1. The Rio+20 outcome document, The future we want, inter alia, set out a mandate to establish an Open Working Group to develop a set of sustainable development goals for consideration and appropriate action by the General Assembly at its 68th session. It also provided the basis for their conceptualization. The Rio outcome gave the mandate that the SDGs should be coherent with and integrated into the UN development agenda beyond 2015.
2. Poverty eradication is the greatest global challenge facing the world today and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. The Rio+20 outcome reiterated the commitment to freeing humanity from poverty and hunger as a matter of urgency.
3. Poverty eradication, changing unsustainable and promoting sustainable patterns of consumption and production and protecting and managing the natural resource base of economic and social development are the overarching objectives of and essential requirements for sustainable development.
4. People are at the centre of sustainable development and, in this regard, Rio+20 promised to strive for a world that is just, equitable and inclusive, and committed to work together to promote sustained and inclusive economic growth, social development and environmental protection and thereby to benefit all, in particular the children of the world, youth and future generations of the world without distinction of any kind such as age, sex, disability, culture, race, ethnicity, origin, migratory status, religion, economic or other status.
5. Rio+20 also reaffirmed all the principles of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, including, inter alia, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, as set out in principle 7 thereof.
6. It also reaffirmed the commitment to fully implement the Rio Declaration, Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21, the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg Plan of Implementation) and the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development, the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States (Barbados Programme of Action) and the Mauritius Strategy for the Further Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. It also reaffirmed the commitment to the full implementation of the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2011�2020 (Istanbul Programme of Action), the Almaty Programme of Action: Addressing the Special Needs of Landlocked Developing Countries within a New Global Framework for Transit Transport Cooperation for Landlocked and Transit Developing Countries, the political declaration on Africa�s development needs and the New Partnership for Africa�s Development. It reaffirmed the commitments in the outcomes of all the major United Nations conferences and summits in the economic, social and environmental fields, including the United Nations Millennium Declaration, the 2005 World Summit Outcome, the Monterrey Consensus of the International Conference on Financing for Development, the Doha Declaration on Financing for Development, the outcome document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly on the Millennium Development Goals, the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development, the key actions for the further implementation of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, and the outcome documents of their review conferences. The Outcome document of the September 2013 special event to follow up efforts made towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals reaffirmed, inter alia, the determination to craft a strong post-2015 development agenda. The commitment to migration and development was reaffirmed in the Declaration of the High-Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development.
7. Rio+20 outcome reaffirmed the need to be guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, with full respect for international law and its principles. It reaffirmed the importance of freedom, peace and security, respect for all human rights, including the right to development and the right to an adequate standard of living, including the right to food and water, the rule of law, good governance, gender equality, women�s empowerment and the overall commitment to just and democratic societies for development. It also reaffirmed the importance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as other international instruments relating to human rights and international law.
8. The OWG underscored that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, with a view to accelerating the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions. It recalled that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change provides that parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. It noted with grave concern the significant gap between the aggregate effect of mitigation pledges by parties in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with having a likely chance of holding the increase in global average temperature below 2� C, or 1.5� C above pre-industrial levels and it reaffirmed that the ultimate objective under the UNFCCC is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
9. Planet Earth and its ecosystems are our home and that �Mother Earth� is a common expression in a number of countries and regions, and Rio+20 noted that some countries recognize the rights of nature in the context of the promotion of sustainable development. Rio+20 affirmed the conviction that in order to achieve a just balance among the economic, social and environmental needs of present and future generations, it is necessary to promote harmony with nature. It acknowledged the natural and cultural diversity of the world, and recognized that all cultures and civilizations can contribute to sustainable development.
10. Rio+20 recognized that each country faces specific challenges to achieve sustainable development. It underscored the special challenges facing the most vulnerable countries and, in particular, African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States, as well as the specific challenges facing the middle-income countries. Countries in situations of conflict also need special attention.
11. Rio+20 reaffirmed the commitment to strengthen international cooperation to address the persistent challenges related to sustainable development for all, in particular in developing countries. In this regard, it reaffirmed the need to achieve economic stability, sustained economic growth, the promotion of social equity and the protection of the environment, while enhancing gender equality, women�s empowerment and equal employment for all, and the protection, survival and development of children to their full potential, including through education.
12. Each country has primary responsibility for its own economic and social development and the role of national policies, domestic resources and development strategies cannot be overemphasized. Developing countries need additional resources for sustainable development. There is a need for significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources and the effective use of financing, in order to promote sustainable development. Rio+20 affirms the commitment to reinvigorating the global partnership for sustainable development and to mobilizing the necessary resources for its implementation. The report of the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financingwill propose options for a sustainable development financing strategy. The substantive outcome of the third International Conference on Financing for Development in July 2015 will assess the progress made in the implementation of the Monterrey Consensus and the Doha Declaration. Good governance and the rule of law at the national and international levels are essential for sustained, inclusive and equitable economic growth, sustainable development and the eradication of poverty and hunger.
13. Rio+20 reaffirmed that there are different approaches, visions, models and tools available to each country, in accordance with its national circumstances and priorities, to achieve sustainable development in its three dimensions which is our overarching goal.
14. The implementation of sustainable development goals will depend on a global partnership for sustainable development with the active engagement of governments, as well as civil society, the private sector, and the United Nations system. A robust mechanism of implementation review will be essential for the success of the SDGs. The General Assembly, the ECOSOC system and the High Level Political Forum will play a key role in this regard.
15. Rio+20 reiterated the commitment to take further effective measures and actions, in conformity with international law, to remove the obstacles to the full realization of the right of self-determination of peoples living under colonial and foreign occupation, which continue to adversely affect their economic and social development as well as their environment, are incompatible with the dignity and worth of the human person and must be combated and eliminated.
16. Rio+20 reaffirmed that, in accordance with the Charter, this shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. It resolved to take further effective measures and actions, in conformity with international law, to remove obstacles and constraints, strengthen support and meet the special needs of people living in areas affected by complex humanitarian emergencies and in areas affected by terrorism.
17. In order to monitor the implementation of the SDGs, it will be important to improve the availability of and access to data and statistics disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts to support the support the monitoring of the implementation of the SDGs. There is a need to take urgent steps to improve the quality, coverage and availability of disaggregated data to ensure that no one is left behind.
18. Sustainable Development Goals are accompanied by targets and will be further elaborated through indicators focused on measurable outcomes. They are action oriented, global in nature and universally applicable. They take into account different national realities, capacities and levels of development and respect national policies and priorities. They build on the foundation laid by the MDGs, seek to complete the unfinished business of the MDGs, and respond to new challenges. These goals constitute an integrated, indivisible set of global priorities for sustainable development. Targets are defined as aspirational global targets, with each government setting its own national targets guided by the global level of ambition but taking into account national circumstances. The goals and targets integrate economic, social and environmental aspects and recognize their interlinkages in achieving sustainable development in all its dimensions.
* Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change
1.1 by 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day
1.2 by 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions
1.3 implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable
1.4 by 2030 ensure that all men and women, particularly the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership, and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology, and financial services including microfinance
1.5 by 2030 build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations, and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters
1.a. ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, including through enhanced development cooperation to provide adequate and predictable means for developing countries, in particular LDCs, to implement programmes and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions
1.b create sound policy frameworks, at national, regional and international levels, based on pro-poor and gender-sensitive development strategies to support accelerated investments in poverty eradication actions
Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture
2.1 by 2030 end hunger and ensure accessby all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round
2.2 by 2030 end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving by 2025 the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under five years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women, and older persons
2.3 by 2030 double the agricultural productivity and the incomes of small-scale food producers, particularly women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets, and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment
2.4 by 2030 ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters, and that progressively improve land and soil quality
2.5 by 2020 maintain genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants, farmed and domesticated animals and their related wild species, including through soundly managed and diversified seed and plant banks at national, regional and international levels, and ensure access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge as internationally agreed
2.a increase investment, including through enhanced international cooperation, in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development, and plant and livestock gene banks to enhance agricultural productive capacity in developing countries, in particular in least developed countries
2.b. correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets including by the parallel elimination of all forms of agricultural export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect, in accordance with the mandate of the Doha Development Round
2.c. adopt measures to ensure the proper functioning of food commodity markets and their derivatives, and facilitate timely access to market information, including on food reserves, in order to help limit extreme food price volatility
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
3.1 by 2030 reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births
3.2 by 2030 end preventable deaths of newborns and under-five children
3.3 by 2030 end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases, and other communicable diseases
3.4 by 2030 reduce by one-third pre-mature mortality from non-communicable diseases (NCDs) through prevention and treatment, and promote mental health and wellbeing
3.5 strengthen prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol
3.6 by 2020 halve global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents
3.7 by 2030 ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes
3.8 achieve universal health coverage (UHC), including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health care services, and access to safe, effective, quality, and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all
3.9 by 2030 substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water, and soil pollution and contamination
3.a strengthen implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in all countries as appropriate
3.b support research and development of vaccines and medicines for the communicable and non-communicable diseases that primarily affect developing countries, provide access to affordable essential medicines and vaccines, in accordance with the Doha Declaration which affirms the right of developing countries to use to the full the provisions in the TRIPS agreement regarding flexibilities to protect public health and, in particular, provide access to medicines for all
3.c increase substantially health financing and the recruitment, development and training and retention of the health workforce in developing countries, especially in LDCs and SIDS
3.d strengthen the capacity of all countries, particularly developing countries, for early warning, risk reduction, and management of national and global health risks
Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote life-long learning opportunities for all
4.1 by 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes
4.2 by 2030 ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education
4.3 by 2030 ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university
4.4 by 2030, increase by x% the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship
4.5 by 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, and children in vulnerable situations
4.6 by 2030 ensure that all youth and at least x% of adults, both men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy
4.7 by 2030 ensure all learners acquire knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including among others through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture�s contribution to sustainable development
4.a build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all
4.b by 2020 expand by x% globally the number of scholarships for developing countries in particular LDCs, SIDS and African countries to enrol in higher education, including vocational training, ICT, technical, engineering and scientific programmes in developed countries and other developing countries
4.c by 2030 increase by x% the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially LDCs and SIDSGoal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
5.1 end all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere
5.2 eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation
5.3 eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilations
5.4 recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work through the provision of public services, infrastructure and social protection policies, and the promotion of shared responsibility within the household and the family as nationally appropriate
5.5 ensure women�s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic, and public life
5.6 ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the ICPD and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences
5.a undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property, financial services, inheritance, and natural resources in accordance with national laws
5.b enhance the use of enabling technologies, in particular ICT, to promote women�s empowerment
5.c adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls at all levels
Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
6.1 by 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all
6.2 by 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all, and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations
6.3 by 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater, and increasing recycling and safe reuse by x% globally
6.4 by 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity, and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity
6.5 by 2030 implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate
6.6 by 2020 protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes
6.a by 2030, expand internationalcooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water and sanitation related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies
6.b support and strengthen the participation of local communities for improving water and sanitation management
Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all
7.1 by 2030 ensure universal access to affordable, reliable, and modern energy services
7.2 increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix by 2030
7.3 double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency by 2030
7.a by 2030 enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technologies, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, and advanced and cleaner fossil fuel technologies, and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technologies
7.b by 2030 expand infrastructure and upgrade technology for supplying modern and sustainable energy services for all in developing countries, particularly LDCs and SIDS
Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
8.1 sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances, and in particular at least 7% per annum GDP growth in the least-developed countries
8.2 achieve higher levels of productivity of economies through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation, including through a focus on high value added and labour-intensive sectors
8.3 promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities, decent job creation, entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and encourage formalization and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises including through access to financial services
8.4 improve progressively through 2030 global resource efficiency in consumption and production, and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation in accordance with the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production with developed countries taking the lead
8.5 by 2030 achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value
8.6 by 2020 substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training
8.7 take immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour, eradicate forced labour, and by 2025 end child labour in all its forms including recruitment and use of child soldiers
8.8 protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments of all workers, including migrant workers, particularly women migrants, and those in precarious employment
8.9 by 2030 devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism which creates jobs, promotes local culture and products
8.10 strengthen the capacity of domestic financial institutions to encourage and to expandaccess to banking, insurance and financial services for all
8.a increase Aid for Trade support for developing countries, particularly LDCs, including through the Enhanced Integrated Framework for LDCs
8.b by 2020 develop and operationalize a global strategy for youth employment and implement the ILO Global Jobs Pact
Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
9.1 develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and trans-border infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all
9.2 promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and by 2030 raise significantly industry�s share of employment and GDP in line with national circumstances, and double its share in LDCs
9.3 increase the access of small-scale industrial and other enterprises, particularly in developing countries, to financial services including affordable credit and their integration into value chains and markets
9.4 by 2030 upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes, all countries taking action in accordance with their respective capabilities
9.5 enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors in all countries, particularly developing countries, including by 2030 encouraging innovation and increasing the number of R&D workers per one million people by x% and public and private R&D spending
9.a facilitate sustainable and resilient infrastructure development in developing countries through enhanced financial, technological and technical support to African countries, LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS
9.b support domestic technology development, research and innovation in developing countries including by ensuring a conducive policy environment for inter alia industrial diversification and value addition to commodities
9.c significantly increase access to ICT and strive to provide universal and affordable access to internet in LDCs by 2020
Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
10.1 by 2030 progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40% of the population at a rate higher than the national average
10.2 by 2030 empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status
10.3 ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including through eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and actions in this regard
10.4 adopt policies especially fiscal, wage, and social protection policies and progressively achieve greater equality
10.5 improve regulation and monitoring of global financial markets and institutions and strengthen implementation of such regulations
10.6 ensure enhanced representation and voice of developing countries in decision making in global international economic and financial institutions in order to deliver more effective, credible, accountable and legitimate institutions
10.7 facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies
10.a implement the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, in accordance with WTO agreements
10.b encourage ODA and financial flows, including foreign direct investment, to states where the need is greatest, in particular LDCs, African countries, SIDS, and LLDCs, in accordance with their national plans and programmes
10.c by 2030, reduce to less than 3% the transaction costs of migrant remittances and eliminate remittance corridors with costs higher than 5%
Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
11.1 by 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services, and upgrade slums
11.2 by 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons
11.3 by 2030 enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacities for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries
11.4 strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world�s cultural and natural heritage
11.5 by 2030 significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of affected people and decrease by y% the economic losses relative to GDP caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with the focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations
11.6 by 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality, municipal and other waste management
11.7 by 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, particularly for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities
11.a support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning
11.b by 2020, increase by x% the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, develop and implement in line with the forthcoming Hyogo Framework holistic disaster risk management at all levels
11.c support least developed countries, including through financial and technical assistance, for sustainable and resilient buildings utilizing local materialsGoal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
12.1 implement the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on sustainable consumption and production (10YFP), all countries taking action, with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account the development and capabilities of developing countries
12.2 by 2030 achieve sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources
12.3 by 2030 halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer level, and reduce food losses along production and supply chains including post-harvest losses
12.4 by 2020 achieve environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle in accordance with agreed international frameworks and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment
12.5 by 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse
12.6 encourage companies, especially large and trans-national companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle
12.7 promote public procurement practices that are sustainable in accordance with national policies and priorities
12.8 by 2030 ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature
12.a support developing countries to strengthen their scientific and technological capacities to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production
12.b develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism which creates jobs, promotes local culture and products
12.c rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by removing market distortions, in accordance with national circumstances, including by restructuring taxation and phasing out those harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect their environmental impacts, taking fully into account the specific needs and conditions of developing countries and minimizing the possible adverse impacts on their development in a manner that protects the poor and the affected communities
Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts *
*Acknowledging that the UNFCCC is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change .
13.1 strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate related hazards and natural disasters in all countries
13.2 integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning
13.3 improve education, awareness raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning
13.a implement the commitment undertaken by developed country Parties to the UNFCCC to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation and fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its capitalization as soon as possible
13.b Promote mechanisms for raising capacities for effective climate change related planning and management, in LDCs, including focusing on women, youth, local and marginalized communitiesGoal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
14.1 by 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, particularly from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution
14.2 by 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration, to achieve healthy and productive oceans
14.3 minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification, including through enhanced scientific cooperation at all levels
14.4 by 2020, effectively regulate harvesting, and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans, to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible at least to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics
14.5 by 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on best available scientific information
14.6 by 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, and eliminate subsidies that contribute to IUU fishing, and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries should be an integral part of the WTO fisheries subsidies negotiation *
14.7 by 2030 increase the economic benefits to SIDS and LDCs from the sustainable use of marine resources, including through sustainable management of fisheries, aquaculture and tourism
14.a increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacities and transfer marine technology taking into account the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology, in order to improve ocean health and to enhance the contribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing countries, in particular SIDS and LDCs
14.b provide access of small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets
14.c ensure the full implementation of international law, as reflected in UNCLOS for states parties to it, including, where applicable, existing regional and international regimes for the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by their parties
Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
15.1 by 2020 ensure conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements
15.2 by 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests, and increase afforestation and reforestation by x% globally
15.3 by 2020, combat desertification, and restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land-degradation neutral world
15.4 by 2030 ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity, to enhance their capacity to provide benefits which are essential for sustainable development
15.5 take urgent and significant action to reduce degradation of natural habitat, halt the loss of biodiversity, and by 2020 protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species
15.6 ensure fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources, and promote appropriate access to genetic resources
15.7 take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna, and address both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products
15.8 by 2020 introduce measures to prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the impact of invasive alien species on land and water ecosystems, and control or eradicate the priority species
15.9 by 2020, integrate ecosystems and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes and poverty reduction strategies, and accounts
15.a mobilize and significantly increase from all sources financial resources to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems
15.b mobilize significantly resources from all sources and at all levels to finance sustainable forest management, and provide adequate incentives to developing countries to advance sustainable forest management, including for conservation and reforestation
15.c enhance global support to efforts to combat poaching and trafficking of protected species, including by increasing the capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities
Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
16.1 significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere
16.2 end abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence and torture against children
16.3 promote the rule of law at the national and international levels, and ensure equal access to justice for all
16.4 by 2030 significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen recovery and return of stolen assets, and combat all forms of organized crime
16.5 substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all its forms
16.6 develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels
16.7 ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels
16.8 broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance
16.9 by 2030 provide legal identity for all including birth registration
16.10 ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements
16.a strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacities at all levels, in particular in developing countries, for preventing violence and combating terrorism and crime
16.b promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development
Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development
17.1 strengthen domestic resource mobilization, including through international support to developing countries to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection
17.2 developed countries to implement fully their ODA commitments, including to provide 0.7% of GNI in ODA to developing countries of which 0.15-0.20% to least-developed countries
17.3 mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources
17.4 assist developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability through coordinated policies aimed at fostering debt financing, debt relief and debt restructuring, as appropriate, and address the external debt of highly indebted poor countries (HIPC) to reduce debt distress
17.5 adopt and implement investment promotion regimes for LDCs
17.6 enhance North-South, South-South and triangular regional and international cooperation on and access to science, technology and innovation, and enhance knowledge sharing on mutually agreed terms, including through improved coordination among existing mechanisms, particularly at UN level, and through a global technology facilitation mechanism when agreed
17.7 promote development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed
17.8 fully operationalize the Technology Bank and STI (Science, Technology and Innovation) capacity building mechanism for LDCs by 2017, and enhance the use of enabling technologies in particular ICT
17.9 enhance international support for implementing effective and targeted capacity building in developing countries to support national plans to implement all sustainable development goals, including through North-South, South-South, and triangular cooperation
17.10 promote a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the WTO including through the conclusion of negotiations within its Doha Development Agenda
17.11 increase significantly the exports of developing countries, in particular with a view to doubling the LDC share of global exports by 2020
17.12 realize timely implementation of duty-free, quota-free market access on a lasting basis for all least developed countries consistent with WTO decisions, including through ensuring that preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from LDCs are transparent and simple, and contribute to facilitating market access
Policy and institutional coherence
17.13 enhance global macroeconomic stability including through policy coordination and policy coherence
17.14 enhance policy coherence for sustainable development
17.15 respect each country�s policy space and leadership to establish and implement policies for poverty eradication and sustainable development
17.16 enhance the global partnership for sustainable development complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technologies and financial resources to support the achievement of sustainable development goals in all countries, particularly developing countries
17.17 encourage and promote effective public, public-private, and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships
Data, monitoring and accountability
17.18 by 2020, enhance capacity building support to developing countries, including for LDCs and SIDS, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts
17.19 by 2030, build on existing initiatives to develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement GDP, and support statistical capacity building in developing countries
* taking into account ongoing WTO negotiations and WTO Doha Development Agenda and Hong Kong Ministerial Mandate
The Needs of Inuit Offenders in Federal Correctional Facilities
This report is also available in French. Ce rapport est également disponible en français. Veuillez vous adresser à la direction de la recherche, Service Correctionnel du Canada, 340 avenue Laurier ouest, Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0P9. Should additional copies be required they can be obtained from the Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada, 340 Laurier Ave., West, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0P9.
