a number of staff to further examine some of the information and issues that became apparent when conducting the interviews.  Major areas covered during the staff interviews included the appropriateness of the type of residents transferred to the Centre, the importance of culture for healing and whether the Centre facilitates the reintegration of the residents into the community.

Participants

There were three groups in this study.  The first group consisted of 440 offenders who had been transferred to Pê Sâkâstêw at some point between April 1, 1997 to and the study end date of March 31, 2003³.  The second group consisted of 15 randomly selected offenders that were residing at Pê Sâkâstêw at the time of our visit (February 2003).  It is this group that was given the semi-structured interview.  The third group was made up of the staff working at the lodge at the time.  A total of 22 semi-structured interviews were completed with the staff.  Lastly, additional unstructured interviews were conducted with a number of the staff to provide more context regarding the Centre.

² At Pê Sâkâstêw, the role of a primary worker is two-fold.  Primary workers are responsible for security at the Centre but they also carry a caseload of about five residents.  They work with the residents assigned to them to create a relationship and help them work through their problems.

³ As indicated earlier, the 440 transferred offenders could include multiple transfers in different years.  In total, 387 individuals were transferred to the Centre during the six-year timeframe, some transferred more than once in different years.

DESCRIPTION OF PÊ SÂKÂSTÊW

The Pê Sâkâstêw Centre (meaning “New Dawn”) is a minimum-security CSC facility.  It is located approximately 80 kilometers south of Edmonton, adjacent to the First Nations Samson Cree Nation reserve.  In addition to the Samson Cree Nation, there are also three other Reserves located nearby: Ermineskin, Louis Bull, and Montana Nations.  Of the four reserves, Samson Cree Nation is the largest with a population of approximately 5,000.  The other three reserves have about 5,000 members in total.

History⁴

In the early 1990s, the people of Samson Cree Nation determined that there were too many people from their community in federal penitentiaries and decided to take action.  Their goal was to heal Aboriginal offenders with traditional methods, including Elders, Aboriginal specific-programs and staff who were culturally sensitive.

Discussions between the Samson Cree Nation and CSC for the construction of a healing lodge began in the spring of 1991.  An announcement was made in January of 1992 by the Solicitor General of Canada that an agreement between CSC and the Government of Canada had been reached to build a minimum-security facility on Samson Cree land.  The purpose of this agreement was to provide a pre-release correctional centre with a focus on healing, specifically from a holistic Aboriginal perspective.  The Memorandum of Understanding between the Solicitor General of Canada and the Samson Cree Nation was signed in July 1995.  It outlines the relationship and obligation of both parties (Solicitor General of Canada, 1995).  Construction for the Centre began not long after and was completed in January 1997.  The Centre began accepting residents three months later.

Physical Description

Pê Sâkâstêw operates as a minimum-security facility.  It has a 60-bed capacity.  Of these 60 beds, 40 are reserved for federal inmates and 20 are for offenders on day parole.  At the time of our visit in 2003, the Centre was operating at near capacity.

The Pê Sâkâstêw Centre is very unique in design and structure as it has a circular architecture that can be found throughout the complex.  This design was developed, in part, through consultations with Elders and other members of the Samson Cree community.  The physical design is a reflection of Aboriginal culture and traditional living space.  In Aboriginal culture, the circle is a very predominant symbol - it is inclusive and represents a projection outward in all directions.  There are 11 buildings on 25 acres of land.  All of the buildings are situated in a large circle with the cultural building at the top of the circle.  One of the most striking features of the facility is the colour of the buildings.  Red, yellow, black, white and blue are the colours of the Samson Cree people and are the colours that have been used throughout the interior and exterior of the buildings.

The cultural building, referred to as C-building, was designed around the Eagle.  The tail feathers of the Eagle lead up to the entrance of the building with a large, circular cultural room directly in the front.  This part of the building represents the body of the Eagle.  On either side of the cultural room are the two Elders’ offices.  To the right of the entrance, or the right wing of the Eagle, is the case management area.  This area holds the offices of the parole officers and the case management support staff.  The left wing of the Eagle holds a classroom and health services.  Symbolically, each wing of the Eagle serves to protect the other buildings on the left and right of C-building.

There are six living units for the residents, who are called owîcîyîsîwâk  (meaning “one who helps himself”).  Each living unit is divided into two separate living quarters, with a large common room and kitchen.  There are five individual bedrooms for the residents, which contain a single bed, an armoire and a desk.  Residents are able to furnish their rooms with personal possessions but no more than $1,500 worth of merchandise is allowed.  Each living unit has a washer and dryer and two washrooms.  Residents are required to maintain their living units, do their own laundry and cook their own meals.  A meal allowance is provided, and each living unit must supply a menu to food services for a two-week period.  Some of the living units have been designated for certain types of residents: one is for those serving life sentences, one is designated as non-smoking, and one is for those on day parole.

Almost directly across from C-building is the main building.  This building, which also serves as the main entrance to the facility, has administrative staff offices and the duty desk.  There is a large, circular cultural room that has a stage, two basketball nets and a volleyball net.  Various cultural events have been held in this room including feasts and round dances.  This building also has a fully equipped kitchen for staff.

To the left of C-building is P-building which houses program classrooms and offices for program facilitators.  This building also has a hobby shop where the residents can make drums, do stone work, or participate in other crafts.  There is a small library in the building with two stand-alone computers and a television.  P-building also houses the admissions and discharge office and a small gym for the residents and staff.

Beside P-building is a building that houses food services and maintenance services.  Food for the residents is stored there, and there is a full kitchen to prepare food for feasts and other cultural events held at the Centre.  The area for issuing bedding, cleaning supplies and other items for the residents is also located in this building.  There is also a maintenance area that has a garage and a fenced-in tool shed.

A few smaller buildings are located behind P-building.  One is used for preparing animal hides for drums, teepees, and clothing.  There is also a garage that houses the tractor and another building for storage.  Lastly, there is a small greenhouse that is currently not used due to funding cuts.

To the right of C-building, symbolically under the right wing of the eagle, are two living units, the Private Family Visit (PFV) unit, and the Elders’ unit.  The PFV unit and Elders’ unit are in the same building but are split into two separate living quarters.  Each of the living quarters has a kitchen, living room, three bedrooms and one bathroom.  Each resident is allowed 36 hours per month for a PFV or 72 hours every other month.

There is a baseball diamond on the grounds of Pê Sâkâstêw for the residents.  An ice rink is being built.  Further back on the property are two sweat lodges; one is generally used in the summer months and the other in the winter.  In addition, there are a number of teepees back by the sweat lodges.

Pê Sâkâstêw has been an Intensive Support Unit (ISU) since June 2002.  An ISU is a CSC initiative “intended to provide a positive living environment for offenders who wish to remain free of alcohol and drugs and to support and reinforce offender efforts to change substance abuse behaviour” (CSC, 2002b).  Upon arriving at the Centre, residents must sign a contract agreeing to refrain from abusing substances.  In order to encourage compliance with the contract, residents are subject to random testing⁵.  If a resident tests positive for substances, Pê Sâkâstêw has the option, as outlined in the contract, of returning him to a non-ISU institution while the Centre reviews the situation.  The designated non-ISU institution for the Centre is Grande Cache.

Staff

At the time of our visit in 2003, there were 48 staff employed at Pê Sâkâstêw, of which 25 (52%) were Aboriginal.  The Executive Director, who reports directly to the Deputy Commissioner of the Prairie Region of CSC, is in chargeof Pê Sâkâstêw and is responsible for the administration of the Centre, staff management, and the Centre's program.  Reporting to the Executive Director is the Deputy Director and the Assistant Warden of Management Services.  The Deputy Director oversees the operational aspects of the facility, including health care, programs, security, case management and finances.  The Assistant Warden of Management Services manages the operations of the Centre, including personnel, records, informatics, finance, engineering, maintenance, claims and grievances.  Other administrative staff include a finance officer, a finance technician, an informatics officer, and clerical support staff.

The Centre also employs an admission and discharge officer who is responsible for aiding new transfers upon arrival and when residents leave Pê Sâkâstêw.  There are two program officers at the Centre who run the programs that are offered.  In addition, there are two Elders on contract, with a third who is a CSC employee hired as the Centre’s psychologist.  The Elders work directly with the residents to provide teachings and counselling, and to take the residents out on escorted temporary absences (ETAs) for cultural events.  The staff psychologist works with the residents to provide counselling services.

Perhaps one of the more unique positions at the Centre is the social/cultural development officer (SCDO), which is a relatively new position.  The SCDO works directly with the residents to get them involved in the cultural aspects of the lodge and to help them through some of the issues they are facing.  The person in this position is also responsible for being the liaison between the residents and the community (which includes any community a resident may be released to).  This position requires working closely with parole officers and primary workers to assess resources in the community and to determine exactly what kind of environment the resident will be returning to.  One of the keys to understanding the realities of a resident's home environment is to visit the home community with the resident via an ETA.

There are also a number of primary workers at the Centre.  At Pê Sâkâstêw, the role of the primary worker is two-fold.  Primary workers are responsible for security at the Centre, but they also carry a caseload of about five residents.  They work with the cases assigned to them to create a relationship and aid the residents in working through some of their problems.

There are three parole officers who work directly with the residents on their correctional plans and release plans.  Aside from general case management, the parole officers work with the residents and the community to develop supports and set in place services that will be helpful for the offenders’ reintegration.

The Centre also employs four team leaders who are responsible for scheduling staff, organizing ETAs and UTAs (unescorted temporary absences), working with the residents and performing quality control for the correctional officers.  In addition, there are three staff that work in the health care unit of Pê Sâkâstêw to deal with the general health of the residents.

Finally, there are a number of staff who work in food services and maintenance.  Food Services is responsible for purchasing the food for the residents’ menu as well as preparing food for feasts and other cultural activities.  The maintenance staff are responsible for the up-keep of the grounds and buildings belonging to Pê Sâkâstêw.

It is important to note that many of the staff at the Centre wear more than one hat in their jobs.  There is a great deal of overlap as everyone is working toward the same goal - helping the residents successfully reintegrate back into the community.

Transfer Process

Pê Sâkâstêw has gone through a number of changes in management and, as a result, at the time of the visit no set procedure for identifying potential residents had been outlined yet.  Most commonly, the Centre becomes aware of a potential transfer through a list sent from the institutions or from referrals from institutional staff, such as parole officers, Native Liaison Officers and Elders.  Some inmates in other institutions contact Pê Sâkâstêw directly as a result of hearing about the Centre from institutional staff or other inmates.  In the past, representatives from the Centre have gone into the institutions and conducted information sessions on Pê Sâkâstêw, however, this is not common practice.

The Centre tries to focus on accepting offenders who are working on their healing journey and have an interest in their traditions and spirituality.  The offender should be willing to participate in cultural activities as well as the programs offered at the Centre.  One requirement that the offender must meet is to be rated as minimum security.

Once a potential candidate has been identified, the sending institution must provide permission for the transfer.  If the case is unclear, the file must go to the Offender Management Review Board (OMRB) for consultation.  Again, there is no set procedure for determining whether a candidate is suitable, but there appear to be two processes that could be involved.  The Deputy Director of the Centre may review the file and determine whether the candidate is appropriate and accept or reject the offender based on his file.  There are also occasions, however, when the file is sent out to all the parole officers and team leaders for comments and, if it is determined that the Centre can help the offender, he is accepted.  Currently, Pê Sâkâstêw has been accepting 100% of the applicants for transfer⁶.

Of the residents interviewed, almost three quarters (73%) said that they themselves had made the request to be transferred to Pê Sâkâstêw and the vast majority (93%) waited six months or less for the transfer once the request had been made (see Table 13 in Appendix A).  Only 15% of respondents interviewed had been placed on a waiting list prior to coming to the Centre.  Most (86%) of the respondents said they were very satisfied with the transfer process and only one said that he had experienced problems with the transfer.  This is interesting as previous research among non CSC-run healing lodges found that substantially higher proportions of residents interviewed had been placed on waiting lists (45%) and had problems with the transfer (32%) (Trevethan, Crutcher & Rastin, 2002).  This finding from the previous research is likely due to the tendency for the transfer process at non CSC-run facilities to be less structured compared to the transfer process between CSC facilities.

Orientation Process

Once an offender is transferred to Pê Sâkâstêw, there is no standardized orientation procedure to greet him upon arrival.  By all accounts, this is changing, but at the time of our visit, the orientation to the Centre tended to proceed along a similar path.  Upon arriving atPê Sâkâstêw, most offenders are introduced to security, the team leaders and are assigned to a parole officer and primary worker.  The offender, now referred to as a resident, signs a contract and an agreement that states he will participate in cultural activities and events.  The resident is taken to admission and discharge where he is given his “fish pack” (clothes, bedding and toiletries) and a Pê Sâkâstêw handbook.  The handbook contains information on rules, regulations, and what is expected while at the Centre.  A tour is given by a representative from the Inmate Wellness Committee, and the resident is introduced to the Elders and other staff.  The resident is given his keys and shown his room.  Within the first 24 hours, an immediate needs assessment (medical, mental and suicide) is completed.  Lastly, preparations for the resident’s ETAs and UTAs are made.

A Typical Day at Pê Sâkâstêw

Each day, the residents are required to report to the duty desk for count between 7:30 and 8:00 a.m. and  then proceed to their work stations either in the Centre or out in the community (for those who have UTAs for work release).  Those who do not have work assignments can visit with the Elders or be assigned to other work projects as they come up throughout the day (i.e., snow removal in the winter).  A second count is held at 11:30 a.m., and the residents then prepare lunch for themselves in their living units unless they are on work release outside Pê Sâkâstêw.  Volleyball games are held at lunch for staff and the residents each day, with the exception of Wednesdays.  After lunch (1:00 p.m.), the residents report back to their work stations and continue there until 4:00 p.m.  There is another count between 4:30 and 5:00 p.m. and the residents are then able to engage in leisure activities such as recreational activities, hobbies, visits, etc.  Some residents may attend self-help meetings during this time as well.  At 10:30 p.m., the residents must return to their living units for final count.

This is the typical pattern that proceeds throughout the week with the exception of Wednesday, which is specifically reserved for cultural activities.  On Wednesdays, the Elders hold sweats, drumming, pipe ceremonies and sharing circles.  Recent additions to the activities that take place on Wednesdays include having female Elders come to the Centre for teachings and providing residents with instruction on cultural crafts such as making drums, doing beadwork,  and making moccasins, dance outfits and dream catchers.  The Centre has recently arranged for an individual from the community to provide instruction on the cultural crafts.

During the summer months, pow wows are held on site every weekend, and there are vision quests that take the residents into a more remote setting at a camp to aid them in their healing journey.  The residents are also taken to other Aboriginal communities to participate in the cultural ceremonies being held there.

Programs/Services

When the Centre first opened, a number of programs were planned.  Due to funding issues, however, at the time of our visit the Centre was only able to offer five programs internally, on an as-needed basis.  Below is a description of the programs offered at Pê Sâkâstêw.

The Centre offers the Aboriginal Substance Abuse Pre-Release Program (ASAPP) on site.  This program is essentially the same as the core CSC Offender Substance Abuse Pre-release Program (OSAPP) except that it has been modified to provide a cultural component.  The OSAPP program addresses the risk factors associated with substance abuse and teaches relapse prevention strategies.

