The views expressed in this report are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada. EXAMINING ABORIGINAL CORRECTIONS IN CANADA APC 14 CA (1996) ABORIGINAL PEOPLES COLLECTION Cover: Addventures/Ottawa Figure: Leo Yerxa © Supply and Services Canada Cat. No. JS5-1/14-1996E ISBN: 0-662-24856-2 EXAMINING ABORIGINAL CORRECTIONS IN CANADA by Carol LaPrairie, Ph.D. assisted by Phil Mun Bruno Steinke in consultation with Ed Buller Sharon McCue Aboriginal Corrections Ministry of the Solicitor General 1996 EXAMINING ABORIGINAL CORRECTIONS IN CANADA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document provides information gathered though surveys, analyses of quantitative data and a review of current literature and research about the state of aboriginal corrections. Its purpose is to inform program and policy makers, aboriginal organizations and services, academics, and others interested in the field. It is also intended to be used in the development of research and program evaluation plans, and to provide new directions to be considered for aboriginal corrections, theoretical issues and responses to aboriginal offenders. It raises some complex questions about the meaning and future of aboriginal corrections. The report is in nine parts. While there is a natural progression from one part to the next, each can be read alone as the subject matter is discrete and specific. Because of the quantity of data in some parts, summaries are presented at the end of each. Relevant tables are provided at the end of parts. Listings of “lessons learned” and suggested future research directions are also provided. In addition, there is an extensive reference section on mainstream and aboriginal correctional literature. A description of provincial data sources, provincial tables, and the correctional personnel, community and inmate survey questionnaires are included in the Appendix. A summary of each of the nine parts of the report follows. Part I: Use of Imprisonment The reliance on imprisonment in Canada compared to other countries is the fundamental issue discussed in Part I. The variables which influence the use of imprisonment are both criminal justice, i.e., application of laws and actions of criminal justice agents, and societal, i.e., the lack of a relationship between crime rates and levels of imprisonment suggests other socio-cultural factors are at play. The majority of sentences in Canada are short (less than six months). Crime (both reported and victimization) increases from east to west and there is some variation in use of imprisonment. There are no major differences in the type of offences committed across the country. Some provinces may be dealing with more difficult populations (i.e., in socio-economic and offence terms) than are others, but without better data on prior records and offender profiles, firm conclusions about the factors leading to disparity are not possible. For some offences, particularly fine defaults, B.C., Quebec and Ontario appear to rely less on imprisonment than other provinces. The Prairie provinces have the most marginalized1 aboriginal populations and consistent use of imprisonment for life-style related offences such as administration of justice, public order and fine defaults, results in part, in high levels of imprisonment. The use of imprisonment also reflects cultural attitudes and penal values which may help to explain variation across the country. However, more punitive public views on the need for imprisonment or on aboriginal issues, are not necessarily found to translate into a greater reliance on imprisonment or higher aboriginal incarceration levels. Part II: Who Goes to Prison? 1 In the body of this report the word ‘marginalized’ is used frequently. It refers primarily to the historical processes to which aboriginal people were subjected and the contemporary socio-economic condition this has created. It may also refer to those individuals who have been socially and economically disadvantaged within a community setting. i EXAMINING ABORIGINAL CORRECTIONS IN CANADA People sentenced to terms of imprisonment are not always there for the commission of serious crimes against the person. Prisons are also used as “catch-basins” for social problems, for chronic offenders who commit relatively minor offences, for those who the public deems most in need of punishment (for example, drug offenders), and for property offenders. In fact, those who commit serious violent offences are generally in the minority in a prison population. What is perhaps most notable about who goes to prison is the disproportionality of certain socially and economically marginalized racial groups such as blacks and aboriginal people (who appear to commit more offences for which imprisonment is used), and, more generally, of the most disadvantaged groups in society. Two factors are central to understanding the over-representation of aboriginal people in Canadian correctional institutions. The first is the over-reliance in Canada on the use of imprisonment; the second is that more of the aboriginal than the non-aboriginal population falls into the socio- economic group most vulnerable to involvement in the criminal justice system. Part III: Aboriginal Offenders, Offending and Imprisonment Some characteristics aboriginal offenders share with non-aboriginal offenders and some differ. The attitudes, peer group support, and personality factors that promote the commission of crime are similar and are shaped by family background, poverty, school experiences, exposure to violence, and isolation from opportunities, options and other factors that influence the adoption of pro-social attitudes. Culture, geography and exposure to mainstream society distinguish aboriginal offenders both from non-aboriginal offenders and among themselves. Aboriginal offenders are disproportionately represented in most provincial, territorial, and federal institutional populations. The disproportionality is greatest in the three Prairie provinces and least in the Maritimes and Quebec. However, aboriginal people are also disproportionately represented in admissions for violent offences, particularly in federal institutions, for which they are also receiving shorter sentences than the non-aboriginal groups. At the same time, use of incarceration is greater for aboriginal offenders when controlling for type of offence (but without information on prior record). Aboriginal offenders are generally younger, have more prior contact with the criminal justice and correctional systems, and come from more dysfunctional backgrounds than the non-aboriginal groups. Aboriginal over-representation in correctional institutions can probably be explained by a higher rate of offending, the commission of more offences that typically result in imprisonment, and the fact that existing policies and practices that affect sentencing and operate in provinces with the most disadvantaged aboriginal groups, will have the most onerous effects on those groups. Less use of probation in provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, may contribute to the over-representation problem. Part IV: Explaining Aboriginal Over-Representation What has created such a vulnerability of aboriginal people to involvement in the criminal justice and correctional systems in Canada? The argument put forward here is that one of the most important factors is a decline in interdependency among people in aboriginal communities which has come about as the result of ii EXAMINING ABORIGINAL CORRECTIONS IN CANADA historical processes (such as colonization and the creation of the reserve system) which have reproduced mainstream social structure without accompanying institutional development. This has been exacerbated by cultural dislocation and the decline of informal mechanisms of social control. The end result is socially stratified communities where limited resources and resource distribution create large groups of disadvantaged people, a growing youth sub-culture with few legitimate outlets or opportunities, decontextualized exposure to the mass media, and the lack of cultural and social resources to assist in identity formation which support pro-social values. It is, however, misleading and incorrect to assume that all aboriginal communities in Canada are exposed to the same contingencies and limitations as a result of these historical and contemporary processes. Clearly not the case, such an assumption inhibits the degree of attention required by those individuals and communities most in need. The degree and impact of change has been mediated by settlement patterns, geographic location, cultural factors, and individual community experience. The most affected communities are in the Prairie provinces which also have the highest aboriginal incarceration. Three factors are most conducive to a crime problem. The first is the large group of marginalized in communities because of the uneven distribution of resources; the second is that reserves are not generally integrated into mainstream Canadian society (because of historical practices of exclusion and the second class status ascribed to aboriginal people) and the resulting alienation is most prominent in those with the fewest connections to mainstream society; and the third is that exposure to dysfunctional family life and childhood abuse (in addition to other factors conducive to criminal behaviour) have profoundly negative effects on individual development. The most marginalized groups in communities are most affected by these factors. When