2004 No R-142
Autumn Watson and
Correctional Service of Canada,
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami
Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association
Correctional Service of Canada
The Inuit needs project was a joint effort of Correctional Service Canada (CSC), Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) and Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association to examine the institutional and community reintegration needs of Inuit federal offenders. The research consisted of three components: interviews with 75 Inuit offenders incarcerated in federal correctional facilities across Canada; interviews with 34 family members of Inuit offenders; and interviews with 73 staff in federal correctional facilities.
Similar to the situation for First Nations and Métis people, Inuit are over-represented within the federal correctional system. Although Inuit represent about 0.1% of the Canadian population (Statistics Canada, 2001), they represent about 1% of offenders incarcerated in federal correctional facilities (approximately 99 offenders) (Correctional Service Canada, 2003a). In addition to their over-representation, the experience of Inuit, both during and after incarceration, indicates the need for targeted services and programs. Upon entry into federal institutions, Inuit are identified as "Aboriginal". Unfortunately, the use of this generic term tends to refer to the "First Nations" population. Consequently, there are minimal programs and services geared towards the specific and unique needs of Inuit inmates. Because of the lack of knowledge and/or understanding of these distinct needs, Inuit inmates are provided with programs and services that include practices and beliefs that are not part of Inuit culture or way of life. For example, although there are sweat lodges, sweet grass ceremonies, Elders, and healing programs, these programs and services are based upon, or only include, First Nations culture, and do not take into consideration the unique cultural differences between Canada's Aboriginal populations. Without some understanding of cultural differences between First Nations, Métis and Inuit cultures, the appropriate services and supports for Inuit during their incarceration will continue to be unmet. Programs and services that address Aboriginal offenders as a whole, rather than focusing on the diverse needs within each Aboriginal culture, can hamper successful reintegration of Inuit offenders back into the community.
Through the development of strong and meaningful partnerships with ITK and Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association, the CSC Research Branch and various other branches within CSC have recognized that Inuit face unique challenges within the correctional system. Through the development of this relationship, various recommendations, initiatives and projects have evolved, one being the Inuit institutional needs assessment.
To date, research available on Inuit offenders indicates that Inuit offenders may require different interventions than the programs and services designed strictly for non-Aboriginal and First Nations offenders. Therefore, it is necessary to examine in more depth what institutional programs and services are currently in place, and what services are required to ensure the safe, timely, and successful reintegration of federally sentenced Inuit offenders. The present research project attempts to answer this, by addressing the following questions:
- Do Inuit federal offenders differ from Métis and First Nations offenders?
- What are the needs of Inuit offenders when inside the institution and upon release to the community?
- What are the needs of the family members of Inuit offenders?
- What knowledge and experience do CSC institutional staff have regarding Inuit offenders?
Profile of Inuit Offenders
As with other Aboriginal offenders, differences exist between the profiles of Inuit offenders and non-Aboriginal offenders. However, some differences also exist among Inuit, Métis, and First Nations offenders. Inuit offenders tend to be young, single, have low levels of education and high unemployment, circumstances that are fairly similar to Métis and First Nations offenders. The only major differences are that a larger proportion of Inuit offenders were single and a smaller proportion unemployed at the time of admission. In terms of most serious current offence, a larger proportion of Inuit are incarcerated for sexual offences compared with Métis and First Nations offenders, and a smaller proportion are incarcerated for robbery. In addition, smaller proportions of Inuit offenders are incarcerated for drug-related and property offences than Métis offenders. Furthermore, larger proportions of Inuit than other Aboriginal offenders are rated as high risk to re-offend and high need for programming. They are rated as having "some or considerable" need in the areas of personal/emotional issues, substance abuse, criminal associates, and attitude. However, Inuit offenders tend to receive shorter sentences than Métis and First Nations offenders.
Unlike other Aboriginal offenders, in particular Métis offenders, Inuit offenders typically live in rural settings. They also tend to follow Inuit traditions, and most speak an Inuit language. However, unlike many First Nations offenders who seem to re-establish their First Nations cultural links during incarceration, Inuit offenders attachment to Inuit culture appears to diminish during incarceration, while their attachment to First Nations culture increases. This is likely because there is greater access to First Nations than Inuit culture in federal institutions. Since most Inuit offenders plan to go to Inuit communities upon release, it is unfortunate that their cultural links are weakened during incarceration.
As with other federal offenders, many Inuit offenders had difficult home environments during childhood, including exposure to violence and substance abuse in the home. As with First Nations and Métis offenders, approximately two-thirds of the Inuit offenders had been involved in the child welfare system while growing up. However, unlike many First Nations and Métis offenders, a large proportion of Inuit offenders interviewed said that they had a stable and happy childhood.
Unlike First Nations and Métis offenders, many Inuit offenders said they had little contact with their spouse or children during their incarceration. Further, any contact tended to be by telephone or letter. This is not surprising given the distance that separates most Inuit offenders from their family members. However, it indicates the difficulties that Inuit offenders face in maintaining contact with, and receiving support from, loved ones.
Needs of Inuit Offenders
Inuit offenders clearly have a broad range of criminogenic needs when entering the federal correctional system and upon release to the community. Programs in place are attempting to address these issues. A large proportion of Inuit offenders have participated in programs aimed at addressing their diverse criminogenic needs. Further, those interviewed tend to feel that the programs have been useful. However, they also note that the most useful programs were ones that were designed specifically for Inuit offenders (such as the Tupiq program, an Inuit sex-offender program). For other programs, they tended to feel that the cultural aspect was missing. It is not clear whether all programs meet Inuit offenders' cultural or spiritual needs to the same extent. Although the programs target criminogenic needs identified at intake, the offenders may not respond fully to the programs unless they are given in an appropriate cultural context and in a way that is meaningful to the lives of Inuit offenders.
Differences in offence characteristics, needs, home environment and cultural characteristics point to a need for different methods of intervention for Inuit offenders.
Needs of Family
The needs of family members of Inuit offenders are similar to the needs of family members of offenders in general. For instance, they say they need contact with the offender, financial support, emotional support, and counselling. However, because of the distance which typically separates them from the offender, it is difficult for the family members of Inuit offenders to visit. Furthermore, to make the services most effective, they need to be provided in the locations where family members live (often remote locations), and by people who understand the culture and language.
Educating staff and allowing them to acquire experience with Inuit culture is clearly an important area that requires further attention. The interviewed staff said that they possess little knowledge of Inuit culture. For instance, although 77% said they had received training about Aboriginal issues, only 15% had been given any training on Inuit issues. Furthermore, approximately three-quarters of the staff interviewed said they had no current knowledge about Inuit offenders. Information sessions for staff on Inuit culture could aid in fostering a better understanding of differences between Inuit offenders and other Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders.