During the summer months, Pê Sâkâstêw offers a program called In Search of Your Warrior, developed by Native Counselling Services of Alberta (NCSA).  It is a workshop for offenders who want to examine the violence they have engaged in, how it has shaped their lives, and how it is passed from generation to generation.  The offenders are taught new skills to deal with their violent behaviour to eventually eliminate it.  Previously, this program was offered on site at the Centre, but the plan is to offer it in a more isolated area - similar to a camp setting.

The Centre offers the Family Life Improvement Program (FLIP) on site which aims to help residents with their family problems and parenting issues.  This program offers participants the opportunity to feel better about themselves, their families, and their relationships.  Education and employment information is provided in addition to teachings on Aboriginal parenting practices and spirituality.  This program uses ETAs to aid the residents in interacting with their families and making contacts in the community.

Anger and Emotions Management is another program offered at Pê Sâkâstêw.  This is essentially the core CSC program that has been adapted to include an Aboriginal component.  The program is based on the cognitive-behavioural approach to anger reduction.  The purpose is to provide residents with the skills to reduce the frequency and intensity of the arousal that is linked to aggression.

The Centre also offers Cognitive Skills Training which is the main component of the core CSC Living Skills program.  The program targets several aspects of behaviour that have been identified as contributing to, or maintaining, criminal behaviour, including self-control, social perspective taking/egocentricity, interpersonal problem solving, and critical reasoning.  This program has been adapted to include a cultural component.

A low intensity sex offender program had previously been offered at Pê Sâkâstêw.  The demand did not justify maintaining it, however, now those residents who require the program attend through the Edmonton Parole Office.  In addition, the Centre offers one-on-one counselling with the staff psychologist to deal with sex offending.

There have been repeated requests by the Centre for resources to offer more programs.  Since the resources are not currently available, the Centre has had to take other approaches to meet the programming needs of the residents.  It has done this by taking them to other correctional facilities and area parole offices that offer the programming needed.

Narcotics Anonymous (NA) and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) are offered in a town nearby for the residents, and meetings for both groups are also offered at the Centre.  A family violence program that is offered in Edmonton is also available to the residents.

The Centre offers a number of services to the residents including one-on-one counseling, primarily provided by program staff.  There are also Elders on staff to provide counselling in traditional teachings, lead ceremonies and generally work with the residents on their healing journey.

As stated above, the Centre has a health clinic for the residents.  The clinic deals with general health issues and has a doctor come to the Centre twice a month.  In the event a resident requires more than what the clinic can provide, the staff can take the resident into Edmonton.  The Centre also has contracts with a dentist and a pharmacist in the community.

While the Centre does not have the resources to offer any other services, they work with the Wellness Centre of the four bands to deliver extra programs and services.  Some of the areas that are going to be targeted include support groups for men, parenting skills programs, and living skills programs.

Release

As soon as a resident arrives at the Centre, the staff work to prepare him for release.  The parole officer, primary worker and SCDO work to accomplish this task and have the details outlined in a release plan.  The plan examines where the resident wants to be released to and the resources and supports in the community to address his needs.  Some of the main components of a release plan include setting up employment and cultural contacts, as well as accessing resources to meet the resident’s dynamic needs (e.g., AA Meetings to address their substance abuse issues).  The plan is unique to each individual.

When a resident leaves the Centre, there is no set procedure in place.  In the past, a release circle was held, and the Centre is working towards implementing this again.

Community Involvement

When the Centre first opened, there was a great deal of community involvement, including a strong volunteer component.  Unfortunately, a few incidents have caused tension between the community and the Centre.  Recently, there has been observable improvement in how the community views Pê Sâkâstêw.  Just prior to our visit, the Centre held a round dance on site that over 400 people from the community attended.

Aside from general community sentiments, Pê Sâkâstêw has a fairly active Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC)⁷.  However, as problems arose between the community and the Centre, the CAC and Pê Sâkâstêw also experienced relationship difficulties.  This situation has improved, and a number of key community members are currently on the Pê Sâkâstêw CAC and are working to improve relations between the Centre and the community.

In addition to the CAC, Pê Sâkâstêw also has an EldersSenate comprised of 10 Elders from the community.  The purpose of the Elders’ Senate is to provide advice, guidance and direction to the Centre on spiritual and cultural issues, such as protocol.  Furthermore, the Elders’ Senate also works to remind the Centre of its vision and to keep the relationship between the Centre and the community strong.

At the time of our visit, Pê Sâkâstêw was about to begin a campaign to bring in more volunteers from the community.  This would ultimately foster stronger relationships between the community and theCentre.

⁴ Information in this section was gathered through a review of existing documentation on Pê Sâkâstêw and interviews with key informants.

⁵ The testing, referred to as a “challenge”, is conducted about once per week.  Achallenge can be a room or person search, litmus test, and/or urinanalysis.  Residentsmay also be searched when they come in and out of the Centre on passes.  Accordingto Dan Erickson, A/Executive Director of Pê Sâkâstêw, they do one litmus test per month on everyone and do the nationally regulated urinanalysis test on 3% of the population per month.

⁶ This is based on the period between June 2002 and February 2003.

⁷ “CAC's are autonomous committees that reflect the interest of citizens in contributing to the quality of Canada's federal correctional services and programs.  The mission of each CAC is to contribute to the protection of society by interacting with staff of the CSC, the public and offenders by providing impartial advice and recommendations about correctional services and by acting as a liaison with the community” (www.csc-scc.gc.ca).

RESIDENT PROFILE

This section outlines the characteristics of the residents who have resided at Pê Sâkâstêw.  A total of 468 transfers took place at Pê Sâkâstêw from its opening in April 1997 to March 31, 2003.  Once duplicate transfers within each year were removed, a total of 440 individual offenders were transferred to Pê Sâkâstêw over the six-year period⁸.  A comparison group comprised of Aboriginal offenders in minimum-security in the Prairie Region within the same timeframe who had not been transferred to a healing lodge was also used.  A total of 1,206 Aboriginal offenders comprised the minimum-security comparison group.

Results are outlined under three headings.  Firstly, a profile of residents in the 2002-03 fiscal year is examined.  Secondly, comparisons across time within the six-year period are examined for Pê Sâkâstêw residents.  Lastly, comparisons between residents and minimum-security offenders for the 2002-03 fiscal year are conducted.  Statistical tables can be found in Appendix A.

As illustrated in the figure, a total of 440 offenders resided at Pê Sâkâstêw from April 1997 through to March 31, 2003.  The largest number (90) entered Pê Sâkâstêw during 2002-03.  Previous to 2002-03, differences over time showed two influxes of residents entering the Centre.  This occurred in 1998-99 and 2000-01 with 76 and 79 residents, respectively (also see Table 1 in Appendix A).

Socio-Demographic Characteristics

As illustrated in Table 1, while the majority of the residents transferred to Pê Sâkâstêw in 2002-03 were Aboriginal (84%), 16% were non-Aboriginal.  This is not surprising since section 81(2) of the CCRA states that Aboriginal communities may provide correctional services to non-Aboriginal offenders.

Approximately two thirds of the residents transferred in 2002-03 were married or in common-law relationships (62%), had less than a grade 10 education (64%), and were unemployed at the time of their arrest (64%).  Residents had an average age of 33 upon their admission to a federal facility and 36 at the time of their transfer to Pê Sâkâstêw.

Differences across time show that the percentage of non-Aboriginal residents at Pê Sâkâstêw significantly increased in 2002-03, representing 16% of the population.  This was significantly different from previous years such as 1997-98 and 1999-00 when all of the residents at Pê Sâkâstêw were Aboriginal. 

The proportion of residents who were unemployed at the time of their arrest have steadily increased over time, although these changes were not statistically significant.  This suggests that programs targeting employment and vocational skills may be beneficial for Pê Sâkâstêw residents to provide them with the skills needed to obtain and maintain employment upon their release.  Furthermore, ETAs and UTAs could provide residents with the opportunity to obtain employment during their incarceration, making their skills more marketable upon release.

In general, residents at Pê Sâkâstêw did not differ significantly from Aboriginal offenders in minimum-security on socio-demographic information.  However, one significant difference did emerge.  In 2002-03, a larger proportion of residents at Pê Sâkâstêw than Aboriginal offenders in minimum security had less than a grade 10 education at the time of admission to a federal facility (64% versus 46%).

Current Convictions

An examination of the residents' most serious offence for the current period of incarceration was conducted (see Table 2).  In 2002-03, the most serious current offence for the largest proportion of residents was homicide (18%) followed by sex offences (13%) and property crimes⁹ (13%).  More than two thirds (69%) of Pê Sâkâstêw residents were serving aggregate sentence lengths of between 2 and 5 years, with an average of 3.9 years¹⁰.

In general, the offence profiles and sentence lengths of residents have remained fairly consistent over the six-year period.  However, one significant difference did emerge where a significantly larger proportion of residents transferred in 2001-02 had a robbery conviction when compared to the residents in 1997-98 (17% vs.  0%).  Overall, the proportion of residents convicted of homicide has increased over the years, although this was not statistically significant.

With the exception of impaired driving offences, Pê Sâkâstêw residents did not differ in their offence profiles from Aboriginal offenders in minimum security.  A significantly greater proportion of those transferred to Pê Sâkâstêw in 2002-03 had an impaired driving offence as their most serious current offence compared to Aboriginal offenders in minimum security (12% versus 4%).

Criminal History

In addition to current convictions, residents' criminal history was also examined (see Table 3).  In 2002-03, almost all of the residents at Pê Sâkâstêw had a previous adult court conviction (97%) and approximately one quarter (23%) had served a previous federal term.  In addition, a majority (86%) of the residents had served a previous term in a provincial facility.

Although some variations existed across time on the criminal histories of Pê Sâkâstêw residents, no significant differences were found.

When examining differences between residents in 2002-03 to minimum-security offenders, a significant difference was observed in that a greater proportion of residents had a previous adult court conviction when compared to Aboriginal offenders in minimum security (97% versus 89%).

Failures

Residents’ behaviour during previous periods of federal incarceration and previous releases was reviewed (see Table 4).  In 2002-03 almost two thirds (62%) of the residents had previously failed on a community-based sanction.  Interestingly, nearly the same proportion (67%) was successful on past conditional releases.  For more than three quarters of the residents (78%), it had been six months or more since their last incarceration, and almost all of the residents (90%) had a crime-free period of one year.  A quarter of the residents (25%) were previously segregated for disciplinary infractions, and almost the same proportion (27%) had attempted to or successfully escaped from custody prior to their transfer to Pê Sâkâstêw.  Of all residents transferred in 2002-03, only 14% had been reclassified to a higher level of custody prior to their transfer to the lodge.

Overall, no significant differences were found for previous failure among the residents across the six year period.

Some significant differences were found when comparing residents and Aboriginal offenders in minimum security in 2002-03 on difficulties in the institution.  Significantly greater proportions of healing lodge residents had been previously reclassified to a higher level of custody when compared to offenders in minimum security (14% versus 6%).  Further, a larger proportion of healing lodge residents were segregated for disciplinary infractions prior to their transfer compared to the comparison group (25% versus 12%).

Initial Security Placement

An examination of initial security classification of the residents in 2002-03 revealed that large proportions were designated by parole officers as requiring medium (53%) and minimum security (41%) at the time of admission to a federal facility (see Table 5).  In general, the initial security designation of residents tended to remain consistent across the six-year period.  No significant differences were found between residents and Aboriginal offenders in minimum security.

Risk and Reintegration

A review of the residents’ initial level of risk to re-offend, motivation for intervention and reintegration potential was also conducted (see Table 6).  In 2002-03, a large proportion of the residents transferred to the lodge were initially classified as high risk to re-offend (56%) and identified as having moderate levels of motivation for intervention (47%).  Furthermore, nearly one-half of the residents (40%) were rated as having low reintegration potential.

In general, there were no significant differences across time, indicating that residents at Pê Sâkâstêw showed similar risk and reintegration profiles over the years.  Although not significantly different, a larger proportion of current residents were rated as having low reintegration potential than in earlier years.

Although no significant differences were found between residents and Aboriginal offenders in minimum security in 2002-03, larger proportions of healing lodge residents were rated as being at high risk to re-offend and having low reintegration potential.  Interestingly, however, a large proportion of healing lodge residents were rated as having high motivation for intervention.

Case Needs

In addition to gathering demographic information and the criminal histories of offenders, CSC's Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) also determines the needs of each offender for correctional programming.  There are seven basic need domains that are used by CSC: employment, marital/family, associates/social interaction, substance abuse, community functioning, personal/emotional functioning and attitude.  This information can be useful in determining the appropriate programs required to address the needs of offenders.

Results indicate that in 2002-03 more than two thirds (68%) of the residents were identified as being high need for correctional programming in general (see Table 7).  Specifically, a large proportion of Pê Sâkâstêw residents had “some” or “considerable” need in areas such as substance abuse (97%), personal/ emotional functioning (94%), and employment (76%).

Overall, similar proportions were observed for residents across time for all need domains with the exception of attitude.  In this area, a significantly greater proportion of residents in 1999-2000 were identified as having “some” or “considerable” need on attitude (65%) when compared to those transferred the year before and after (23% each).

When comparing Pê Sâkâstêw residents and Aboriginal offenders in minimum security in 2002-03, no significant differences were reported for any of the seven need domains.

Summary

Most residents at Pê Sâkâstêw were Aboriginal, were married or in common-law relationships, had less than a grade 10 education, were unemployed at the time of their arrest, and had fairly extensive criminal histories.  The current offence profiles indicate that the most serious current offence for residents tends to be a violent offence.  Furthermore, at the time of admission to a federal correctional facility, large proportions were rated as high risk to re-offend and high need for programming.

Generally, the characteristics of the residents have remained consistent across the years, with a few exceptions.  The number of non-Aboriginal residents increased significantly in 2002-03.  In addition, the number of residents with robbery as their most serious current offence has increased over time.

The socio-demographic characteristics and offence profiles of the residents are similar to Aboriginal offenders in minimum-security who had not spent time in the healing lodge.  This seems to indicate that, in general, residents entering Pê Sâkâstêw are no different from offenders in minimum-security.  However, information is not available on whether any of the risk/need components of the residents differ at the time of their transfer.

⁸ Offenders with multiple transfers within a fiscal year (April 1- March 31) had their subsequent transfer excluded using only their first transfer.  Duplicates between fiscal years were included in the analysis.

⁹ Property crimes include break and enters and all other property crimes.

¹⁰ Mean aggregate sentence length is calculated with lifers excluded from the analysis.

EFFECTIVENESS

In order to gauge the effectiveness of Pê Sâkâstêw Healing Centre, resident ratings before being transferred to the lodge were compared with ratings received after their transfer.  Furthermore, residents were compared to a group of Aboriginal offenders serving time in minimum-security facilities.  Interviews with residents and staff provided additional information on satisfaction with the healing lodge.

Unlike the profile information, in cases of multiple transfers, outcome analyses only examined data from the first transfer.  Therefore, for outcome data, 387 residents and 1,206 members of the comparison group were examined.