It would also be beneficial to develop recruitment and retention strategies for Inuit staff, so that Inuit offenders have access to Inuit staff, facilitators, and Elders. Inuit staff know the offenders' culture, understand their way of life in the north, may speak their dialect, and maintain a host of community links. All of these characteristics would better serve Inuit offenders.
It seems clear from the research that Inuit-specific programs and services would be beneficial for Inuit offenders. Although Inuit represent a very small proportion of the offender population served by CSC, they are substantially over-represented, as is also the case with Métis and First Nations offenders. Furthermore, a substantially larger proportion of Inuit offenders are incarcerated for sexual offences compared with other offender groups, indicating that a program focusing on sexual offending is particularly necessary for Inuit offenders. Offenders, family members and staff all noted the need for Inuit-specific programs. CSC currently has an Inuit-specific program in place for sex offenders at Fenbrook Institution. The "Tupiq" program follows universally accepted relapse prevention theory, but integrates Inuit culture by incorporating Inuit delivery staff, healing therapy and cultural references. Another service currently available at Fenbrook Institution is a carving shack that allows Inuit offenders to learn carving skills that they can utilize upon release.
The journey of federally sentenced Inuit offenders is fraught with challenges that cannot be overcome until some of the obvious obstacles to their rehabilitation are addressed. CSC needs to better understand Inuit culture and communities in order to develop more effective strategies for reintegrating Inuit offenders back into their communities.
This project was made possible through the combined efforts of a working group comprised of representatives from the Correctional Service of Canada (Shelley Trevethan, John-Patrick Moore, Leesie Naqitarvik), as well as representatives from Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (Valerie Nicholls, Autumn Watson) and Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association (Daisy Saunders). The working group members helped to guide the research and provided valuable expertise and advice on the project. In addition, the National Inuit Justice and Corrections Technical Working Group, comprised of representatives from Nunavut (Kivalliq, Kitikmeot and Qikiqtani Inuit Associations), Labrador (Labrador Inuit Association), Nunavik (Makivik Corporation) and Inuvialuit (Inuvialuit Regional Corporation) provided valuable comments on the approach, instruments and report.
This project was partly funded by the Aboriginal Initiatives Branch of CSC. In particular, the authors would like to thank Lisa Allgaier and Paul Sonnichsen for their support and assistance in initiating this project.
A special thanks to other CSC staff who contributed to this project, including Amey Bell, Nicole Crutcher, Nicole Mulligan, Michael Jeffery, Vicki Brunet and Collette Cousineau. The authors would also like to thank outside contractors who contributed to this survey: Jeela Palluq, Pitsula Akavak and Ellen Hamilton — qujannamiik angijumik.
The authors would also like to thank the staff from the federal institutions in the Atlantic region (Dorchester Penitentiary), Ontario region (Collins Bay, Fenbrook, Joyceville, Kingston Penitentiary, Millhaven Assessment Unit, and Regional Treatment Centre), Quebec region (La Macaza) and Prairie region (Bowden, Drumheller, Regional Psychiatric Centre, and Saskatchewan Penitentiary) for all of their assistance. This project could not have been completed successfully without the help of the Assistant Wardens of Correctional Programs, the Inuit/Native liaison officers, Healers and other staff. Furthermore, we would like to thank the institutional staff interviewed for discussing their experiences and providing valuable insight. Thank you to our contacts in Regional Headquarters.
A great appreciation goes to the family members who took the time to take part in the interviews. Without your input, readers would not have a complete picture of the issues facing families of Inuit offenders. Thank you for your thoughts, concerns and openness.
Finally, we would like to thank the Inuit offenders who took the time to be interviewed on sensitive aspects of their lives. Without your participation, this survey would not have been possible — qujannamiik angijumik. We appreciate your candour and eagerness to tell us about your institutional and community needs.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
In May, in an Arctic community, all is very quiet. It seems that every family with a skidoo or dog-team has piled onto a qamutik (or sled) and is bouncing on caribou skin mattresses over the rough sea ice as they venture out to hunt seals or jig for fish. After midnight, with the sun barely grazing the horizon, a red sky washes from sunset to sunrise, reflected on the vast sparkling expanse of frozen ocean. Out on the ice, several skidoos have stopped; people gather around one of the qamutiks where a camp stove roars and tea boils. Laughing children play tag to warm up, while the adults share jokes and anecdotes. One of the hunters offers fresh seal meat; there may be talk of a person they all know, someone who has been away a long time, who had trouble a while back, but who is finally coming home. One could almost believe that very little has changed in this place — Inuit still travel, hunt and camp with the seasons, and in so many ways their culture endures. This is a good thing: never have they needed their culture more. Never has their culture been under such great attack, as Canadian Inuit face the devastating effects that social and cultural upheaval has wrought (Hamilton, 2003).
Due to the uniqueness of the Inuit population in Canada, Inuit offenders face distinct issues and challenges that may be quite different from other Aboriginal, as well as non-Aboriginal offenders. To gain a better understanding of Inuit culture, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) developed strong and meaningful partnerships with Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) and Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association. This partnership has helped to create various recommendations, initiatives and projects relating to Inuit offenders. One of these initiatives is this Inuit institutional needs assessment, the results of which are presented in this report.
This section provides an overview of Inuit communities across the Arctic. This review of communities located thousands of miles away is meant to allow the reader to glance into the Arctic and begin to grasp some of the challenges that Inuit and their respective communities face daily in relation to corrections.
For more than four thousand years, Inuit — a founding people of what is now Canada — have occupied the Arctic land and waters from the Mackenzie Delta in the west to the Labrador coast in the east and from Hudson's Bay Coast to the islands of the High Arctic. Thule Inuit are the ancestors of today's Canadian Inuit. Before Europeans arrived, Inuit handcrafted their own tools from resources found on the land and in the animals they harvested. This way of life was practiced for thousands of years until the arrival of European explorers, whalers, traders and finally, settlers, who brought a new world and indeed, a new way of life with them (ITK, 2003a).
According to the Census of Population (Statistics Canada, 2001), of the 976,305 people who identified themselves as Aboriginal in 2001, about 5% (45,070) reported that they were Inuit. Canadian Inuit currently occupy Canada’s northern provinces and territories in 53 distinct Inuit communities. The community populations range from approximately 100 in Grise Fiord to 5,000 in Iqaluit. According to Statistics Canada, out of the total Inuit population Nunavutmiut make up 50%, Nunavummiut, 21%, Labradormiut, 10% and Inuvialuit, 9%. The remaining 10% are scattered throughout Ontario and the rest of Canada.
Inuit are located in four regions: Nunatsiavut (Labrador), Inuvialuit (Northwest Territories), Nunavik (Quebec) and the newly established territory of Nunavut.
The Inuit region of Labrador is called Nunatsiavut. Approximately 4,500 Inuit live along the Labrador coast in five communities. Nain, with a population of 1,200, is the biggest Inuit community in Labrador and is also the administrative centre. Land and sea wildlife harvesting continues to be the main diet and often the mainstay of Labrador's economy (ITK, 2003a). The Labrador Inuit Association (LIA) is a non-profit organization that was formed in 1973 and incorporated under Newfoundland law in 1975 (Labrador Inuit Association, 2003). In 2001, LIA signed an Agreement in Principle with the governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador for a comprehensive land claim. LIA represents all Nunatsiavut Inuit.
The Inuvialuit region comprises the north-western part of the Northwest Territories. It is home to approximately 3,900 Inuit who live among six of the western Arctic communities, the largest regional centre being Inuvik. In 1984, the Inuvialuit negotiated a comprehensive land claims settlement with the Government of Canada, marking a milestone in the Northwest Territories. The Inuvialuit Final Agreement described approximately 1.2 million square kilometres of surface ownership, including certain mineral, petroleum and natural gas rights (Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, 2003). Hunting, fishing, and trapping carry on the traditional economy of the Inuvialuit, while mineral and gas exploitation, tourism, arts, and crafts are currently featured in the larger regional centres. The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC) was established in 1985 as part of the Inuvialuit land claim. IRC represents all Inuvialuit.
The area in northern Quebec inhabited by Inuit is known as Nunavik (meaning "a place to live"). Nunavik covers more than 560,000 square kilometres and is home to approximately 9,340 Inuit. The largest community in the region is Kuujjuaq, with a population of approximately 1,500. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Quebec government gradually took over the various services that had originally been supplied by the federal government. At the same time, the Inuit themselves were developing a yearning to rediscover their identity, and to take charge of their own destiny once more. These parallel developments culminated in 1975 in the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement which gave the Inuit extensive responsibilities in the areas of economic and social development, education, the environment, and territorial management (Avataq Cultural Institute, 2003). Traditional hunting and fishing is a crucial food source for the Inuit of Nunavik. Transportation and service industries, tourism and mining are important components of the local economy (ITK, 2003a). Makivik Corporation was established in 1978 after the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Makivik Corporation represents all Nunavummiut in the 14 communities along the Ungava Bay, Hudson's Straight, and Hudson's Bay coasts.
On April 1, 1999, Nunavut became Canada’s third and newest territory. The area, once part of the Northwest Territories, is one-fifth of Canada's landmass. Some 25,000 Inuit reside in 26 communities, with Iqaluit as the capital. Nunavut is divided into three regions: Qikiqtaaluk (Baffin) in the east, Kivalliq (Keewatin) in the central Arctic along the western coast of Hudson's Bay, and Kitikmeot in the west. The official language of the government is Inuktitut, although French, English, and Inuinnaqtun are also recognized and widely used (ITK 2003a). Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated was established in 1992 as part of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, and represents all Nunavumiut.
Many Inuit still live off the land, following the traditional Inuit practices of hunting, trapping, and fishing. Increasingly, carving, jewellery making, and printmaking are becoming a larger sustainable economic sector throughout much of the north.
The way of life in the north is significantly different than in the south. Some southern Canadians, through their television sets, have seen glimpses of the rugged yet beautiful landscape that expands over the Arctic, and the wildlife that roams its surface. Soft lichen, arctic flowers, and plants extend over the tundra — florae that offer traditional medicines, heat for cooking, snacks for eating, flavour for tea, and beauty for the soul. Selected few have had the opportunity to experience 24 hours of daylight/darkness and extreme temperatures that accompany seasonal change. One's eyes cannot open wide enough to take in the vastness of land and sea that Canada's Arctic has to offer — just imagine no obstacles in your view above the tree line.
Some of the other unique differences and challenges of living life in the north include community structure, transportation systems, housing and the economy.
In the four regions, Inuit communities are relatively small (with the exception of regional centres). Each community has a municipal building, an "everything" store (groceries, hardware, clothing, etc.), a school, an arena, a police station, and a health centre.
The airport and loading dock are two of the most vital and important features of each Inuit community. The communities rely heavily on scheduled air services for regular supplies and passenger travel. During the summer months, construction material, bulk goods, and heavy machinery are delivered by sealift. High freight rates result in increased prices at local stores. Few communities have road access to southern points, or even to neighbouring villages. There are, however, roads in and around each community. Most businesses and some families own vehicles such as vans or trucks, or the occasional car with which to drive around town. More people — particularly those in the smaller communities — rely on snowmobiles in winter and ATVs in the summer, as they are more versatile and travel off-road as well (ITK, 2003a).
Housing is a big concern in the Arctic. In most communities, housing is provided and maintained by regional and federal governments. The high cost of living, combined with high unemployment rates, force Inuit to depend on public housing. Inuit usually do not have a choice over what type of house they want to live in; houses are simply allocated based on the size of the family. Most communities have long waiting lists for housing, so there are often three generations living under the same roof (ITK, 2003a). Using 1996 Census data, an ITK report indicated the need for 8,800 new social housing units for the 53 Inuit communities in Canada (Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, 2001). According to the most recent Census, the Inuit population increased from 40,220 in 1996 to 45,070 in 2001. With an increase of 12% in population over five years and without a corresponding increase in social housing construction, it is clear that the housing crisis still exists (ITK, 2003b).
Unemployment rates in Inuit communities have always been high. As with housing and roads, jobs have also been in high demand, but in short supply. From the establishment of government agencies and industries in the North up until the 1990s, employees were imported from outside the Arctic to deliver programs and services to Inuit (ITK, 2003a).
Canada’s Inuit are survivors in the truest sense of the word: a people who have thrived for generations in the harshest climate on earth, who have successfully negotiated advanced land claims agreements, and who are committed to preserving their unique culture — including one of the last remaining Aboriginal languages in a modern world that seems bent on cultural homogeneity. More than 50 Canadian Inuit communities are huddled on the shores of the Arctic Ocean, spanning the width of this country and sharing a common culture, lifestyle, and history. But today, it is not the cold, the wind or the brutal uncertainty of nature threatening their survival; it is the spectre of dire social problems hitherto unfathomable that presents itself as the greatest challenge yet to Canada’s Inuit. The future promise for Inuit communities lies in the hope and belief that today’s generation will be able to summon the emotional strength, wisdom, and tenacity of their ancestors, those masters of culture and of survival.
During most of the 1900s, Inuit communities were small, seasonal, family-based camps scattered across the vast expanse of the Arctic, where the land and sea provided a hard-won lifestyle of subsistence. Early 18th century explorers and whaling expeditions provided the first contact between the Inuit and modern European cultures, but it was not until the mid-20th century that these interactions forever changed the structure of Inuit society. In the late 1950s and 1960s, the federal government pursued an aggressive policy to centralize Canadian Inuit into permanent communities, establishing federal day schools and registering Inuit as citizens, effectively bringing an end to centuries of nomadic life. When faced with losing their children to student residences, most Inuit families chose to move into the government-run communities.
There were many reasons why life in these communities made sense to a northern hunting people whose lives faced the constant threat of starvation and sickness. The community provided a social lifeline that included subsidized housing, health care, and the ready availability of food, supplies or even financial assistance. It meant education for the young, a chance at waged employment, and easy access to modern-day amenities. However, life in settled communities also meant the replacement of social structures, institutions, and a lifestyle that had served Inuit well for thousands of years. It further exposed them to alcohol, disease, and dietary changes among other things, and resulted in a loss of cultural values and creation of dependency on — and control by — southern-based interests including the federal government and commercial enterprises.
Like elsewhere in Canada, Inuit community life is both simple and very complex, but is fundamentally based on relationships between people. It is about home, education, health, justice, and support to families and individuals. It is about work and leisure, and finding value in life. It is about communicating and getting along with others. Inuit communities now face the added challenge of providing these opportunities in a time of transition, a time of the rebuilding of institutions and services after the uprooting of traditional systems that supported their society for centuries. In addition to the high rate of crime and incarceration, the resulting raft of problems due to the social breakdown of traditional Inuit society includes youth suicide, teen pregnancy, learning disabilities, family violence, school dropouts, infant mortality, addictions — all staggering in scope compared with the relatively few formal support systems, the housing crisis and high unemployment rates.
One of the most notable features of Inuit communities is the large majority of youth. Sixty percent of the Inuit population is under 25, and there is expected to be a 35% population increase of youth and young adults aged 12 to 24 by the year 2006. This factor, at least in part, helps to explain the higher per capita crime rates in Inuit communities; the overall decrease in crimes in Canada since 1991 is related to a low growth rate of what is considered a high-risk age group. Statistically, most violent crimes in Canada are committed by people under the age of 30. If the growth rate is any indication, crime rates in Inuit communities can be expected to rise.
Being caught between traditional Inuit and mainstream Canadian expectations of them as youth has created unique challenges. Youth are experiencing a wide variety of physical, mental, social and emotional problems stemming from a variety of sources such as lack of recreational facilities, low self-esteem and depression, suicide risk, alcohol and substance abuse, and experiences of violence. Combined with geographic isolation and a lack of positive diversions and activities in the settlements, these factors create an environment in which the transition to adulthood holds few incentives for youth (Griffiths, Zellerer, Wood & Saville, 1995).
Inuit cherish their youth, Elders, and the generation between them. Elders are given the utmost respect in any community because of their knowledge and wisdom, which they in turn teach to younger generations. Their continuous contribution has kept the Inuit tradition alive (ITK, 2003a).
While statistics can help us to identify problems, they cannot accurately depict a community with all its nuances — the boisterous feasts and gatherings, the radio call-in shows where stories and jokes are exchanged in Inuktitut, the friendly gatherings on the beach as successful hunters proudly share fresh muktaaq, the voices of elders softly intoning centuries-old legends, the smiling children riding bikes on the sea ice, a crowd clad in colourful, hand-sewn parkas, the laughter of women scraping sealskins. Statistics cannot depict the pride, the joy and the heroism of living in an infinitely beautiful Arctic land.
It is clear that Aboriginal persons are over-represented within the criminal justice system (e.g., Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996; Solicitor General of Canada, 1988; Task Force on the Criminal Justice System and its Impact on the Indian and Métis People of Alberta, 1991; Trevethan, Moore & Rastin, 2002; Trevethan, Tremblay & Carter, 2000). As reported by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996) "Reports and inquiries. have not only confirmed the fact of over-representation [of Aboriginal offenders in the criminal justice system] but, most alarmingly, have demonstrated that the problem is getting worse, not better."
The January 2001 Speech from the Throne illustrates the priority of addressing issues facing Aboriginal people. It says:
.it is a tragic reality that too many Aboriginal people are finding themselves in conflict with the law. Canada must take the measures needed to significantly reduce the percentage of Aboriginal people entering the criminal justice system, so that within a generation it is no higher than the Canadian average
(Government of Canada, 2001).
Similar to the situation for First Nations and Métis, Inuit are over-represented within the federal correctional system. Although Inuit represent about 0.1% of the Canadian population (approximately 45,070 people) (Statistics Canada, 2001), they represent about 1% of offenders incarcerated in federal correctional facilities (approximately 99 offenders) (Correctional Service Canada, 2003a). In addition to their over-representation, the experience of Inuit, both during and after incarceration, indicates the need for targeted services and programs (Evans, Hann & Nuffield, 1998; Faulkner, 1989; Nunavut Corrections Planning Committee, 1999). Upon entry into federal institutions, Inuit are typically identified as "Aboriginal". Unfortunately, the use of this generic term tends to refer to the First Nations population. Consequently, there are minimal programs and services geared towards the specific and unique needs of Inuit inmates. According to a 1988 report of the Task Force on Aboriginal Peoples in Federal Corrections:
Inuit offenders are in a unique, and very difficult situation. There are no Inuit-specific programs available for them within the institutions and their limited knowledge and understanding of either official language of Canada prevents them from participating in other programs that are available. Incarceration requires the Inuit to adapt to a situation that is difficult for any offender, but which is completely foreign to their experience. They must learn to live within a closed environment, in a different climate, hearing a strange language and eating unfamiliar foods. Contact with their families is very difficult to maintain, and is thus usually non-existent
(Solicitor General of Canada, 1988).