Changes in Residents

As a first indication of the effectiveness of Pê Sâkâstêw, changes in the residents following their transfer to the healing lodge were examined.  Pre-post testing was conducted on need for programming, reintegration potential and motivation for intervention to determine whether any significant changes occurred between an offender's entry to a federal facility and their most recent information following their transfer to Pê Sâkâstêw Centre.

As indicated in Table 8a, there was a significant decrease in the residents’ overall need for programming from before being transferred to Pê Sâkâstêw to after spending some time at the healing lodge (Mean pre=2.48; post=2.04).  When examining individual needs, significant differences were found pre/post transfer on all seven need domains.  Specifically, significant reductions in mean score were observed for substance abuse (pre=3.59; post=2.89), personal/emotional functioning (pre=3.34; post=2.90), associates/social interaction (pre=2.79; post=2.48), employment (pre=2.88; post=2.58), attitude (pre=2.37; post=2.17), marital/family (pre=2.83; post= 2.53) and community functioning (pre=2.45; post=2.30).  These findings suggest that the stay at Pê Sâkâstêw healing centre may have positively changed residents’ need for programming.

A pre/post analysis across fiscal years was conducted to see if differences in need were consistent across years.  Significant decreases in ratings were found each year in overall need for programming, as well as in the individual need domains of substance abuse, personal/emotional functioning, and employment (see Table 8b).  In addition, post-need scores were significantly lower in the areas of marital/family interaction and associates/social interaction each year, with the exception of one year.  These findings suggest that the various needs of residents have been consistently lowered during their stay at Pê Sâkâstêw.  Conversely, the attitude ratings of residents decreased when Pê Sâkâstêw first opened in 1997-98, but pre-post differences in later years were non-significant.  The reduction of needs related to community functioning has been inconsistent over time.

As indicated in Table 8a, the average reintegration potential score for the residents significantly increased following their transfer to the healing lodge (pre=2.06; post= 2.18).  However, reintegration potential ratings have only recently improved, perhaps due to changes at the Centre (see Table 8b).  Differences between pre and post motivation-for-intervention scores were non-significant.

The institutional behaviour of the residents was also examined over time.  Incidents, in which the residents were perpetrators, occurring one year prior to transfer to Pê Sâkâstêw and one year after transfer were examined.  As indicated in Table 9, within one year prior to their transfer to Pê Sâkâstêw, 15% of the residents were perpetrators of at least one incident.  The most common incidents were related to intelligence, or contraband, and causing a disturbance¹¹.  No significant differences were found in incidents prior to, or after, transfer.  After one year of their transfer to Pê Sâkâstêw, 19% of the residents had been perpetrators of at least one incident.  The most common incidents were intelligence, disturbance, and violence.  These results suggest that time spent at the healing lodge did not have a substantial effect on the commission of incidents.

Outcome - Residents versus Comparison Group

As discussed in the methodology, a comparison group of minimum security Aboriginal offenders was developed.  Post outcome data from this group were compared to data from the residents to determine whether differences in the residents may be attributable to their stay at Pê Sâkâstêw Centre.

As seen in Table 10a, no significant differences were observed between the residents and the comparison group on their most recent rating on overall need for correctional programming.  However, significant differences were observed between the groups on two of the seven individual need domains.  The residents had significantly lower ratings on substance abuse (M= 2.89 versus M=3.08) and personal/emotional functioning (M=2.89 versus M=3.06) than the comparison group.  No significant differences were reported for reintegration potential or motivation for intervention between residents and the comparison group.

As illustrated in Table 10b, most of the differences found between the residents and the comparison group occurred in the early years of operation of Pê Sâkâstêw Centre (1997-98 and 1998-99).  In these years, the residents had significantly lower ratings than the comparison group on need relating to substance abuse and personal/emotional functioning, and higher reintegration potential.  However, in 2000-01, the comparison group scored lower on the need domain of community functioning, and higher on reintegration potential.  In the last two years, no significant differences were found between the residents and the comparison group.  It would be important to further examine differences across years.

The final indicator of outcome examined re-admissions to federal custody following release.  A separate database of releases was developed in order to examine information on the release (e.g., time to release, type of release) and re-admissions for the residents and the comparison group.  As indicated in Table 11a, of the 387 residents transferred to Pê Sâkâstêw between April 1997 and April 2003¹², 370 (96%) were released at some point before the end of the study period.  On average, they resided at Pê Sâkâstêw for eight months.

Although the time between admission to a federal correctional facility for the current conviction and release was slightly less for the residents than the comparison group of offenders in minimum security (average of 21 versus 24 months), this difference was not significant.  However, a significantly greater proportion of Pê Sâkâstêw residents than those in the comparison group were released on day parole (56% versus 45%) and smaller proportions on statutory release (38% versus 46%) and at warrant expiry (0% versus 2%).  These results suggest that the parole board may consider residents of Pê Sâkâstêw to be better prepared for day parole release than other Aboriginal offenders in minimum security facilities.  However, similar to the findings relating to need and reintegration potential, most of the differences found between the residents and the comparison group occurred in the early years of operation of Pê Sâkâstêw Centre (1998-99 through 2000-01) (see Table 11b).  In these three years, significantly greater proportions of Pê Sâkâstêw residents than those in the comparison group were released on day parole.  Differences were not significant in other years.

After a one-year follow-up period from the date of release, almost two thirds (63%, 213) of the 336 residents released during the study period were still successfully residing in the community (Table 11a)¹³.  The remaining 123 had been re-admitted to a federal facility during the one-year period.  Fifty-three percent of the re-admissions (65) were for technical violations and 47% (58) were for new offences.  If re-admissions for new offences are examined, the one-year re-admission rate for new offences is 17%¹⁴.  This is similar to the one-year re-admission rate among the comparison group of Aboriginal offenders released from minimum security facilities (15%).

In contrast to other outcome data, poorer results occur in the early years of operation for Pê Sâkâstêw (see Table 11b).  For instance, larger proportions of the residents released during 1998-99 and 1999-2000 were re-admitted to federal custody for a new offence (within one year) than those in the comparison group (17% versus 11%; 20% versus 12%).  However, in later years, no significant differences emerged.  In fact, of those released in the last two years of the study, while not statistically significant, a smaller proportion of the residents than the comparison group were re-admitted for a new offence within one year (19% versus 21%; 12% versus 18%).While these differences were not statistically significant, they may be an indication that Pê Sâkâstêw is beginning to positively influence re-admission rates.

The average length of time in the community before re-admission was similar for Pê Sâkâstêw residents and minimum-security offenders (6 months).

The Pê Sâkâstêw Experience

This section discusses some of the attributes at Pê Sâkâstêw that may be effective in aiding the residents in their healing.  After interviewing staff and residents, it is clear that there are aspects of the Centre that appear to be effective, and, interestingly, these aspects are linked to one other.  Specifically, the cultural environment at Pê Sâkâstêw, coupled with the staff, community involvement and temporary absences, all appear to contribute to aiding the residents in their healing journey, and ultimately, their reintegration.  Table 12 provides information from staff interviews, and Table 13 from resident interviews.

Overall, almost all staff interviewed (95%) felt that the Centre benefits the residents to some extent (59% said very; 36% said somewhat).  Furthermore, all (100%) of the residents interviewed were very satisfied with their experience at Pê Sâkâstêw.  The majority of both staff (86%) and residents (71%) indicated that Pê Sâkâstêw was very effective in aiding the residents in reintegrating back into an Aboriginal community.  Given the steps that staff take in working with the residents and their communities, this finding is not surprising.  Clearly, there are a number of factors that contribute to these findings.

Cultural environment

One of the most salient characteristics of Pê Sâkâstêw is the environment in which it operates.  The location is key as it is close to an Aboriginal community which permits access to cultural events and activities.  In addition, the location allows for the hiring of Elders and other Aboriginal staff to provide cultural teachings.

Because the Centre is in such close proximity to a large city (Edmonton), it has a greater pool of resources to attract and maintain qualified staff.  The location also allows the Centre to access any of the supports, services, programs and resources that may be needed to aid the residents.  Yet the setting is remote enough to reinforce the nature-based components of Aboriginal culture.

A phrase that is used to describe the Samson Cree community is that it is “culturally affluent” in that many people living within the community actively practice Aboriginal traditions and culture.  In addition, the physical structure of the lodge contributes to the experience as it reinforces the teachings.  As stated previously, the design of the Centre has a strong Aboriginal influence, and as such, the design may be a constant reminder that the purpose of the Centre is traditional healing.

The cultural component of Pê Sâkâstêw is obvious upon viewing the facility.  A cultural influence is found throughout the Centre, from the physical design and staff make-up (especially the Elders and the SCDO) to the ceremonies and activities.  Most (80%) of the residents emphasized that culture is a very important component at the Centre, particularly the teachings, ceremonies and activities.  For some of the residents, this is their first real experience with their culture, and it appears to have given many (79%) a better sense of who they are as an Aboriginal person.  Almost all of the staff (88%) at Pê Sâkâstêw also indicated that culture was a very important aspect of the Centre.  In addition, the cultural teachings by the Elders have created an avenue for some of the residents to express themselves and the trauma they have experienced.

One specific aspect of the culture that has benefited a number of the residents is through the hobby room.  Some residents knew how to carve, build drums, and do other traditional forms of art prior to coming to the Centre, but others had never learned or experienced this creative aspect of their culture.  Those that take part in creating traditional art appear to have a deep sense of accomplishment and pride in their work.  For some residents, this may be the first time that they have felt either of these things.  Furthermore, many have been able to create a source of income from their work that would address one of the biggest needs facing the residents when they are released - employment.

The summer months appear to be the most active for cultural events with pow wows occurring every weekend, vision quests and a great number of feasts and other ceremonies.  The cultural events in the community also appear to be very important.  These events help prepare the residents for living with the general public and interacting with non-corrections related individuals.

The cultural aspects listed above appear to be contributing to the cultural enhancement of the residents.  Of the residents interviewed, 79% indicated that the Centre has been very helpful in advancing their healing journey.  Furthermore, less than half (40%) of the residents indicated they were very aware of traditional healing prior to coming to Pê Sâkâstêw compared to 73% who maintained that they were currently very aware.  This finding suggests that the Centre provides a culturally rich environment that enhances awareness of traditional healing methods.

Staff

The staff at Pê Sâkâstêw appears to be one of the strongest forces working to make the Centre as effective as possible.  The Centre places a great deal of importance on dynamic security, which emphasizes the development of relationships between staff and inmates.  Specifically, an environment has been created at the Centre that has been deemed by both staff and residents as open and relaxed.  As noted by both groups, the Centre lacks the typical “con” and “bull” mentality that can be found in many federal institutions.  This refers to hierarchical-based relationships that affect institutional staff and inmates.  Specifically, if staff are too nice to an inmate, they may be considered “con-lovers” by the other staff.  This type of relationship can also be applied to inmates.  Inmates who appear to have a positive relationship with their parole officers or correctional officers may be teased and harassed by other inmates. 

Many residents reported that the relaxed environment has allowed them to work on their issues and follow their healing journey.  In addition, residents reported that the openness found at the Centre has allowed them to become more open, expressive and better able to identify some of the root causes of their offending behaviour.  The findings from the interviews emphasize this, as 73% indicated that they were very satisfied with the staff at the Centre.  Clearly, the development of relationships between staff and residents may contribute to this high level of satisfaction.

The staff at the Centre also tend to make a great effort in working with the residents to prepare them for release.  This includes identifying what the residents need upon release and finding resources and supports in the community to meet those needs.  Of the staff interviewed, almost three quarters (71%) felt that, in general, the staff work very hard to provide the residents with resources in their communities.

Generally, staff interaction with the residents, such as one-on-one counselling, preparation for release, identification of supports and resources and the creation of positive relationships, seems to have benefited the residents in a number of ways.

Community involvement

Community involvement is key for the success of Pê Sâkâstêw.  When the Centre first opened, there was a great deal of community involvement.  Unfortunately, a few high-profile incidents resulted in the community creating distance from the Centre.  This trend has slowly been changing and, as a result, the community has become increasingly active in Pê Sâkâstêw.  Community involvement is a necessary component for the Centre as it provides a rich cultural basis.  Teachings from community members can enhance the residents’ experience at the Centre immensely as many indicated the importance of the traditions and ceremonies in their healing.  In the past, there were close to 60 volunteers to help take the residents out into the community for ETAs.  This gets the residents interacting with the public on a regular basis and helps teach them about relationships with people who are not offenders.

Community involvement through the CAC appears to be an important link between the community and Pê Sâkâstêw.  Community members are able to express concerns to the Centre, and the Centre is able to provide the community with responses as well as other information that can contribute to the understanding of what Pê Sâkâstêw is all about.  In addition, the Elders Senate contributes by being a link between the community and the Centre and can provide a strong cultural perspective.  The development of key relationships between the Centre and the community is essential for maintaining the cultural component of the Centre.  It appears that Pê Sâkâstêw is working hard to foster and maintain ties with the community while, at the same time, working to create new relationships.

Temporary absences

Many staff and residents emphasized the importance of temporary absences, both escorted (ETAs) and unescorted (UTAs).  The staff work very hard at getting the residents out on temporary absences, and it is one of the first things they begin to work on when a new resident is brought to Pê Sâkâstêw.  Many staff feel that it is important to get the residents out into the community for two reasons.  The first is to work at de-institutionalizing the residents in preparation for release.  It is believed by many of the staff that the residents need to get used to being within the general public again and require experience doing what many take for granted, such as getting a driver’s license, opening a bank account, and purchasing groceries.  In addition, many of the ETAs are to take the residents to various cultural functions such as round dances and feasts in the community.  This provides the residents with additional access to their culture and exposure to healthy social settings.  ETAs and UTAs also permit the residents to visit their home communities or the communities they will be released to in order to set up resources and supports.  This benefits both the residents and the Centre.  The resident benefits because he has the opportunity to establish new relationships with key community members to aid in reintegration as well as re-establish contacts with his family (when possible).  The ETAs also benefit the Centre because they allow the Centre to assess the environment the resident is going back to and ultimately better identify what resources need to be in place to deal with issues that may not have been previously noted.

Many of the UTAs are to gain employment skills.  Again, this is very important as the profile of offenders transferred to Pê Sâkâstêw has demonstrated that the majority of them have some or considerable need in the employment domain.  In addition, a profile of all offenders transferred to all healing lodges found that approximately two thirds had some or considerable need in the employment domain (Trevethan, Crutcher & Rastin, 2002).  Establishing skills and abilities in addition to contacts prior to release may be a key factor contributing to successful reintegration.

Clearly, these factors are some of the more definitive aspects of the Centre that are contributing to an environment that is positive, open and relaxed.  This type of environment, including the impact of staff and the community, may work together to provide a place that may be more conducive to healing.

Summary

Overall, in terms of the effectiveness of Pê Sâkâstêw, residents showed significant improvement in several criminogenic areas after their stay at Pê Sâkâstêw.  The level of need for programming in each of the domains diminished post transfer and residents were rated as having a higher potential for successful reintegration into the community after being transferred to the healing lodge.  Furthermore, rating improvements were sustained each year in a number of domains, suggesting that the needs of residents have been consistently addressed over time.  However, no differences emerged in institutional behaviour, as measured by recorded institutional incidents.