Today, the circumstances for Inuit offenders have not changed remarkably. There are limited liaison and Elder support services for Inuit offenders, and no Inuktitut-speaking institutional or community parole officers (CSC, 2003b). There are two programs that have focused specifically on Inuit offenders — a sex offender and a substance abuse program. Due to the lack of knowledge and/or understanding of unique needs, many Inuit inmates are provided with programs and services that include practices and beliefs that are not part of Inuit culture and way of life. For example, although there are sweat lodges, sweet grass ceremonies, Elders, and healing programs, these programs and services are based upon, or only include, First Nation culture, and do not take into consideration the unique cultural differences between Canada's Aboriginal populations. Without some understanding of cultural differences between First Nations, Métis and Inuit cultures, the appropriate services and supports for Inuit during their incarceration will continue to be unmet. Programs and services that address Aboriginal offenders as a whole, rather than focusing on the diverse needs within each Aboriginal culture, can hamper successful reintegration back into the community.
Although the differences have not been extensively examined, a few studies have indicated that Inuit offenders differ from First Nations and Métis offenders (Faulkner, 1989; Moore, 2002; Motiuk & Nafekh, 2000). The differences are reflected in the offences for which they are incarcerated and their criminogenic needs at intake into federal correctional facilities. Motiuk and Nafekh (2000) found significant differences between Métis, First Nations, Inuit and non-Aboriginal offenders on the offences they were incarcerated for, as well as their needs upon admission. Moore (2002) found that a larger proportion of Inuit offenders are incarcerated for sex offences. They are also more often rated as having high need for intervention, particularly in the areas of personal/emotional orientation, substance abuse, and marital/family issues.
According to Hamilton (2003), the Inuit offender population is a remarkably consistent group in terms of criminal profile and correctional needs. The vast majority of Inuit offenders are from small Arctic communities to which they plan to return, and most speak Inuktitut as a first language. They are usually incarcerated for violent offences, predominantly sexual offences, and most are at risk of family violence. They have similar backgrounds, where exacerbating factors include substance abuse, a criminal past, violence in the home, and failure to complete high school. Raised in dysfunctional homes, many Inuit offenders did not have the full benefits of their culture when growing up, a deficit that can only be addressed by programming that incorporates pro-social Inuit values and lifestyle. Culturally appropriate intervention at all levels, including at the level of the federal corrections system, is imperative as a means of breaking the patterns of abuse and violence that perpetuate crime.
Most Inuit offenders plan to return to their communities where there currently is a dearth of structured relapse prevention programs and services. However, Inuit communities have repeatedly stated in public consultations that they welcome the opportunity to take a more active role in justice, corrections, and rehabilitation. Most have justice committees, partly funded by Justice Canada and the provincial or territorial governments, that are willing to advise and assist government agencies with crime prevention and enforcement. In addition, Inuit communities have a wealth of resources in the individuals who are active in supporting healthy lifestyles — people such as Elders, healers, counsellors, educators, health professionals, and social workers. Moreover, national Inuit organizations and regional governments are working steadfastly at identifying the root causes of crime and developing preventative initiatives. With a co-ordinated effort, relapse-prevention resources unique to Inuit communities are within reach, and are likely the most effective means to safely reintegrate federal Inuit offenders into their communities.
To date, research indicates that Inuit offenders may require different interventions than those designed for non-Aboriginal and First Nations offenders. Therefore, it is necessary to examine what programs and services are in place, and what services are required that will ensure the safe, timely, and successful reintegration of federally-sentenced Inuit offenders.
This project was a joint effort of CSC, ITK and Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association, in order to further examine the institutional and community reintegration needs of Inuit federal offenders. This approach consisted of three components: interviews with Inuit offenders incarcerated in federal correctional facilities across Canada, interviews with family members of Inuit offenders and interviews with staff in federal correctional facilities. The major research questions for this study include:
- Do Inuit federal offenders differ from Métis and First Nations offenders?
- What are the needs of Inuit offenders when inside the institution and upon release to the community?
- What are the needs of the family members of Inuit offenders?
- What knowledge and experience do CSC institutional staff have regarding Inuit offenders?
This information is meant to help CSC and Inuit organizations better understand how to work with Inuit offenders and their communities, to begin the successful journey of reintegration home. It may provide information leading to different strategies for dealing with Inuit offenders while incarcerated. Further, it may provide information on the best approach for implementing Sections 81 and 84 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) for Inuit offenders. The purpose of these sections of the CCRA is to aid Aboriginal offenders in their successful reintegration by using traditional healing methods. Information from this project could lead to a second phase that would target specific communities and examine what services are available for Inuit offenders.
This project is a descriptive examination of Inuit offenders in federal institutions across Canada. In order to gather the necessary information, the following data sources were utilized:
- offender files
- interviews with offenders
- interviews with family members of offenders
- interviews with federal institutional staff
A review of offender case files, using CSC's Offender Management System (OMS), was conducted to examine the socio-demographic characteristics of the offenders, current offence, criminal history, and static and dynamic factors (see Appendix B for a list of variables examined). This information was primarily gathered through 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.
A comparison between Inuit and other Aboriginal offenders was undertaken in order to indicate differences between them. Information on non-Aboriginal offenders was included to provide context.
Interviews with federal Inuit offenders provided more extensive information than was available through offender case files. In particular, interviews provided some personal information not available in case files, and allowed for more in-depth discussions about the needs of offenders. An interview tool was developed in consultation with a steering committee.
Interview questions were designed to examine seven key areas: background information on the offender, childhood experiences, early involvement in crime, current relationship with family, culture, correctional programs and work; and needs. The structured interviews included both closed and open-ended questions. The interview questions are included in Appendix C. Respondents were interviewed individually, primarily by two Inuk interviewers — one hired by CSC and one by ITK2.
The sample for this study consisted of male and female offenders incarcerated at federal institutions across Canada. All Inuit offenders who were "on-count" in each institution at the time of the study were asked to participate. Of the approximately 99 Inuit offenders in federal correctional facilities at the time, 75 were interviewed. Only three Inuit offenders declined to be interviewed. The interview took anywhere from 40 minutes to 2 hours to complete, depending on the amount of information provided. An average interview took about 1 hour.
Interviews were conducted in all regions except the Pacific. At the time of the survey, only one Inuk inmate was identified in the Pacific and the cost to travel was too extensive to merit the inclusion. The total sample included 73 Inuit males and 2 Inuit females. The following indicates the breakdown of interviews conducted at each institution:
|Dorchester Penitentiary, New Brunswick||Med||11|
|La Macaza Institution, Quebec||Med||12|
|Fenbrook Institution, Ontario||Med||26|
|Kingston Penitentiary, Ontario||Med||2|
|Millhaven Assessment Unit, Ontario||Max||3|
|Collins Bay Institution, Ontario||Med||1|
|Joyceville Institution, Ontario||Med||1|
|Regional Treatment Centre, Ontario||Max||4|
|Saskatchewan Penitentiary, Saskatchewan||Med||1|
|Regional Psychiatric Centre, Saskatchewan||Multi||3 Male|
|Drumheller Institution, Alberta||Med||5|
|Bowden Institution, Alberta||Med||4|
Each of the offenders who were interviewed was asked to provide the name of one or more family members with whom they have maintained contact and that they felt comfortable with us contacting. A total of 117 contacts were identified. Those who did not meet the criteria (e.g., non-family members) were removed from the contact list. Furthermore, it was decided that only one family member per offender would be contacted for an interview.
A structured interview was developed for family members of the Inuit offenders who were interviewed. Interview questions examined four key areas: background, relationship to offender, offender needs, and family needs. The structured interviews included both closed and open-ended questions. The interview questions are included in Appendix D.
The family members were contacted by telephone and asked if they were willing to be interviewed for the project. If they were willing to participate, they were asked if they were comfortable doing the interview by telephone. Thirty-four family members were interviewed, 27 by phone and 7 in person. Interviews took anywhere from 30 minutes to 1½ hours to complete, depending on the amount of information provided. An average interview took about 1 hour to complete.
The largest proportion of family members interviewed were from Nunavut (56%), followed by the Northwest Territories (18%), Quebec, (12%), Newfoundland and Labrador (9%) and other provinces (6%). All family members interviewed were Inuit. About two-thirds (65%) were female. Twelve of the family members were siblings, two were spouses/common-law partners, eight were mothers, five were fathers, four were nephews, and three were uncles.
In addition to interviews with Inuit offenders and family members, structured interviews were conducted with 65 parole officers from the federal institutions where Inuit offenders were interviewed. A random sample of parole officers was chosen, without regard to whether or not they were knowledgeable about Inuit culture. Interview questions examined four key areas: professional and educational background, cultural diversity, offender needs and programs, and family needs. The structured interviews included both closed and open-ended questions. The interview questions are included in Appendix E.
Interviews with parole officers were conducted in the following regions: Atlantic (Dorchester Penitentiary); Quebec (La Macaza Institution); Ontario (Collins Bay Institution, Fenbrook Institution, Joyceville Institution, Kingston Penitentiary, Millhaven Assessment Unit, Regional Treatment Centre); and Prairie (Bowden Institution, Drumheller Institution, Saskatchewan Penitentiary - Medium, Regional Psychiatric Centre). Only one Inuk inmate was identified in the Pacific region at the time of the survey; therefore, because of funding restraints, it was decided not to conduct interviews with staff.
About one-half (55%) of the parole officers interviewed were female, but none of them were Inuit. More than two-thirds of the respondents (69%) have worked at CSC for 5 years or more.
In addition to interviews with parole officers, telephone interviews were also conducted with eight CSC staff who have contact with Inuit offenders on a regular basis and are knowledgeable about issues facing Inuit offenders (see Appendix F). This included Inuit/native liaison officers, healers, psychologists and other staff who have worked with Inuit offenders. It was felt that these key informants would have first-hand knowledge of the needs of Inuit offenders and would have important information to contribute.
Interviews took anywhere from 30 minutes to 3 hours to complete, with an average interview taking about 1½ hours.
The project began with the creation of a steering committee, composed of representatives from the Research Branch of CSC, ITK and Pauktuutit. An Inuk staff-member from CSC and an Inuk contractor hired by ITK conducted the interviews. Following initial meetings with the steering committee, a work plan and interview instruments were prepared and agreed upon by the steering committee. The work plan and interview instruments were then reviewed by the National Inuit Technical Working Group on Justice and Corrections, as well as other persons within CSC.
Each of the five CSC regional Aboriginal administrators was contacted with regard to the project. They, in turn, contacted the Warden of each institution to discuss the research project and establish an appropriate contact person in order to proceed with the study. The assigned contact person for each institution (e.g., Assistant Warden of Correctional Programming, Inuit/Native Liaison, etc.) was then contacted in order to set up interview dates and to organize any information sessions that they felt should take place prior to the interviews. The project targeted institutions with larger proportions of Inuit offenders.
Interviews with offenders were conducted in the institutions. Respondents were advised that the questions may be sensitive, and that services were available to them in the institution if they wanted to speak to someone following the interview. Interviews were conducted either in Inuktitut or in English, depending on the respondent's preference. In total, 51 of the 75 respondents chose to be interviewed in Inuktitut.
Interviews were conducted with staff in the institutions during the same time period as the interviews with offenders. All of the interviews with parole officers were conducted in English. The interviews with the eight CSC staff who were knowledgeable about Inuit offenders were conducted later by telephone, and five of these eight interviews were conducted in Inuktitut.
Names of family members were gathered from the offender interviews. It was felt that, as with offenders, family members may want support following the interview. Therefore, in all communities where family members were to be interviewed, support resources were identified and available in the event that a family member required additional support following the interview. Family members were then contacted and interviews were conducted. Interviews were conducted in Inuktitut or in English, depending on the language the respondent preferred. Thirty of the 34 family members chose to be interviewed in Inuktitut.
The interviews were sent to CSC for data input. Open-ended questions were examined and, where appropriate, themes were developed and coded for analysis. Once a dataset was prepared, analyses were conducted to address the research questions.
As previously described, the study consisted of interviews with 75 Inuit offenders incarcerated in federal institutions across Canada, 34 family members and 73 staff members of federal correctional facilities. The following describes the specific analyses examining the research questions described earlier. Appendix A contains all tables referred to in the report.
Profile of Inuit Offenders
Using data from a one-day snapshot of offenders incarcerated in federal correctional facilities in Canada, an examination of the profiles of Inuit offenders was undertaken (CSC, 2003a). They were also compared to other Métis and First Nations offenders in federal correctional facilities. For information purposes, data on non-Aboriginal offenders is also included.
In January 2003, there were 99 Inuit offenders incarcerated in federal correctional facilities in Canada. They comprise less than 1% of the entire federally incarcerated offender population. As seen in the table below, the largest number of Inuit offenders are incarcerated in the Ontario region, primarily at Fenbrook Institution. This is a deliberate result based on CSC's decision to house most Inuit offenders in one institution, in order to better provide Inuit-specific services.
|Labrador Correctional Centre||Minimum||1||1%|
|Quebec||Regional Reception Centre (Quebec)||Maximum||2||2%|
|La Macaza Institution||Medium||13||13%|
|Ontario||Regional Treatment Centre (Ontario)||Maximum||2||2%|
|Millhaven Assessment Unit||Maximum||1||1%|
|Collins Bay Institution||Medium||1||1%|
|Baffin Correctional Centre||Multi||6||6%|
|Grande Cache Institution||Minimum||1||1%|
|Stan Daniels Healing Centre||Minimum||1||1%|
|Regional Psychiatric Centre (Prairies)||Multi||3||3%|
|Yellowknife Correctional Centre||Multi||1||1%|
|Edmonton Parole Office||–||2||2%|
|NWT Parole Office||–||1||1%|
Although differences exist between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders, Inuit offenders and other Aboriginal offenders tend to have fairly similar socio-demographic characteristics.
As illustrated in Figure 1, no significant differences exist between Inuit, Métis and First Nations offenders on gender or age for the current admission to the federal correctional facility. Ninety-eight percent of Inuit offenders, and 96% of Métis and First Nations offenders, were men (see also Table 1). On average, Inuit offenders were 32 years of age at the time of the current admission, and Métis and First Nations offenders were 31. However, a larger proportion of Inuit offenders were single at the time of admission to federal custody (69% versus 51% for Métis and 54% for First Nations offenders).
Although a larger proportion of Inuit than Métis or First Nations offenders had not completed high school upon admission to the institution (94% compared with 87% and 89%, respectively), these differences were not significant. Interestingly, a smaller proportion of Inuit offenders were unemployed at the time of arrest (65%) compared with Métis and First Nations offenders (both 77%).
As illustrated in Figure 2, the most serious offence for which the majority of Inuit offenders were currently incarcerated was sexual assault (see also Table 2). More than one-half (52%) of Inuit offenders were currently incarcerated for a sexual assault, compared with 18% of First Nations and 11% of Métis offenders. A significantly smaller proportion of Inuit offenders were currently incarcerated for robbery offences (6% compared with 20% for First Nations and 29% for Métis offenders). Further, compared with Métis offenders, significantly smaller proportions of Inuit were currently incarcerated for drug-related (0% versus 4%) and property offences (3% versus 9%).
The mean aggregate sentence for Inuit offenders was 4.9 years. This was less than that for Métis (6.0 years) and First Nations (5.3 years) offenders3. Fifteen percent of Inuit offenders were currently serving life sentences; this was not significantly different than First Nations and Métis offenders (20% and 21%, respectively).
Although Aboriginal offenders generally tend to have more extensive criminal histories than non-Aboriginal offenders, Inuit offenders had fairly similar criminal histories as Métis and First Nations offenders (see Table 3). One difference was that a smaller proportion of Inuit offenders had escape/attempted escape/unlawfully at large on their record (16%, compared with 36% of Métis and 33% of First Nations offenders).
Static and dynamic factors
A larger proportion of Inuit than Métis offenders were rated high risk to re-offend (83% versus 70%) (Table 4). Although a larger proportion of Inuit than First Nations offenders were rated high risk to re-offend (83% versus 76%), the difference was not significant. The higher rating on risk for Inuit offenders is primarily the result of the nature of the offences for which they are incarcerated (sexual offences).
Overall, Inuit offenders are rated as having a higher need for programming than Métis and First Nations offenders at the time of admission to the federal correctional facility. Ninety-two percent of Inuit offenders were rated as having a high need for programming overall, compared with 78% of Métis offenders and 82% of First Nations offenders.
As illustrated in Figure 3, Inuit offenders have different needs for programming than other Aboriginal offenders. A larger proportion of Inuit than Métis offenders had some or considerable need in the area of marital/family issues (67% versus 56%). However, a smaller proportion of Inuit than Métis and First Nations offenders were rated as having some or considerable need in social interaction/associates (46% versus 73% and 72%, respectively). Further, a smaller proportion of Inuit than First Nations offenders were rated as having some or considerable need in the area of employment (57% versus 72%).
No significant differences were found between Inuit, Métis, and First Nations offenders on the rated level of security at time of admission. Further, no significant differences emerged among these three groups on motivation for intervention. However, a significantly smaller proportion of Inuit offenders were considered to have high reintegration potential at time of intake to federal custody, compared with Métis and First Nations offenders (4% versus 15% and 13%, respectively).
Culture and Family Background
Additional background information was gathered through the interviews with the Inuit offenders. Most of the Inuit offenders (91%) said that they understand or speak an Inuit language (Table 5). Furthermore, 85% said they were attached to Inuit culture during adulthood prior to incarceration. However, attachment to Inuit culture appears to diminish during incarceration; fewer than one-half (47%) said that they were attached to Inuit culture while incarcerated in the institution. Similarly, fewer than one-half (45%) said that they currently participate in Inuit activities, such as carving and feasts. This could be the result of the lack of Inuit-specific activities scheduled in the facilities in which they are located. In contrast, although only 24% of the Inuit offenders said that they were attached to First Nations' culture prior to their incarceration, this increased to 41% during incarceration. It is possible that attachment to First Nations culture increased during the time they were incarcerated because they did not have access to Inuit culture.
The largest proportion of the Inuit offenders grew up in Nunavut (56%), followed by Quebec (Nunavik) (16%), Newfoundland and Labrador (15%), and the Northwest Territories (13%). About one-half (46%) of the respondents said that they grew up in a small town. A further 29% grew up in a large or small village or hamlet, and 19% in a large town or a small city. At the time of arrest, a larger proportion of the Inuit offenders were living in a city or large town (17% a small/large city; 17% a large town). At the time of the arrest, 46% had been in that location for more than 20 years. A further 20% had been there from 11 to 20 years, 15% for 1 to 10 years, and 19% for less than 1 year.