Analyses between the residents and a comparison group examined whether differences in the residents could be attributed to their stay at the healing lodge.  The findings indicate that the stay at Pê Sâkâstêw resulted in lower need for programming in areas related to personal/emotional issues and substance abuse for the residents, when compared to offenders in minimum security.  Furthermore, at the time of release, larger proportions of the residents than members of the comparison group received day parole, perhaps indicating that the parole board considers residents of Pê Sâkâstêw to be better prepared for day parole.  In addition, while not significantly different, the average time to release was slightly lower among the residents than the comparison group.  While no significant differences existed in the proportion of residents and members of the comparison group re-admitted to federal custody within one year post-release overall, it is important to note that a large proportion of residents were successful in the community following release.

It is important to note that many of the differences found between the residents and the comparison group occurred in the early years of operation of Pê Sâkâstêw Centre.  This was the case for need for programming on personal/emotional issues and substance abuse, as well as for releases on day parole.  In contrast, in the early years of operation, larger proportions of the residents than the comparison group were re-admitted to federal custody for a new offence one year post-release.  However, this may have begun to change recently.  While not statistically significant, in the last two years of the study, smaller proportions of residents than a comparison group were re-admitted to federal custody for a new offence.

Finally, based on interviews, it is clear that the residents are satisfied with their experience at Pê Sâkâstêw, and that staff and residents think that the Centre is effective in aiding reintegration into the community.  This is important to take into account, because some outcome data may not be sensitive enough to measure the changes resulting from the healing lodge experience.  As evidenced from the interviews, it is felt that the effectiveness of Pê Sâkâstêw Centre stems from its cultural environment, staff, community involvement and use of temporary absences.  Of particular importance is the cultural component of the Centre, which is thought to aid the residents in their healing journey.

¹¹  Intelligence involves the acquisition of information that an assault, disturbance, possession of an unauthorized item/contraband, or other form of incident has occurred. Contraband includes possession or receiving/transporting of unauthorized items.  Disturbance includes disciplinary problems, setting fires and major/minor disturbances.

¹² As noted earlier, multiple transfers among years were excluded from the outcome data.

¹³ Releases after March 31, 2003, were excluded because they could not be followed for one year.

¹⁴ New offences may be under-counted because a technical violation may result in a new offence.

ISSUES

There are a number of issues currently facing Pê Sâkâstêw, as identified through the interviews with staff and residents.  It is important to note that while some of these may appear negative, they are noted as a way of enabling the Centre to operate in the most efficient and effective way, and to provide CSC with an idea of some of the issues facing Pê Sâkâstêw.  Some of the following issues were noted:

Resources

While it is possible to examine the costs of running Pê Sâkâstêw, it is nevertheless important to keep in mind that these costs are unique to the Centre and comparisons to other facilities are complex and beyond the scope of this report¹⁵.

During the 2001-02 fiscal year, the total budget for the Centre was $3,985,715.  This can be broken down into operations and management as well as staffing dollars.  Of the total budget, $2,813,805 was allocated to staffing and the remaining $1,171,910 was allocated to operating the Centre.  Operating costs include a number of things, such as maintenance, contracting, ETAs, programs, cultural and community activities and health care services.  Given that there were 45 residents at Pê Sâkâstêw during 2001-02, the average cost per resident per year was approximately $88,571.  Again, it should be noted that these figures are to provide an idea of how much it costs to run the Centre over a given year and not to provide a basis for comparison to other institutions.

There are a number of resource-related issues that were raised during the course of this study.  The first is in relation to the Centre's ability to have Elders on staff.  Currently, there are two Elders working at Pê Sâkâstêw with a third performing as staff psychologist and Elder.  The two Elders are on contract as there are no staffing dollars available to hire them.  Only the staff psychologist, who also works as an Elder, is a CSC employee.  As stated previously, the Elders are a very important aspect of the Centre, especially in relation to the teachings, ceremonies and other cultural activities.  Therefore, staff noted the need for funding to enable the institution to fill those positions permanently.  Furthermore, there is some concern over Elders experiencing burnout as many of the residents want to work directly with them and tend to have very emotional and difficult issues to work through.  An assessment of how many Elders are needed and how best to reduce burnout is necessary.

Temporary absences are one of the elements that both staff and residents have indicated are key for reintegration.  The bulk of the temporary absences that are used are escorted temporary absences.  With staff having to accompany the residents on ETAs, this can be very expensive.  To fully implement this aspect of the reintegration strategy at the Centre, staff noted that resources are needed to allow for more ETAs.

There are a number of other resource-related issues that are linked to the areas listed below and will be addressed in those sections.

Staff

A number of issues related to staff were raised during the interviews.  The first is recruitment, in particular recruiting from the surrounding communities.  One of the main difficulties noted by many staff at Pê Sâkâstêw was that a number of staff from the community have left because they can work on the reserve instead and receive a tax exemption.  The Centre cannot compete with that kind of benefit.  In addition, community members are not used to working in a correctional environment and have found it difficult.  Many have found the nature of the work overwhelming.  The importance of being “healthy” before helping those who are not was an expressed concern.  Providing staff with counselling may aid in dealing with this problem.

Another staff issue that was raised concerns boundary issues between staff and residents.  This is particularly difficult because, as stated previously, staff tend to spend a great deal of time with the residents in order to facilitate positive, trusting relationships.  In fact, many of the staff play volleyball at lunch with the residents, which helps enhance relationships between the two and diminishes typical staff-inmate friction.  The Centre takes great efforts to follow CSC policy on dynamic security which emphasizes the development of relationships between staff and offenders to better address the risks and needs of the offenders (CSC, 1987).  Unfortunately, it has been difficult determining where to draw the line as to what is considered “appropriate” behaviour.  While CSC's Standards of Professional Conduct outlines specific infractions relating to relationships between staff and offenders, there are gray areas that are not addressed (CSC, 1993).

In addition, it was felt by some staff that more attention needs to be paid to the “basics” in corrections, specifically threat and risk management.  Some staff indicated that if more attention was paid to this, it may prevent some staff from finding themselves in inappropriate situations.  This is also related to better staff understanding of what corrections is all about in a healing environment.  Clearly, being able to develop good relationships with the residents while, at the same time, being aware of appropriateness, healing, culture, threat and risk management and managing good corrections is a difficult balance.  Further attention by CSC to address this balance is needed to enhance the effectiveness of healing lodges.

One of the main concerns of many of the residents was the lack of involvement in the culture by staff.  Similarly, more than one-half (55%) of the staff interviewed felt that there were not enough staff with experience in traditional Aboriginal healing methods (see Table 12).  Some staff are very involved in the cultural activities at Pê Sâkâstêw, but others are not.  It was noted that it is important for all staff to have awareness of Aboriginal culture, respect it and take part in as many cultural events as possible.  Many staff and residents have indicated that Aboriginal training should be provided for all staff in order to develop a better understanding of the culture and traditions, and it may also encourage involvement in ceremonies and other activities.  Interestingly, as stated elsewhere in this report, almost three quarters (73%) of the residents indicated they were very satisfied with the staff at the Centre (see Table 13).  This high satisfaction level is important in light of some of the concerns the residents had as it indicates that while there are some problems, the overall approach of relationship building is key to working with the residents at Pê Sâkâstêw.

Perhaps one of the most important issues relating to staff is the high staff turn-over in management positions.  According to those interviewed, there has been a great deal of turn-over, especially in the position of Executive Director.  Consistency of management staff was emphasized during the interviews, with most wanting a stabilization and standardization of rules, protocol and procedures.  Furthermore, the lack of consistency appears to have resulted in friction between staff members and a lack of understanding regarding roles and responsibilities.

Appropriateness of transfers

When asked whether appropriate offenders are being transferred to the Centre, almost all staff interviewed (95%) confirmed that the offenders were appropriate (see Table 12).  They said that, on the whole, the offenders transferred are interested in the culture, are following their correctional plans, and are making attempts at healing.

Staff also indicated, however, that there are a small number of residents who transfer to the Centre because they feel it will be easy time.  Staff indicated that some residents have poor attitudes and do not want to participate in the cultural activities or services the Centre offers.  Several staff suggested that the institutional Elders should be doing Elder assessments to better determine the offenders' true desire to follow a healing path.  In addition, staff felt there were some transferred offenders who should not be in a minimum-security facility because they were still medium-security offenders.

Given that other CSC institutions often refer potential transfers, staff were asked whether they felt CSC was recommending appropriate offenders.  Over two thirds (68%) of the respondents indicated that CSC could do a better job in determining which offenders should be transferred to Pê Sâkâstêw (see Table 12).  The biggest concern was properly assessing the cultural involvement of the offender.  As stated above, some offenders claim that they want to be involved in their culture but when they come to the Centre, they do not participate in the activities.  Again, the suggested solution to this problem was the utilization of institutional Elders and providing more Elder assessments.

Another issue regarding CSC referrals is that some of the offenders have not completed their core programs.  While the Centre can run these programs, it requires the resources to do so.  Some staff indicated that the primary focus of the programs at the lodge should be maintenance, relapse prevention and community integration programs.

Lastly, there is the issue of whether the Centre should accept non-Aboriginal offenders.  Over three quarters (77%) of the staff interviewed felt that they should accept any offender interested in healing and respectful of the culture, regardless of whether he is Aboriginal or not (see Table 12).  It was felt that anyone interested in, and respectful of, Aboriginal culture should be given the option as it also teaches tolerance and acceptance of differences.  However, some staff indicated that there are so many Aboriginal men who need a place like Pê Sâkâstêw, it is important not to have beds filled by non-Aboriginal offenders.  One staff member pointed out that there are a number of very good quality minimum-security institutions for men, and therefore healing centres should meet the needs of those for whom they were built - Aboriginal offenders.

Physical health of residents

There is some concern about the physical health of the residents, specifically regarding Hepatitis C, HIV, tuberculosis, diabetes and heart disease.  At the time of our visit, there were a number of residents affected by one or more of these diseases.  There is a definite need to do maintenance and prevention sessions with the residents in order to manage or prevent the spread of disease.  More information needs to be provided to residents who are suffering from these diseases to prevent them from causing the disease to worsen or spread.  Little research has been done to establish the true extent of the problem.  This issue is not unique to Pê Sâkâstêw but is a growing concern for all federal institutions in Canada and represents a gap in correctional research.

Community involvement

Community involvement is one of the key elements needed at Pê Sâkâstêw to help the lodge in its cultural endeavours.  As noted earlier, community involvement is improving, however it was also noted that the Centre needs to improve its relations with the community to fully utilize the cultural teachings, ceremonies and traditional activities.  Staff members interviewed were divided as to whether they felt the community was currently involved with the Centre: 32% felt the community was not involved at all, 32% stated that the community was somewhat involved, and the remaining 36% felt the community was very involved (see Table 12).  This finding may reflect differing approaches that each staff member takes when dealing with the community.  Some may feel that community involvement is solely the responsibility of the community whereas others may feel that it is CSC's responsibility to facilitate involvement.

The Centre should also be trying to take full advantage of section 84 of the CCRA which allows an Aboriginal community to have an Aboriginal offender released to their care and control while out on supervision.  At the time of this study, it was noted that Pê Sâkâstêw is averaging about one section 84 every two months.  Specifically, the Centre had three to four section 84 releases in the last eight months.  The main concern of the Centre is that they feel they have to be very careful as only a few communities are in a position to have successful section 84 releases as they require strong Elder support as well as strong justice and social committees.  Unfortunately, from all accounts of staff, the Samson Cree community has a number of very serious problems including substance abuse, suicide, and violence.  These problems within the community may limit the extent to which Pê Sâkâstêw can use section 84.

Concept of a healing centre

The concept of a healing lodge is still new within CSC, and it will take some time for the Service to adjust to this concept.  As a result, it was noted that the Centre has experienced some difficulty dealing with the more rigid aspects of CSC procedures and protocol.  Many staff said that Pê Sâkâstêw is taking a novel approach and needs more freedom to adapt to best meet the needs of the residents.  For example, they need more freedom to move into community release, especially through section 84.

Despite the flexibility that is needed, the Centre acknowledges that systematic checks and balances are still required.  It was felt that this could be accomplished through the use of audits on a regular basis.

Relationship with other facilities

There has been some concern over the relationship Pê Sâkâstêw has with other CSC facilities.  Specifically, some respondents said that the Centre often feels like they are a “second class” institution.  This problem was first identified in a study by Trevethan, Crutcher and Rastin (2002) in that the relationship between CSC facilities and healing lodges appears often to be one of misunderstanding.  There is very little information available on what healing lodges do, which contributes to strained relationships with other CSC facilities.  Information sessions on Pê Sâkâstêw and site visits for other CSC staff would do a great deal to develop strong, positive relationships and enhance awareness about healing lodges.

There is also an issue regarding Pê Sâkâstêw's relationship with other healing lodges.  Some staff indicated that there is a somewhat competitive relationship with the closest healing centre, Stan Daniels (Edmonton).  Others, however, maintained that the relationships between healing lodges should be open and sharing, to provide information on what is working for them and what is not.  There is very little communication between Pê Sâkâstêw and other healing lodges, regardless of whether they are CSC-run or privately run.  An increase in communication and understanding would be beneficial to reducing competitiveness and encourage a dialogue on best practices for healing lodges.

Programming

As stated previously, there are a number of programs that are currently being offered at the Centre.  However, there is concern over the ability of Pê Sâkâstêw to meet the needs of some of the residents that are transferred.  Some residents who arrive at the Centre have not taken their core programs, others have taken some programs, and others still have taken their core programs and even the Aboriginal-specific programs.  This diversity in the programming needs sometimes results in a lack of suitable programs for the residents.  A definitive strategy on the types of programs that will be offered at Pê Sâkâstêw needs to be constructed to determine whether they will offer core programs, programs that are specific to the Centre or both.

Another programming issue relates to scheduling.  It is felt that scheduling of programs must be more consistent so that when the Centre's parole officers are designing correctional plans, they can take into account when programs will actually be offered.

In addition, there are only two program facilitators.  When the facilitators must attend meetings, training sessions or conferences, program delivery is put on hold.  It was noted that this may seriously jeopardize the integrity of the program.  Furthermore, the two program facilitators also serve as the one-on-one counsellors, which takes a great deal of their time.  There is also concern that the intensity of the one-on-one sessions and the demand for them coupled with  program delivery responsibilities may lead to burn-out.

Many staff indicated that there is a need for the development of more Aboriginal-specific programs that meet the needs of the residents.  One program area that appears to be needed is a trauma program to help the residents who are dealing with sexual, physical and emotional abuse from their past.

The program issues require funding for development, training and delivery to work within the environment at Pê Sâkâstêw.

Culture

As stated earlier, the cultural component of Pê Sâkâstêw is a very strong aspect of the Centre.  There is some concern over the difficulty of dealing with different Aboriginal groups.  Clearly, not all First Nations practice the same traditions or ceremonies, and the needs of Métis and Inuit residents should be considered.  Some of the residents indicated that they had difficulty finding the teachings and events as relevant as if they were from their own culture.

There is some concern regarding having the same Elders at the Centre over time.  Many staff and residents felt that having Elders that are akin to visiting scholars at the Centre may be the best approach to take.  This would provide greater diversity for both the staff and residents and would undoubtedly contribute to a culturally enriched environment.  There was also a general consensus that the lodge should bring on female Elders.  Many of the staff indicated that the residents had offences or issues related to women, and having a female Elder would greatly benefit their healing and development of positive interactions with women.

Lastly, while the Centre has devoted Wednesdays to being a cultural day, some staff and residents felt that cultural activities should be scheduled more often.  Some suggested that a cultural activity or ceremony be scheduled for each day.

¹⁵ There are a number of factors that make comparing costs between institutions difficult.  For example,  an institution’s size and security level, whether it houses male or women offenders, differences in costs of living, availability of potential staff, and programming costs would contribute to differences in the budgetary requirements of each facility.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of the research project was to take an in-depth look at one of the CSC-run Aboriginal healing Centres, Pê Sâkâstêw Healing Centre.  Specifically, a description of the Centre, a profile of the residents and how that profile has changed over time, the characteristics that may be contributing to the Centre’s effectiveness, and the issues Pê Sâkâstêw is facing were examined.

Characteristics of Pê Sâkâstêw

Clearly one of the most salient aspects of Pê Sâkâstêw is the cultural theme that is seen in almost every component of the Centre.  This theme can be found in the physical architecture of the buildings, the staff, and programs.  This undoubtedly provides a constant reminder of the purpose of the Centre and appears to have contributed to healing for the residents.

One can see how this circular approach at Pê Sâkâstêw is working.  The relaxed and open environment allows the residents to let their guard down and encourages them to discuss their problems and open themselves to being healed.  In particular, the staff play a key role in emphasizing this environment and demonstrate a commitment to helping the residents through counselling, planning for release, ETAs and UTAs.  The ETAs and UTAs appear to be an effective tool against institutionalization and allow the residents to re-connect with their communities.  Community involvement is a key factor for a number of reasons: it allows the residents to get used to being with the general public again; gets them in contact with their communities and families; establishes supports in the community; and provides access to cultural teachings.  All of these components in and of themselves likely have an impact on the effectiveness of the Centre, but the combined impact seems to be much more effective.  This idea of the combined effect of different factors needs to be addressed further to gain a better understanding of the holistic perspective.

Resident Profile

The majority of the residents at Pê Sâkâstêw are Aboriginal, however, an increasing number of non-Aboriginal residents are being transferred to the healing lodge.  A profile of the residents tends to show individuals who are married or in common-law relationships, have less than a grade 10 education, are unemployed at the time of their arrest, and have fairly extensive criminal histories.  A large proportion of the residents also have committed offences that are violent in nature, and large proportions were identified at admission as high risk to re-offend and as high need for programming.

In contrast to what some may think, the residents are similar to other Aboriginal offenders in minimum-security facilities in terms of offence characteristics and risk/need profile.

Effectiveness

Based on information from the interviews, residents are clearly satisfied with their experience at Pê Sâkâstêw.  Furthermore, both staff and residents think that the Centre is effective in aiding reintegration into the community.  This type of qualitative data is important, because some quantitative outcome data may not be sensitive enough to measure the changes experienced as a result of the healing lodge.  For instance, the available quantitative data from the OIA does not necessarily measure subtle changes in attitude, nor behavioural change other than incidents in an institution or re-admission.

Those interviewed said that the effectiveness of Pê Sâkâstêw Centre stems from its cultural environment, staff, community involvement and use of temporary absences.  Of particular importance is the cultural component of the Centre, which is thought to aid the residents in their healing journey.

Using quantitative data from the OIA, significant improvement was found in several criminogenic areas for residents after their stay at Pê Sâkâstêw.  This suggests that residents are better prepared for life in the community after residing in the lodge.  For instance, the level of need for programming in every domain diminished post transfer, suggesting that a variety of programming needs were addressed during the offender’s stay at the Centre.  Furthermore, residents had a higher potential for successful reintegration into the community after being transferred to the healing lodge.  An examination across years demonstrated consistency in rating improvements in a number of domains, suggesting that the needs of residents have been consistently addressed over time.  However, no differences emerged in institutional behaviour, as measured by recorded institutional incidents.

A second set of analyses examined whether differences in the residents could be attributed to their stay at the healing lodge.  The findings indicate that the stay at Pê Sâkâstêw resulted in lower need for programming in areas related to personal/emotional issues and substance abuse for the residents, when compared to Aboriginal offenders in minimum security.  Perhaps Pê Sâkâstêw Centre provides an environment or programming that focuses on areas relating to personal distress and addictions.

Furthermore, when comparing residents of the Centre to the comparison group at the time of release, it was found that a larger proportion of the residents received day parole, and a smaller proportion received statutory release.  Perhaps this is an indication that the parole board thinks that residents of Pê Sâkâstêw are better prepared for day parole than Aboriginal offenders in other minimum-security facilities.  This is a particularly relevant finding, given that research has determined that Aboriginal offenders are less likely to receive parole than non-Aboriginal offenders (Grant & Porporino, 1993; Motiuk & Belcourt, 1996; Welsh, 2000).

While not significant, the average time to release was slightly lower among the residents than the comparison group.  Also, while no significant differences existed in the proportion of residents and members of the comparison group re-admitted to federal custody within one year post-release, it is important to note that a large proportion of residents were successful in the community following release.  This finding suggests that the healing lodge may not have had a substantial impact on re-admission.  However, it is important to note that the residents did not fare poorer than the comparison group.  It may be unfair to expect a healing lodge to create changes in re-admission rates when many other factors influence recidivism.  Further research controlling for important extraneous factors (i.e., risk and need) is necessary to examine this finding in more depth.

An examination across years at Pê Sâkâstêw Centre revealed some important findings.  Many of the differences found between the residents and the comparison group occurred in the early years of operation of Pê Sâkâstêw Centre.  This was the case for need for programming on personal/emotional issues and substance abuse, as well for releases on day parole.  In contrast, in the early years of operation, larger proportions of the residents than members of the comparison group were re-admitted to federal custody for a new offence one year post-release.  However, this may have begun to change recently.  While not statistically significant, in the last two years of the study, smaller proportions of residents than a comparison group were re-admitted to federal custody for a new offence.  While it is too early to know, this may be an indication that Pê Sâkâstêw is beginning to positively influence re-admission rates.  This is clearly an area that requires further investigation in order to determine the reasons for the differences across years.

Issues

Overall, the residents appear to be very satisfied with their experience at the Centre and have learned a great deal about themselves and their culture.  The impact of the environment, including the staff, programs, community and culture, has been strong.  Based on the interview data and some of the OIA indicators, the opportunity to help heal the residents using a traditional approach and in a traditional setting appears to have been effective.

However, the Centre is facing some issues that should be addressed.  It is important to note that while some of these issues may appear negative, they are noted as a way of enabling Pê Sâkâstêw to operate in the most effective and efficient way.  Furthermore, it is important to identify the issues in order to aid CSC and other healing lodges in becoming as effective and efficient as possible.  Some of the following issues were noted:

Resources

The cost to run the Centre during the 2001-02 fiscal year was approximately $3.9 million with more than two thirds of the budget going to staffing.  The remainder was used for the operations and management of Pê Sâkâstêw.  The operational funds covered such things as maintenance, contracting, ETAs, programs, cultural and community activities, and health care services.  The average cost per resident during 2001-02 was approximately $88,571.

Perhaps one of the biggest issues facing Pê Sâkâstêw is a lack of resources.  The resources to properly staff Elder positions are needed as they are such an important aspect of the Centre and healing in general.

More resources are also needed to meet the Centre's approach in using temporary absences for the residents.  Temporary absences allow the residents to get back into the community to prepare for release.  Unfortunately, most temporary absences are escorted, which can be a serious draw on the resources of the Centre.  This aspect of the release strategy used at Pê Sâkâstêw needs to be considered when assessing the resources allotted to the Centre.

Staff

There are a number of issues related to staff, including recruitment from the nearby communities.  The Centre is not able to compete with the benefits community members receive from working on the reserve.  There is also some concern regarding boundary issues between staff and residents which may be considered inappropriate.  The Centre places a great deal of emphasis on dynamic security and establishing relationships between staff and residents, but there are gray areas as to what is appropriate behaviour and these areas need to be addressed.  Lastly, the impact of high staff turn-over in the upper management positions has had a huge impact on staff morale.  There is a lack of set policies and procedures for staff to follow as they have been changed with every change in management.

Community involvement

The relationship between Pê Sâkâstêw and the community has had its ups and downs.  While the Centre enjoyed a great deal of community support when it first opened, there were a few incidents that caused this to change.  The Centre is working very hard to re-establish itself in the community and appears to be having some success.  However, Pê Sâkâstêw needs to continue to work hard to bring the community into the Centre and have staff and residents more visible in the community.  This will provide the community with a greater comfort level with the Centre and will also allow the Centre to gain from its relationship with a culturally affluent community.

The Centre also needs to work with the Region to optimize the use of Section 84 of the CCRA.  Given the ties that the Centre creates with the communities residents are returning to, the use of Section 84 is an ideal tool that should be used as often as possible.

Programming

Pê Sâkâstêw has worked very hard to adapt core CSC programs to be Aboriginal-specific, and they continue to identify need areas for Aboriginal programming.  However, the Centre needs to clearly outline whether it will focus on core programs or other programs, such as trauma programs, that meet the needs of Aboriginal offenders.  Once this has been decided, a set schedule must be devised so that parole officers can more effectively map out the resident’s correctional plan.

Culture

One of the most important aspects of the Centre is the cultural component.  While it is difficult to address the differing aspects of the various Aboriginal groups, more care needs to be taken when considering the relevance of some of the ceremonies and teachings.

The use of Elders is key for Aboriginal healing, and it is extremely important that the Centre determine the best approach.  Perhaps one of the biggest issues related to Elders is the use of female Elders.  Many of the residents have a history of difficulties with women, and a female Elder would undoubtedly assist the residents in dealing with those issues.

Summary

It has become clear that the Pê Sâkâstêw Centre has a number of very positive and effective aspects.  In fact, the facility was awarded the President’s Award from the International Corrections and Prisons Association in October 2004 for its work with Aboriginal people.  Furthermore, the culturally appropriate environment appears to be contributing to the healing process of the residents.  The residents are learning more about their culture as well as themselves.  They are also learning to interact with the general public by establishing contacts with their communities and families.  Positive relationships appear to be present between the staff and residents, which contributes to the positive institutional experience.  Continued efforts should be placed on culture, programs and activities.

Outcome analyses have demonstrated significant improvement in several criminogenic areas for residents after their stay at the Centre, such as need for correctional programming and reintegration potential.  This suggests that residents are better prepared for life in the community after residing in the lodge.  Furthermore, upon release, residents were more likely to receive day parole and less likely to receive a statutory release than a comparison group.  Consistent with the outcome analyses, this may indicate that the parole board has found that residents of Pê Sâkâstêw are better prepared for day parole than Aboriginal offenders in other minimum-security facilities.

While no significant differences existed in the proportion of residents and members of the comparison group re-admitted to federal custody within one year post-release, there has been a tendency in the last few years towards more positive results.  However, it is important to examine differences in outcome across years because different operational practices and programs may affect the effectiveness of the Centre.

Some of the issues that the Centre is facing include resource problems, staffing issues, and trying to enhance community involvement and culture.  However, the Centre has also been in a state of growth.  Pê Sâkâstêw is constantly learning and growing its experience to improve its effectiveness and become a well- managed facility that deals with Aboriginal offenders in an environment that emphasizes culture and healing.  This is not an easy process, as the Centre has to take the fluidity of the Aboriginal healing approach and balance it with the more structured CSC approach to corrections.  Overall, both staff and residents appear satisfied with their experiences at the Centre and believe it helps offenders reintegrate into the community.  Efforts for continued growth and success are expected in the years to follow.

REFERENCES

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

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.

Correctional Service Canada (1987). Dynamic Security. Commission's Directive No. 56. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Correctional Service Canada (1993). Standards of Professional Conduct: In the Correctional Service of Canada. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

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

Correctional Service Canada (2002b). National guidelines: Intensive support units. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

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

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.

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.

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.

Nielsen, M. (2003). “Canadian Aboriginal healing lodges: A model for the United States?”. The Prison Journal, 83(1), 67-89.

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. Ottawa, ON: 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.

Solicitor General of Canada (1995). Memorandum of Understanding: Pê Sâkâstêw Centre.

Statistics Canada (2001). Census of Canada.

Trevethan, S., Crutcher, N., & Rastin, C. (2002). An examination of healing lodges for federal offenders in Canada. Research Report No. R-130. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Trevethan, S., Moore, J.P., & Rastin, C. (2002). “A profile of Aboriginal offenders in federal facilities and serving time in the community”. Forum on Corrections Research, 14(3), 17-19.

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

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Tables

Table 1: Demographics

Pę Sâkâstęw
Transfers	1997-98		1998-99		1999-00		2000-01		2001-02		2002-03
Total Transfers	72		78		63		87		71		97
Total Individuals Transferred	64		76		60		79		71		90
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	p
Aboriginal Status	64	100%	71	100%	54	100%	66	100%	59	100%	69	100%	***
Aboriginal	64	100%	68	96%	54	100%	65	98%	57	97%	58	84%
Non-Aboriginal	0	0%	3	4%	0	0%	1	2%	2	3%	11	16%
Marital Status	63	100%	71	100%	54	100%	67	100%	59	100%	71	100%	NS
Married / Common Law	32	51%	38	54%	27	50%	33	49%	25	42%	44	62%
Divorced / Separated	5	8%	8	11%	2	4%	6	9%	6	10%	2	3%
Single	25	40%	25	35%	23	43%	25	37%	27	46%	24	34%
Widow	1	2%	0	0%	2	4%	3	4%	1	2%	1	1%
Education	44	100%	57	100%	45	100%	60	100%	52	100%	59	100%	NS
< Grade 10	32	73%	38	67%	34	76%	44	73%	31	60%	38	64%
Grade 10 or more	12	27%	19	33%	11	24%	16	27%	21	40%	21	36%
Employment at Arrest	43	100%	57	100%	45	100%	60	100%	52	100%	59	100%	NS
Employed	19	44%	25	44%	18	40%	24	40%	18	35%	21	36%
Unemployed	24	56%	32	56%	27	60%	36	60%	34	65%	38	64%
Mean Age at Admission to Federal Facility	34.8 yrs		33.5 yrs		36.3 yrs		34.6 yrs		35.4 yrs		33.2 yrs
Mean Age at Transfer	36.1 yrs		35.2 yrs		38.0 yrs		36.9 yrs		36.9 yrs		35.7 yrs

NS = Not Significant; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

Minimum Security	1997-98		1998-99		1999-00		2000-01		2001-02		2002-03
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Aboriginal Status
Aboriginal	410	…	205	…	189	…	161	…	120	…	121	…
Marital Status	406	100%	199	100%	189	100%	159	100%	119	100%	118	100%
Married / Common Law	190	47%	93	47%	76	40%	70	44%	54	45%	59	50%
Divorced / Separated	26	6%	13	7%	19	10%	7	4%	12	10%	6	5%
Single	189	47%	91	46%	93	49%	82	52%	53	45%	52	44%
Widow	1	0%	2	1%	1	1%	0	0%	0	0%	1	1%
Education	320	100%	170	100%	163	100%	141	100%	106	100%	103	100%
< Grade 10	206	64%	107	63%	86	53%	73	52%	66	62%	47	46%
Grade 10 or more	114	36%	63	37%	77	47%	68	48%	40	38%	56	54%
Employment at Arrest	320	100%	169	100%	163	100%	142	100%	106	100%	104	100%
Employed	106	33%	68	40%	60	37%	40	28%	34	32%	33	32%
Unemployed	214	67%	101	60%	103	63%	102	72%	72	68%	71	68%
Mean Age at Admission to Federal Facility	32.4 yrs		32.1 yrs		34.5 yrs		32.8 yrs		32.6 yrs		32.6 yrs

… Information not available or appropriate

Table 2: Most Serious Current Offence

Pê Sâkâstêw	1997-98		1998-99		1999-00		2000-01		2001-02		2002-03
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	p
Total	44	100%	56	100%	39	100%	60	100%	53	100%	82	100%
Homicide	5	11%	6	11%	3	8%	2	3%	10	19%	15	18%	NS
Attempt Murder	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	1	1%	NS
Sex Offence	8	18%	7	13%	5	13%	7	12%	4	8%	11	13%	NS
Robbery	0	0%	1	2%	3	8%	5	8%	9	17%	9	11%	*
Assault	5	11%	11	20%	7	18%	10	17%	6	11%	10	12%	NS
headers="t2h1"Other Violent	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	1	2%	1	2%	0	0%	NS
Impaired Driving	5	11%	3	5%	3	8%	5	8%	6	11%	10	12%	NS
Property	11	25%	10	18%	8	21%	15	25%	7	13%	11	13%	NS
Drug	2	5%	4	7%	4	10%	6	10%	5	9%	8	10%	NS
Other Criminal Code Offences	8	18%	14	25%	6	15%	9	15%	5	9%	7	9%	NS
Aggregate Sentence	64	100%	76	100%	60	100%	79	100%	71	100%	90	100%	NS
0 to <2	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	2	2%
2 to <5	43	67%	56	74%	46	77%	59	75%	54	76%	62	69%
5 to <10	16	25%	15	20%	11	18%	17	22%	11	15%	13	14%
10 to <15	2	3%	1	1%	1	2%	1	1%	0	0%	5	6%
15+	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	1	1%	2	3%	0	0%
Life	3	5%	4	5%	2	3%	1	1%	4	6%	8	9%
Mean	4.1 yrs		3.7 yrs		3.6 yrs		3.8 yrs		4.2 yrs		3.9 yrs		NS
Median	3.0 yrs		3.0 yrs		2.8 yrs		3.0 yrs		3.2 yrs		3.0 yrs

NS = Not Significant; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

Minimum Security	1997-98		1998-99		1999-00		2000-01		2001-02		2002-03
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Total	290	100%	154	100%	171	100%	162	100%	144	100%	140	100%
Homicide	32	11%	19	12%	13	8%	19	12%	15	10%	14	10%
Attempt Murder	2	1%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Sex Offence	83	29%	38	25%	48	28%	37	23%	23	16%	27	19%
Robbery	24	8%	19	12%	20	12%	23	14%	21	15%	26	19%
Assault	59	20%	29	19%	24	14%	23	14%	17	12%	14	10%
Other Violent	4	1%	1	1%	6	4%	2	1%	2	1%	3	2%
Impaired Driving	6	2%	5	3%	8	5%	6	4%	8	6%	6	4%
Property	36	12%	13	8%	23	13%	27	17%	28	19%	22	16%
Drug	10	3%	6	4%	14	8%	5	3%	15	10%	15	11%
Other Criminal Code Offences	34	12%	24	16%	15	9%	20	12%	15	10%	13	9%
Aggregate Sentence	442	100%	240	100%	235	100%	209	100%	179	100%	160	100%
0 to <2	2	0%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	1	1%	0	0%
2 to <5	304	69%	165	69%	170	72%	151	72%	122	68%	127	79%
5 to <10	92	21%	48	20%	46	20%	38	18%	35	20%	18	11%
10 to <15	16	4%	12	5%	7	3%	4	2%	5	3%	2	1%
15+	6	1%	2	1%	4	2%	1	0%	3	2%	2	1%
Life	22	5%	13	5%	8	3%	15	7%	13	7%	11	7%
Mean	4.3 yrs		4.0 yrs		4.1 yrs		4.0 yrs		4.2 yrs		3.7 yrs
Median	3.5 yrs		3.0 yrs		3.2 yrs		3.3 yrs		3.0 yrs		3.0 yrs

Table 3: Previous Convictions

Pê Sâkâstêw	1997-98		1998-99		1999-00		2000-01		2001-02		2002-03
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	p
Youth Court	37	100%	47	100%	41	100%	61	100%	65	100%	97	100%	NS
No	25	68%	29	62%	30	73%	27	44%	37	57%	53	55%
Yes	12	32%	18	38%	11	27%	34	56%	28	43%	44	45%
Adult Court Convictions	37	100%	47	100%	42	100%	61	100%	65	100%	97	100%	NS
No	3	8%	4	9%	0	0%	3	5%	5	8%	3	3%
Yes	34	92%	43	91%	42	100%	58	95%	60	92%	94	97%
Previous Provincial Term	37	100%	47	100%	42	100%	61	100%	65	100%	97	100%	NS
No	7	19%	11	23%	4	10%	10	16%	10	15%	14	14%
Yes	30	81%	36	77%	38	90%	51	84%	55	85%	83	86%
Previous Federal Term	37	100%	47	100%	42	100%	61	100%	65	100%	97	100%	NS
No	28	76%	39	83%	29	69%	43	70%	51	78%	75	77%
Yes	9	24%	8	17%	13	31%	18	30%	14	22%	22	23%

NS = Not Significant; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

Minimum Security	1997-98		1998-99		1999-00		2000-01		2001-02		2002-03
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Youth Court	283	100%	170	100%	198	100%	190	100%	197	100%	198	100%
No	140	49%	78	46%	109	55%	94	49%	98	50%	101	51%
Yes	143	51%	92	54%	89	45%	96	51%	99	50%	97	49%
Adult Court Convictions	306	100%	186	100%	200	100%	196	100%	196	100%	188	100%
No	35	11%	21	11%	18	9%	27	14%	29	15%	20	11%
Yes	271	89%	165	89%	182	91%	169	86%	167	85%	168	89%
Previous Provincial Term	306	100%	186	100%	200	100%	196	100%	196	100%	188	100%
No	72	24%	32	17%	47	24%	52	27%	47	24%	44	23%
Yes	234	76%	154	83%	153	77%	144	73%	149	76%	144	77%
Previous Federal Term	306	100%	186	100%	200	100%	196	100%	196	100%	188	100%
No	234	76%	144	77%	164	82%	147	75%	153	78%	156	83%
Yes	72	24%	42	23%	36	18%	49	25%	43	22%	32	17%

Table 4: Failures

Pê Sâkâstêw	1997-98		1998-99		1999-00		2000-01		2001-02		2002-03
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	p
Previously failed on community-based sanction	37	100%	47	100%	42	100%	61	100%	65	100%	97	100%	NS
No	16	43%	21	45%	19	45%	23	38%	22	34%	37	38%
Yes	21	57%	26	55%	23	55%	38	62%	43	66%	60	62%
Previously failed on conditional release	36	100%	46	100%	42	100%	61	100%	64	100%	96	100%	NS
No	24	67%	31	67%	28	67%	32	52%	42	66%	64	67%
Yes	12	33%	15	33%	14	33%	29	48%	22	34%	32	33%
6 months or more since last incarceration	37	100%	47	100%	42	100%	61	100%	65	100%	97	100%	NS
No	7	19%	10	21%	8	19%	15	25%	16	25%	21	22%
Yes	30	81%	37	79%	34	81%	46	75%	49	75%	76	78%
Crime free period of 1 year	37	100%	47	100%	42	100%	61	100%	65	100%	97	100%	NS
No	7	19%	10	21%	8	19%	16	26%	6	9%	10	10%
Yes	30	81%	37	79%	34	81%	45	74%	59	91%	87	90%
Previously reclassified to higher custody	37	100%	47	100%	42	100%	61	100%	64	100%	96	100%	NS
No	33	89%	42	89%	36	86%	51	84%	57	89%	83	86%
Yes	4	11%	5	11%	6	14%	10	16%	7	11%	13	14%
Previously segregated for disciplinary infraction	36	100%	46	100%	41	100%	59	100%	62	100%	92	100%	NS
No	29	81%	36	78%	33	80%	40	68%	42	68%	69	75%
Yes	7	19%	10	22%	8	20%	19	32%	20	32%	23	25%
Previously attempted / successful escape/UAL	37	100%	47	100%	42	100%	61	100%	65	100%	97	100%	NS
No	23	62%	31	66%	25	60%	38	62%	41	63%	71	73%
Yes	14	38%	16	34%	17	40%	23	38%	24	37%	26	27%

NS = Not Significant; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

Minimum Security	1997-98		1998-99		1999-00		2000-01		2001-02		2002-03
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Previously failed on community-based sanction	302	100%	186	100%	200	100%	196	100%	196	100%	186	100%
No	135	45%	65	35%	74	37%	81	41%	72	37%	66	35%
Yes	167	55%	121	65%	126	63%	115	59%	124	63%	120	65%
Previously failed on conditional release	302	100%	185	100%	196	100%	195	100%	196	100%	187	100%
No	206	68%	123	66%	125	64%	127	65%	113	58%	117	63%
Yes	96	32%	62	34%	71	36%	68	35%	83	42%	70	37%
6 months or more since last incarceration	306	100%	186	100%	200	100%	196	100%	196	100%	188	100%
No	69	23%	49	26%	31	16%	44	22%	38	19%	46	24%
Yes	237	77%	137	74%	169	85%	152	78%	158	81%	142	76%
Crime free period of 1 year	305	100%	186	100%	200	100%	196	100%	196	100%	188	100%
No	57	19%	43	23%	18	9%	32	16%	37	19%	33	18%
Yes	248	81%	143	77%	182	91%	164	84%	159	81%	155	82%
Previously reclassified to higher custody	304	100%	183	100%	199	100%	193	100%	190	100%	187	100%
No	266	88%	157	86%	177	89%	167	87%	171	90%	176	94%
Yes	38	13%	26	14%	22	11%	26	13%	19	10%	11	6%
Previously segregated for disciplinary infraction	296	100%	178	100%	192	100%	191	100%	188	100%	181	100%
No	227	77%	142	80%	168	88%	145	76%	157	84%	160	88%
Yes	69	23%	36	20%	24	13%	46	24%	31	16%	21	12%
Previously attempted / successful escape / UAL	304	100%	185	100%	200	100%	196	100%	196	100%	188	100%
No	228	75%	136	74%	140	70%	128	65%	144	73%	127	68%
Yes	76	25%	49	26%	60	30%	68	35%	52	27%	61	32%

Table 5: Initial Security Designation

Pê Sâkâstêw	1997-98		1998-99		1999-00		2000-01		2001-02		2002-03
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	p
Security Level at Admission	41	100%	57	100%	46	100%	77	100%	71	100%	107	100%	NS
Minimum	17	41%	23	40%	23	50%	31	40%	32	45%	44	41%
Medium	21	51%	31	54%	22	48%	45	58%	36	51%	57	53%
Maximum	3	7%	3	5%	1	2%	1	1%	3	4%	6	6%

NS = Not Significant; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

Minimum Security	1997-98		1998-99		1999-00		2000-01		2001-02		2002-03
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Security Level at Admission	303	100%	204	100%	231	100%	210	100%	215	100%	220	100%
Minimum	65	21%	60	29%	104	45%	88	42%	85	40%	89	40%
Medium	228	75%	131	64%	116	50%	116	55%	118	55%	121	55%
Maximum	10	3%	13	6%	11	5%	6	3%	12	6%	10	5%

Table 6: Risk to Re-offend, Reintegration Potential and Motivation for Intervention

Pê Sâkâstêw	1997-98		1998-99		1999-00		2000-01		2001-02		2002-03
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	p
Risk to Re-offend	50	100%	53	100%	23	100%	26	100%	33	100%	34	100%	NS
Low	5	10%	4	8%	1	4%	3	12%	1	3%	6	18%
Medium	18	36%	17	32%	6	26%	10	38%	14	42%	9	26%
High	27	54%	32	60%	16	70%	13	50%	18	55%	19	56%
Reintegration Potential	24	100%	36	100%	23	100%	27	100%	33	100%	30	100%	NS
Low	8	33%	10	28%	8	35%	8	30%	10	30%	12	40%
Medium	10	42%	20	56%	10	43%	11	41%	15	45%	10	33%
High	6	25%	6	17%	5	22%	8	30%	8	24%	8	27%
Motivation for Intervention	24	100%	36	100%	23	100%	27	100%	33	100%	30	100%	NS
Low	4	17%	2	6%	2	9%	0	0%	3	9%	3	10%
Medium	14	58%	27	75%	14	61%	17	63%	17	52%	14	47%
High	6	25%	7	19%	7	30%	10	37%	13	39%	13	43%

NS = Not Significant; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

Minimum Security	1997-98		1998-99		1999-00		2000-01		2001-02		2002-03
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Risk to Re-offend	423	100%	204	100%	211	100%	184	100%	128	100%	136	100%
Low	35	8%	8	4%	31	15%	13	7%	16	13%	18	13%
Medium	135	32%	51	25%	72	34%	93	51%	57	45%	62	46%
High	253	60%	145	71%	108	51%	78	42%	55	43%	56	41%
Reintegration Potential	178	100%	155	100%	210	100%	177	100%	112	100%	103	100%
Low	51	29%	37	24%	42	20%	40	23%	38	34%	27	26%
Medium	92	52%	85	55%	86	41%	67	38%	35	31%	37	36%
High	35	20%	33	21%	82	39%	70	40%	39	35%	39	38%
Motivation for Intervention	178	100%	155	100%	210	100%	177	100%	112	100%	103	100%
Low	12	7%	7	5%	7	3%	1	1%	7	6%	7	7%
Medium	118	66%	97	63%	108	51%	108	61%	64	57%	65	63%
High	48	27%	51	33%	95	45%	68	38%	41	37%	31	30%

Table 7: Need for Programming

Pê Sâkâstêw	1997-98		1998-99		1999-00		2000-01		2001-02		2002-03
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	p
Overall Need	50	100%	53	100%	23	100%	26	100%	33	100%	34	100%	NS
Low	5	10%	4	8%	0	0%	1	4%	0	0%	0	0%
Medium	15	30%	19	36%	5	22%	7	27%	11	33%	11	32%
High	30	60%	30	57%	18	78%	18	69%	22	67%	23	68%
Employment	50	100%	53	100%	23	100%	26	100%	33	100%	34	100%	NS
Asset / None	12	24%	19	36%	10	43%	6	23%	13	39%	8	24%
Some / Considerable	38	76%	34	64%	13	57%	20	77%	20	61%	26	76%
Marital / Family	50	100%	53	100%	23	100%	26	100%	33	100%	34	100%	NS
Asset / None	14	28%	22	42%	8	35%	12	46%	14	42%	15	44%
Some / Considerable	36	72%	31	58%	15	65%	14	54%	19	58%	19	56%
Associates / Social Interaction	50	100%	53	100%	23	100%	26	100%	33	100%	34	100%	NS
Asset / None	18	36%	23	43%	11	48%	8	31%	7	21%	12	35%
Some / Considerable	32	64%	30	57%	12	52%	18	69%	26	79%	22	65%
Substance Abuse	50	100%	53	100%	23	100%	26	100%	33	100%	34	100%	NS
Asset / None	3	6%	1	2%	0	0%	0	0%	1	3%	1	3%
Some / Considerable	47	94%	52	98%	23	100%	26	100%	32	97%	33	97%
Community Functioning	50	100%	53	100%	23	100%	26	100%	33	100%	34	100%	NS
Asset / None	24	48%	29	55%	14	61%	18	69%	19	58%	27	79%
Some / Considerable	26	52%	24	45%	9	39%	8	31%	14	42%	7	21%
Personal / Emotional	50	100%	53	100%	23	100%	26	100%	33	100%	34	100%	NS
Asset / None	5	10%	7	13%	5	22%	4	15%	3	9%	2	6%
Some / Considerable	45	90%	46	87%	18	78%	22	85%	30	91%	32	94%
Attitude	50	100%	53	100%	23	100%	26	100%	33	100%	34	100%	**
Asset / None	30	60%	41	77%	8	35%	20	77%	25	76%	21	62%
Some / Considerable	20	40%	12	23%	15	65%	6	23%	8	24%	13	38%

NS = Not Significant; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

Minimum Security	1997-98		1998-99		1999-00		2000-01		2001-02		2002-03
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Overall Need	423	100%	204	100%	211	100%	184	100%	128	100%	136	100%
Low	11	3%	5	2%	12	6%	13	7%	5	4%	12	9%
Medium	143	34%	62	30%	76	36%	66	36%	56	44%	50	37%
High	269	64%	137	67%	123	58%	105	57%	67	52%	74	54%
Employment	423	100%	204	100%	211	100%	184	100%	129	100%	136	100%
Asset / None	102	24%	71	35%	80	38%	72	39%	38	29%	42	31%
Some / Considerable	321	76%	133	65%	131	62%	112	61%	91	71%	94	69%
Marital / Family	423	100%	204	100%	211	100%	184	100%	129	100%	136	100%
Asset / None	158	37%	121	59%	109	52%	82	45%	74	57%	64	47%
Some / Considerable	265	63%	83	41%	102	48%	102	55%	55	43%	72	53%
Associates / Social Interaction	423	100%	204	100%	211	100%	184	100%	129	100%	136	100%
Asset / None	162	38%	111	54%	102	48%	87	47%	51	40%	48	35%
Some / Considerable	261	62%	93	46%	109	52%	97	53%	78	60%	88	65%
Substance Abuse	423	100%	204	100%	211	100%	184	100%	129	100%	136	100%
Asset / None	25	6%	16	8%	16	8%	19	10%	15	12%	16	12%
Some / Considerable	398	94%	188	92%	195	92%	165	90%	114	88%	120	88%
Community Functioning	423	100%	204	100%	211	100%	184	100%	129	100%	136	100%
Asset / None	223	53%	155	76%	151	72%	154	84%	113	88%	105	77%
Some / Considerable	200	47%	49	24%	60	28%	30	16%	16	12%	31	23%
Personal / Emotional	423	100%	204	100%	211	100%	184	100%	129	100%	136	100%
Asset / None	36	9%	22	11%	18	9%	20	11%	13	10%	14	10%
Some / Considerable	387	91%	182	89%	193	91%	164	89%	116	90%	122	90%
Attitude	423	100%	204	100%	211	100%	184	100%	129	100%	136	100%
Asset / None	222	52%	134	66%	162	77%	141	77%	96	74%	93	68%
Some / Considerable	201	48%	70	34%	49	23%	43	23%	33	26%	43	32%

Table 8a: Need for Programming, Reintegration Potential and Motivation for Intervention

Resident's Score - Pre/Post Transfer (1,2)	PRE		POST
	Before Transfer		Most Recent
	Mean	Mode	Mean	Mode	p
Overall Need	N=146
	2.48	3.00	2.04	2.00	***
Dynamic Factors	N=374
Marital / Family	2.83	3.00	2.53	2.00	***
Substance Abuse	3.59	4.00	2.89	2.00	***
Community Functioning	2.45	2.00	2.30	2.00	***
Personal / Emotional	3.34	4.00	2.90	3.00	***
Attitude	2.37	2.00	2.17	2.00	***
Associates / Social Interaction	2.79	3.00	2.48	2.00	***
Employment	2.88	3.00	2.58	3.00	***
Reintegration Potential	N=141
	2.06	2.00	2.18	2.00	*
Motivation for Intervention	N=141
	2.46	3.00	2.37	3.00	NS

(1) Based on the number of offenders that had pre and post assessments. In some cases, the number is small.

(2) Multiple transfers are excluded from the analyses.

NS= Not Significant; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

… information not available or appropriate

Table 8b: Need for Programming, Reintegration Potential and Motivation for Intervention

Resident’s Score - Pre/Post Transfer - by Year (1,2)	1997-98			1998-99			1999-00			2000-01			2001-02			2002-03
	Mean			Mean			Mean			Mean			Mean			Mean
	PRE	POST	p	PRE	POST	p	PRE	POST	p	PRE	POST	p	PRE	POST	p	PRE	POST	p
Overall Need	N=0			N=2			N=33			N=41			N=26			N=44
	..	..		2.00	1.50	NS	2.70	2.09	***	2.51	2.1	**	2.23	1.92	**	2.45	2.05	***
Dynamic Factors	N=57			N=70			N=54			N=68			N=58			N=67
Marital / Family	3.04	2.37	***	2.77	2.44	*	2.93	2.57	**	2.76	2.57	NS	2.72	2.50	*	2.81	2.72	NS
Substance Abuse	3.61	2.58	***	3.68	2.88	***	3.63	2.94	***	3.59	2.97	***	3.50	2.91	***	3.55	3.06	***
Community Functioning	2.65	2.21	***	2.44	2.31	NS	2.46	2.35	NS	2.44	2.38	NS	2.34	2.22	NS	2.36	2.28	NS
Personal / Emotional	3.53	2.72	***	3.40	2.83	***	3.28	2.96	**	3.26	2.87	**	3.22	2.90	***	3.38	3.10	***
Attitude	2.48	2.04	***	2.18	2.07	NS	2.41	2.35	NS	2.34	2.13	NS	2.34	2.14	*	2.49	2.31	*
Associates / Social Interaction	2.79	2.40	**	2.59	2.37	NS	2.72	2.38	**	2.94	2.50	**	2.84	2.55	***	2.84	2.68	**
Employment	3.05	2.67	**	2.80	2.54	*	2.83	2.48	**	2.82	2.53	***	2.78	2.47	**	2.94	2.76	***
Reintegration Potential	N=0			N=2			N=31			N=41			N=25			N=42
	..	..		2.50	2.50	NS	1.9	2.16	NS	2.14	2.0	NS	2.12	2.2	NS	2.02	2.33	**
Motivation for Intervention	..	..		2.50	2.50	NS	2.32	2.29	NS	2.39	2.17	NS	2.44	2.44	NS	2.64	2.57	NS

(1) Based on the number of offenders that had pre and post assessments. In some cases, the number is small.

(2) Multiple transfers are excluded from the analyses.

NS= Not Significant; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

… information not available or appropriate

Table 9: Incidents
Resident’s - Pre/Post Transfer (1,2)

	Pre Transfer		Post Transfer
	#	%	#	%	p
Perpetrated an Incident	387	100%	387	100%	NS
No	328	85%	314	81%
Yes	59	15%	73	19%
Incidents (3)	59		73
Violence (4)	5	8%	10	14%	NS
Disturbance (5)	9	15%	15	21%	NS
Intelligence	27	46%	42	58%	*
Unauthorized Item / Contraband (6)	9	15%	7	10%	NS
Self Harm (7)	0	0%	0	0%	NS
Other (8)	17	29%	17	23%	NS

(1) Examines incidents for one year pre-transfer and one year post-transfer.

(2) Multiple transfers are excluded from the analyses.

(3) Percentages are based on the number of offenders who have committed an incident and will therefore not add up to 100%.

(4) Includes murder, assault on staff, or other inmates and fighting.

(5) Includes disciplinary problems, setting fires, major and minor disturbance.

(6) Includes possession, receiving or transporting unauthorized items or contraband.

(7) Includes hunger strikes, self-injury and suicide.

(8) Includes damage to government property, being under the influence and other incidents.

NS = Not Significant; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

… information not available or appropriate

Table 10a: Need for Programming, Reintegration Potential and Motivation for Intervention
Residents vs. Comparison Group - Most Recent Rating (1)

	Pê Sâkâstêw		Minimum Security
	Mean	Mode	Mean	Mode	p
Overall Need	N=252		N=779		NS
	2.00	2.00	2.07	2.00
Dynamic Factors	N=376		N=1165-1169
Marital / Family	2.53	2.00	2.50	2.00	NS
Substance Abuse	2.89	2.00	3.08	3.00	***
Community Functioning	2.30	2.00	2.26	2.00	NS
Personal / Emotional	2.89	3.00	3.06	3.00	***
Attitude	2.17	2.00	2.22	2.00	NS
Associates / Social Interaction	2.47	2.00	2.49	2.00	NS
Employment	2.58	3.00	2.66	3.00	NS
Reintegration Potential	N=252		N=780
	2.22	2.00	2.18	2.00	NS
Motivation for Intervention	N=252		N=780		NS
	2.40	3.00	2.34	3.00

(1) Based on the number of offenders that had pre and post assessments. In some cases, the number is small.

NS= Not Significant; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

… information not available or appropriate

Table 10b: Need for Programming, Reintegration Potential and Motivation for Intervention
Residents vs. Comparison Group - by Year (1)

Pê Sâkâstêw	1997-98		1998-99		1999-00		2000-01		2001-02		2002-03
	Mean	p (2)	Mean	p (2)	Mean	p (2)	Mean	p (2)	Mean	p (2)	Mean	p (2)
Overall Need	1.92	NS	1.94	NS	2.05	NS	2.09	NS	1.83	NS	2.08	NS
Dynamic Factors	N=58		N=70		N=54		N=68		N=58		N=68
Marital / Family	2.36	NS	2.44	NS	2.57	NS	2.67	NS	2.50	NS	2.71	NS
Substance Abuse	2.57	***	2.89	**	2.94	NS	2.97	NS	2.91	NS	3.04	NS
Community Functioning	2.20	*	2.31	NS	2.35	*	2.38	***	2.22	NS	2.28	NS
Personal / Emotional	2.71	**	2.83	**	2.96	NS	2.87	NS	2.89	NS	3.09	NS
Attitude	2.02	NS	2.07	NS	2.35	NS	2.13	NS	2.13	NS	2.31	NS
Associates / Social Interaction	2.38	NS	2.37	NS	2.39	NS	2.50	NS	2.55	NS	2.63	NS
Employment	2.66	NS	2.54	NS	2.48	NS	2.53	NS	2.47	NS	2.76	NS
	N=38		N=50		N=38		N=43		N=28		N=48
Reintegration Potential	2.34	*	2.10	NS	2.23	NS	2.02	**	2.29	NS	2.36	NS
Motivation for Intervention	2.39	NS	2.36	NS	2.36	NS	2.23	NS	2.52	NS	2.54	NS

(1) Based on the number of offenders that had pre and post assessments. In some cases, the number is small.

(2) Multiple transfers are excluded from the analyses.

NS= Not Significant; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

Residents vs. Comparison Group - by Year

Minimum Security	1997-98	1998-99	1999-00	2000-01	2001-02	2002-03
	Mean	Mean	Mean	Mean	Mean	Mean
	N=210	N=135	N=136	N=117	N=80	N=88
Overall Need	2.11	2.14	1.92	2.05	1.96	2.22
Dynamic Factors	N=378-379	N=204	N=189	N=160-161	N=117-118	N=117-118
Marital / Family	2.54	2.51	2.48	2.43	2.38	2.57
Substance Abuse	3.03	3.20	3.10	3.01	3.03	3.20
Community Functioning	2.43	2.25	2.19	2.11	2.13	2.21
Personal / Emotional	2.96	3.15	2.99	3.01	3.04	3.17
Attitude	2.27	2.23	2.15	2.19	2.20	2.26
Associates / Social Interaction	2.50	2.50	2.42	2.43	2.49	2.68
Employment	2.79	2.74	2.56	2.48	2.55	2.62
	N=210	N=135	N=136	N=117	N=81	N=88
Reintegration Potential	2.04	2.06	2.33	2.31	2.29	2.18
Motivation for Intervention	2.22	2.26	2.57	2.42	2.44	2.41

Table 11a: Release and Re-admission
Residents vs. Comparison Group (1)

	Pê Sâkâstêw		Minimum Security
	#	%	#	%	p
Released	387	100%	1206	100%	NS
No	17	4%	76	6%
Yes	370	96%	1130	94%
Release Type	370	100%	1130	100%
Day Parole	209	56%	513	45%	***
Full Parole	15	4%	66	6%	NS
Statutory Release	141	38%	518	46%	**
Warrant Expiry	1	0%	27	2%	**
Other	3	1%	4	0%	NS
Re-admitted to Federal Facility (2)	336	100%	1043	100%
No	213	63%	634	61%	NS
Yes - Technical Violation	65	19%	252	24%	NS
Yes - New Offence	58	17%	155	15%	NS
Yes - Other Reason	0	0%	2	0%	NS
Length of Time (in months)	Mean	Median	Mean	Median
Federal Facility (prior to transfer)	16.8	6.5	…	…
Healing Lodge (until release)	8.4	6.8	…	…
Federal Facility & Healing Lodge	21.1	15.5	24.1	17.7	NS
To Re-admission	6.1	5.9	5.8	5.5	NS

1) Multiple transfers are excluded from the analyses.

(2) Based on one year follow-up period from the date of release; excludes those released after March 31, 2003.

NS = Not Significant; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

… information not available or appropriate

Table 11b: Release and Re-admission
Residents vs. Comparison Group - by Year (1)

	Year of Release
Pê Sâkâstêw	1997-98			1998-99			1999-00			2000-01			2001-02			2002-03
	#	%	p (2)	#	%	p (2)	#	%	p (2)	#	%	p (2)	#	%	p (2)	#	%	p (2)
Released (3)	27			60			61			56			73			59
Release Type	27	100%		60	100%		61	100%		56	100%		73	100%		59	100%
Day Parole	12	44%	NS	34	57%	*	34	56%	*	33	59%	*	40	55%	NS	36	61%	NS
Full Parole	1	4%	NS	2	3%	NS	0	0%	*	5	9%	NS	3	4%	NS	2	3%	NS
Statutory Release	14	52%	NS	23	38%	NS	26	43%	NS	18	32%	*	30	41%	NS	20	34%	NS
Warrant Expiry	0	0%	NS	1	2%	NS	0	0%	NS	0	0%	NS	0	0%	NS	0	0%	NS
Other	0	0%	NS	0	0%	NS	1	2%	NS	0	0%	NS	0	0%	NS	1	2%	NS
Re-admitted to Federal Facility (4)	27	100%		60	100%		61	100%		56	100%		73	100%		59	100%
No	17	63%	NS	40	67%	NS	43	70%	NS	32	57%	NS	45	62%	NS	36	61%	NS
Yes - Technical Violation	6	22%	NS	10	17%	*	6	10%	**	13	23%	NS	14	19%	NS	16	27%	NS
Yes - New Offence	4	15%	NS	10	17%	*	12	20%	**	11	20%	NS	14	19%	NS	7	12%	NS
Yes - Other Reason	0	0%	NS	0	0%	NS	0	0%	NS	0	0%	NS	0	0%	NS	0	0%	NS
Length of Time (in months)	X	Med.		X	Med.		X	Med.		X	Med.		X	Med.		X	Med.
Federal Facility (prior to transfer)	12.3	8.5	…	9.4	5.8	…	10.8	5.0	…	11.7	2.5	…	12.8	9.7	…	13.8	5.5	…
Healing Lodge (until release)	4.1	3.6	…	6.8	5.5	…	8.1	7.4	…	9.1	5.9	…	8.8	7.2	…	8.5	7.0	…
Federal Facility & Healing Lodge	16.4	14.8	NS	16.1	12.5	*	18.4	14.5	NS	20.6	14.2	NS	21.1	16.3	NS	21.6	15.6	NS
To Re-admission	5.2	3.3	NS	5.4	4.8	NS	6.9	7.6	NS	6.2	6.5	NS	6.6	6.3	NS	6.2	6.0	NS

(1) Multiple transfers are excluded from the analyses.

(2) Refers to significant differences between residents and comparison group in minimum security.

(3) Refers only to those released in the specific fiscal year - excludes those not released in these years.

(4) Based on one year follow-up period from the date of release.

NS = Not Significant; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

Residents vs. Comparison Group - by Year (1)

	Year of Release
Minimum Security	1997-98		1998-99		1999-00		2000-01		2001-02		2002-03
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Released (3)	177		188		214		178		149		137
Release Type	176	100%	187	100%	214	100%	178	100%	149	100%	137	100%
Day Parole	70	40%	76	41%	83	39%	77	43%	82	55%	81	59%
Full Parole	17	10%	14	7%	13	6%	9	5%	6	4%	3	2%
Statutory Release	84	48%	91	49%	112	52%	86	48%	60	40%	50	36%
Warrant Expiry	4	2%	6	3%	4	2%	6	3%	0	0%	3	2%
Other	1	1%	0	0%	2	1%	0	0%	1	1%	0	0%
Re-admitted to Federal Facility (4)	177	100%	188	100%	214	100%	178	100%	149	100%	137	100%
No	105	59%	107	57%	132	62%	110	62%	93	62%	87	64%
Yes - Technical Violation	49	28%	60	32%	56	26%	37	21%	24	16%	26	19%
Yes - New Offence	21	12%	21	11%	26	12%	31	17%	32	21%	24	18%
Yes - Other Reason	2	1%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Length of Time (in months)	X	Med.	X	Med.	X	Med.	X	Med.	X	Med.	X	Med.
Federal Facility (prior to transfer)	…	…	…	…	…	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
Healing Lodge (until release)	…	…	…	…	…	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
Federal Facility & Healing Lodge	19.2	15.3	21.5	17.2	23.1	18.5	23.3	19.6	24.2	16.9	30.4	16.9
To Re-admission	5.1	5.1	5.3	4.5	6.3	5.4	6.0	5.7	6.2	6.7	6.7	6.0

 (1) Multiple transfers are excluded from the analyses.

(2) Refers to significant differences between residents and comparison group in minimum security.

(3) Refers only to those released in the specific fiscal year - excludes those not released in these years.

(4) Based on one year follow-up period from the date of release.

… information not available or appropriate

Table 12: Staff Interviews

	#	%
Appropriate transfers	21	100%
No	1	5%
Yes	20	95%
CSC could do a better job to identify Offenders transferred to the Centre	19	100%
No	6	32%
Yes	13	68%
Enough staff with experience in traditional Aboriginal healing methods	20	100%
No	11	55%
Yes	9	45%
Healing centre benefits the offenders	22	100%
Not at all	1	5%
Somewhat	8	36%
Very	13	59%
Accept Non-Aboriginal offenders	22	100%
Aboriginal only	5	23%
Both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal	17	77%
Centre helps offenders reintegrate into an Aboriginal community	22	100%
Not at all	2	9%
Somewhat	1	5%
Very	19	86%
Centre helps offenders reintegrate into an urban setting	22	100%
Not at all	7	32%
Somewhat	7	32%
Very	8	36%
Centre provides offenders with resources in their communities	21	100%
Not at all	3	14%
Somewhat	3	14%
Very	15	71%
Attempts to follow-up with offenders	19	100%
Not at all	10	53%
Somewhat	7	37%
Very	2	11%
Community involvement with the Centre	22	100%
Not at all	7	32%
Somewhat	7	32%
Very	8	36%
Importance of culture at the Centre	17	100%
Not at all	1	6%
Somewhat	1	6%
Very	15	88%

Table13: Resident Interviews

	#	%
Heard about possibility of being transferred to the Centre	15	100%
In remand	3	20%
During intake assessment	1	7%
Within 1 month of being incarcerated	1	7%
More than 1 month of being incarcerated	7	47%
Other	3	20%
Who told you about the possibility of transfer to Pê Sâkâstêw?	15	100%
Parole officer / case manager at institution	5	33%
Native Liaison or Elder at institution	1	7%
Aboriginal group inside / outside institution	1	7%
Healing lodge representative or pamphlet	0	0%
Another inmate	6	40%
Family member	0	0%
Other	2	13%
Did you request the transfer?	15	100%
No	4	27%
Yes	11	73%
Time until you were transferred	15	100%
Less than 1 month	8	53%
1 to 6 months	6	40%
More than 6 months	1	7%
Put on a waiting list?	13	100%
No	11	85%
Yes	2	15%
Satisfaction with transfer process	14	100%
Not at all	1	7%
Somewhat	1	7%
Very	12	86%
Problems with the transfer	15	100%
No	14	93%
Yes	1	7%
Length of time at the Centre	15	100%
> 1 months	3	20%
1 to 6 months	9	60%
< 6 months	3	20%
Previously transferred to a healing lodge?	15	100%
No	12	80%
Yes	3	20%
Healing plan prior to entering the Centre	14	100%
No	2	14%
Yes	12	86%
Importance of culture at Pê Sâkâstêw	10	100%
Not at all	1	10%
Somewhat	1	10%
Very	8	80%
Satisfaction with healing plan	15	100%
Not at all	0	0%
Somewhat	1	7%
Very	14	93%
Progress in healing process	14	100%
Beginning	4	29%
Near middle	9	64%
End	1	7%
Satisfaction with the Centre's staff	15	100%
Not at all	2	13%
Somewhat	2	13%
Very	11	73%
Aware of traditional healing - before	15	100%
Not at all	5	33%
Somewhat	4	27%
Very	6	40%
Aware of traditional healing - now	15	100%
Not at all	0	0%
Somewhat	4	27%
Very	11	73%
Centre gave better sense of who you are	14	100%
Not at all	1	7%
Somewhat	2	14%
Very	11	79%
Centre has helped in healing process	14	100%
Not at all	1	7%
Somewhat	2	14%
Very	11	79%
Satisfaction with Centre experience	15	100%
Not at all	0	0%
Somewhat	0	0%
Very	15	100%
Adjustment to lodge	15	100%
Not at all	1	7%
Somewhat	4	27%
Very	10	67%
Centre helps offender reintegrate into an Aboriginal community	14	100%
Not at all	0	0%
Somewhat	4	29%
Very	10	71%
Centre helps reintegrate into urban setting	13	100%
Not at all	1	8%
Somewhat	1	8%
Very	11	85%
Best location for a healing Centre	14	100%
On a reserve / Aboriginal community	4	29%
Near a reserve / Aboriginal community	3	21%
In a rural setting	6	43%
In a urban setting	0	0%
Other	1	7%

Appendix B: Staff Interview

HEALING LODGE
HEALING LODGE STAFF INTERVIEW

My name is (first name) and I'm involved in a project that will examine healing lodges in Canada.  We're interviewing offenders in healing lodges as well as staff in healing lodges.  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 #:

SECTION A: BACKGROUND

1. Sex:

Male Female

2. Aboriginal:

Yes No

3. Position Title:

4. Length of time in position:
(months/years)

5. Can you describe your current role?

6. Have you ever worked in a different CSC institution?

Yes  (go to follow-up question)
No
Don't Know
Refused

A. If yes, which institution(s) have you worked in (list all):

Don't Know Refused Not Applicable

B. Now that you are working in a healing lodge, do you feel that your role has changed from that in an institution?

Yes  (go to follow-up question)
No
Don't Know
Refused
Not Applicable

C. If yes, how has your role changed?

Don't Know Refused Not Applicable

7. Have you ever worked in a different healing lodge?

Yes  (go to follow-up question)
No
Don't Know
Refused

A. If yes, which healing lodge(s) have you worked in (list all):

Don't Know Refused Not Applicable

B. Do you think there are differences between this healing lodge and other healing lodges that you have worked at?

Yes  (go to follow-up question)
No
Don't Know
Refused
Not Applicable

C. If yes, what are the differences?

Don't Know Refused Not Applicable

8. Other than your current position, can you briefly describe your background experiences (past positions, education, volunteer work, skills, etc.):

Don't Know Refused

SECTION B: SELECTION PROCESS

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

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

Don't Know Refused

2. Do you think that appropriate offenders are being transferred to the lodge?

Yes  (go to follow-up question)
No
Don't Know
Refused

3. Why do you/don't you think the offenders transferred to the lodge are appropriate?

Don't Know Refused

4. Do you think that CSC could do a better job of identifying which offenders would be best suited for a transfer to the healing lodge? Yes  (go to follow-up question)
No
Don't Know
Refused

5. Why do you/don't you think CSC could do a better job in identifying offenders to be transferred to the healing lodge?

Don't Know Refused

SECTION C: HEALING LODGE

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

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

Don't Know Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

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

Yes  (go to follow-up question)
No
Don't Know
Refused

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 lodge benefits the offenders:

1
2
3
4
5
Don't Know
Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

7. Do you think healing lodges should accept non-Aboriginal offenders or only focus on Aboriginal offenders?

Aboriginal only
Both Aboriginal & non-Aboriginal
Other (specify)

Don't Know
Refused

A. Why do you think that?

Don't Know Refused

8. 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:

1
2
3
4
5
Don't Know
Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

10. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “not at all” 5 being “very”, to what extent would you say that the healing lodge helps the offender reintegrate into urban settings:

1
2
3
4
5
Don't Know
Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

12. 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:

1
2
3
4
5
Don't Know
Refused

13. 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?

Don't Know Refused

14. 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:

1
2
3
4
5
Don't Know Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

16. 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?

1
2
3
4
5
Don't Know Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

21. What do you think would help you in your position at the healing lodge?

Don't Know Refused

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

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

Appendix C: Offender Interview

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 them. 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)

OFFENDER INTERVIEW

Province:

Interview Date:

Institution:

Interviewer:

Respondent #:

>SECTION A: TRANSFER

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

1. When did you first hear about the possibility of being transferred to a healing lodge (check one):

In remand
During intake assessment
Within 1 month of being incarcerated
Other-specify

Don't Know
Refused

2. Who first told you about the possibility of a transfer to a healing lodge (check one):

Parole Officer/Case manager at institution
Native liaison at institution
Elder
Aboriginal group inside institution
Aboriginal group outside institution
Healing lodge representative
Healing lodge pamphlet
Another inmate
Family member
Friend
Other-specify

Don't Know
Refused

3. Did you request the transfer to the healing lodge?

Yes
No
Don't Know
Refused

4. Once you indicated that you wanted to be transferred to a healing lodge, how long did it take until you were transferred (check one):

Less than 1 week
1 to 4 weeks
1 to 3 months
4 to 6 months
Other-specify

Don't Know
Refused

5. Were you put on a waiting list for the healing lodge?

Yes
No
Don't Know
Refused

6. Can you describe the transfer process?

Don't Know Refused

7. 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:

1
2
3
4
5
Don't Know
Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

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

Yes
No
Don't Know
Refused

10. If yes, can you describe the problems you encountered?

Don't Know Refused

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):

Less than 1 month
1 to 3 months
4 to 6 months
7 to 9 months
10 to 12 months
More than 1 year
Don't Know
Refused

2. What do you think will be the duration of your stay at the healing lodge (for the current transfer) (check one):

Less than 1 month
1 to 3 months
4 to 6 months
7 to 9 months
10 to 12 months
More than 1 year
Don't Know
Refused

3. Have you been transferred to a healing lodge before?

Yes (go to follow-up question)
No
Don't Know
Refused

A. If yes, what other lodge have you been transferred to:

Kwikwèxwelhp
Stan Daniels
Ochichakkosipi
Waseskun
Wahpeton
Don't Know
Refused
Not Applicable

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

Yes (go to follow-up question)
No
Don't Know
Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

6. 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?

Don't Know Refused

7. 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):

1
2
3
4
5
Don't Know
Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

9. How far along in your healing process would you say you are (circle one):

1 (Beginning)
2
3 (Near Middle)
4
5 (End)
Don't Know
Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

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):

1
2
3
4
5
Don't Know
Refused

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

Don't Know 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):

A. Prior to Healing Lodge:

1
2
3
4
5
Don't Know
Refused

B. Currently:

1
2
3
4
5
Don't Know
Refused

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

Don't Know 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):

1
2
3
4
5
Don't Know
Refused

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

Don't Know 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):

1
2
3
4
5
Don't Know
Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

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

1
2
3
4
5
Don't Know
Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

23. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “not at all” and 5 being “very”, how would you rate your adjustment to the healing lodge?

1
2
3
4
5
Don't Know
Refused

24. Why would you say your adjustment was/wasn't successful?

Don't Know Refused

25. What would you say facilitated/hindered your adjustment to the healing lodge?

Don't Know Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

SECTION C: RELEASE PLANS

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

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

Transferred back to a correctional facility
Released with a CSC parole officer
Released to an Aboriginal community/reserve
Released to a non-Aboriginal community
Other-specify

Don't Know
Refused

2. 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):

1
2
3
4
5
Don't Know
Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

4. 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):

1
2
3
4
5
Don't Know
Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

6. What are your concerns regarding your release from the healing lodge?

Don't Know Refused

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?

Don't Know Refused

2. Where do you think is the best location for a healing lodge (check one):

On a reserve/Aboriginal community
Near a reserve/Aboriginal community
In a rural setting
In an urban setting
Other-specify

Don't Know
Refused

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

Don't Know Refused

4. How long do you think is the optimum time to spend at a healing lodge?

Don't Know Refused

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

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