The largest proportion of the Inuit offenders said that they currently considered a small town as home (43%). A further 25% considered a large or small village as home, and 19% a large town. Similarly, the largest proportion thought a small town was the best place to be released (32%). However, 27% said that a large or small city would be the best place to be released. The largest proportion of the respondents said that they planned to live in a small town upon release (33%). The most common areas where the Inuit offenders planned to live upon release were Iqaluit, Yellowknife, and Kuujjuaq.
Table 6 provides information on family background and current relationships. About two-thirds (63%) of respondents indicated that their primary caregiver while growing up was one or both parents. However, one-fifth (20%) were raised by grandparents. Most (89%) said that they were attached to their primary caregiver. Two-thirds of the Inuit offenders said they had been involved in the child welfare system while they were growing up (67% were adopted, in a foster home, or a group home at some point). Forty-four percent said, at some point in their childhood, they had been adopted; 36% had been in foster care, and 33% had been in a group home.
The majority said that they had their basic needs met during childhood (88%), had a stable childhood (74%) and were happy during their childhood (77%). However, many also experienced problems during their childhood, such as violence (75%) and alcohol use in the home (66%), as well as violence in their community (80%).
Less than one-half of the Inuit offenders interviewed who had a spouse or children said that they currently had contact with their spouse/common-law partner (48%) or their children (45%). Furthermore, for those who have contact, it tended to be by telephone or letter and was not very frequent (i.e., once a month or less). This is not particularly surprising given the distance that separates most of the Inuit offenders from their family members. Although they did not have a great deal of contact, a large proportion said that they were attached to their spouses (73%) and children (76%). Interestingly, a large proportion of Inuit offenders (88%) said that they currently had contact with other family members, such as siblings or parents.
In sum, Inuit offenders tend to be young, single, have low education and high unemployment, characteristics fairly similar to Métis and First Nations offenders. The only differences in socio-demographic characteristics were that a larger proportion of Inuit offenders were single and a smaller proportion unemployed at the time of admission to federal custody.
As is the case with other Aboriginal offenders, Inuit offenders have more extensive criminal histories and different offence patterns and criminogenic needs than non-Aboriginal offenders. However, some differences exist among Inuit, Métis, and First Nations offenders. Specifically, a large proportion of Inuit offenders are incarcerated for sexual offences. Further, larger proportions of Inuit are rated high risk to re-offend and high need for programming compared with other Aboriginal offenders. However, Inuit offenders tend to receive shorter sentences than Métis and First Nations offenders.
Unlike other Aboriginal offenders, especially Métis (Trevethan, Moore & Thorpe, 2003), Inuit offenders typically live in rural settings. They also tend to follow Inuit traditions and most speak an Inuit language. However, unlike many First Nations offenders who seem to re-establish their cultural links during incarceration (Trevethan et al., 2002), attachment to Inuit culture appears to diminish during incarceration, while attachment to First Nations culture increases. This is most likely because there is greater access to First Nations than Inuit culture in federal institutions. Since most Inuit offenders plan to go to Inuit communities upon release, it is unfortunate that their cultural links are weakened during incarceration.
As with other federal offenders, many Inuit offenders had difficult home environments during childhood, including violence and substance abuse in the home. As with First Nations and Métis offenders (Trevethan et al., 2002), approximately two-thirds of the Inuit offenders had been involved in the child welfare system while growing up. However, unlike many First Nations and Métis offenders (Trevethan et al., 2002; Trevethan et al., 2003), a large proportion of Inuit offenders said that they had a stable and happy childhood.
Unlike First Nations and Métis offenders (Trevethan et al., 2002), many Inuit offenders said they had little contact with their spouse or children. Further, any contact tended to be by telephone or letter. This is not surprising given the distance that separates most Inuit offenders from their family members. However, it indicates the difficulties that Inuit offenders face in maintaining contact with, and support from, loved ones. The lack of contact with family has an impact not only on the offender, but also on the family and whole community. With no link to the community, there is also less opportunity to prepare for the eventual return home of the offender.
Needs of Inuit Offenders
CSC offers core and non-core programs. Core programs include substance abuse, education, family violence, living skills, and sex offending. These programs are determined based upon the criminogenic needs identified in each offender’s correctional plan. Non-core programs refer to programs that are not standardized across CSC.
Based on information from the interviews with offenders, an examination of the program participation of Inuit offenders was undertaken. The majority of the respondents (88%) said that they were aware of the programs available in the federal correctional facility. Similarly, 85% said that they had participated in institutional programs at some point in their sentence. As illustrated in Figure 4, the largest proportion said they had participated in programs for substance abuse (64%) (see also Table 7). Further, approximately one-half participated in programs for education (50%), sex offending (48%) and anger management/family violence (42%). About one-third (36%) said they had participated in some programs relating to cognitive/living skills and 30% received counselling or psychological services.
Some respondents said that they participated in Aboriginal-specific programs. This ranged from 3% of those involved in educational programs to 64% of those involved in sex offender programming. Some noted that they were involved in Inuit-specific programs, from 0% of those involved in education programs to 61% of those involved in sex offender programming — specifically, the Tupiq sex offender program run out of Fenbrook medium-security institution.
The majority of respondents who participated in programs said that they had completed them. For instance, 87% of those who participated in cognitive/living skills programs and 85% of those who participated in substance abuse programs said that they completed the program. However, only 6% of those involved in educational programs said that they had completed them (Table 7). This is not particularly surprising because an educational program is typically much longer than other core programs.
As illustrated in Table 7, the majority of respondents felt that that the programs they participated in were useful. This ranged from 67% of those who commented on employment services4 to 92% of those who commented on anger/family violence programs. Respondents said that the reason why certain programs have been useful was because they helped cause positive personal changes (77%) and provided skills (21%). Furthermore, it was noted that facilitators and Elders made the programs most effective, and that programs designed specifically for Inuit and taught in Inuktitut made them most effective. For instance, one respondent noted:
The Tupiq program has been useful because it gets you right to the root of the problem, your whole life history, how you learned violence. It allows the participant to see the impact that violence had on him when he was young. Elders were especially effective. Facilitators are excellent and are very understanding.
Among the reasons given by those who said that the programs were not very useful, was the fact that the programs were taught in English. Most respondents (97%) said that they would like to see Inuit facilitators provide programs. Other reasons why the programs were not considered very useful were problems with program facilitators, the duration of programs, and the lack of program availability.
One-third of the respondents said that they have been on parole (31%, n=23). Of these, 18% said they had participated in programs while on conditional release. Of those involved in programs, the largest proportion had participated in substance abuse programming (77%).
As indicated earlier, substantial numbers of Inuit offenders in federal custody are rated as having some or considerable need on each dynamic need domain at the time of admission to the federal facility. Using information from offender files, an examination of needs at intake and prior to release was conducted for those who had needs assessments completed at both time periods. As illustrated in Figure 5, Inuit offenders have substantial criminogenic needs both at intake and prior to release into the community. However, a smaller proportion were deemed as having "some or considerable" need at release as opposed to intake in regards to substance abuse (75% versus 100%), personal/emotional issues (89% versus 100%), and attitude (50% versus 61%). Similar proportions had some or considerable need for community functioning (46% and 50%), associates (54% and 57%), and employment (61% in both cases). A larger proportion had some or considerable need for marital/family issues (79% versus 71%) at the time of release. This may be because, at the time of release, these issues are possibly more predominant than during a period of incarceration.
An additional analysis was conducted to examine significant differences between criminogenic needs at intake and release. It was found that Inuit offenders were rated as having a significantly lower need upon release to the community for substance abuse (mean 3.3 versus 3.9) and personal/emotional issues (mean 3.6 versus 3.9)5. This suggests that some needs are being addressed while the offenders are incarcerated. However, a large proportion still have significant needs at release. It is possible that the programs would be more effective if conducted in an appropriate cultural context for Inuit offenders. It may also indicate the importance of further interventions at the time of release.
Information from the interviews confirms the findings from the needs assessments. Large proportions of the Inuit interviewed said they were facing issues relating to alcohol and drug addiction (56%) and depression/anxiety (43%) at the time of incarceration (Table 8). Other issues they noted included: criminal lifestyle/peers (21%); parental/relationship issues (17%); lacking life direction (17%); and self-esteem (14%). Clearly, Inuit offenders face a number of varied issues while incarcerated and upon release into the community.
The offenders were asked if they thought that they had different needs from non-Aboriginal offenders and from other Aboriginal offenders. Overall, 83% of the respondents reported different needs from non-Aboriginal offenders. These differences related primarily to culture or language. For instance, of those who said they had different needs from non-Aboriginal offenders, 47% noted that the differences related to culture, 33% to language, and 33% to diet.
Two-thirds (66%) of the Inuit offenders said that they have different needs from other Aboriginal offenders. Of those who said that the needs of Inuit and other Aboriginal offenders are different, 61% noted that the differences related to culture and 31% to language. The appropriate use of language ensures effective expression, discussion and understanding, all of which are important for rehabilitation. One-fifth (22%) said that other Aboriginal offenders have greater opportunity for tradition to be incorporated in their programs and 19% said that differences related to diet.
The offenders were also asked what their needs as an Inuk are in the institution. A large proportion indicated the need for programs and counselling. For example, more than one-half indicated the need for programs or counselling — 47% for programs or counselling generally, and 13% for Inuit-specific programming. One offender suggested the following:
Have Inuit programs in Inuktitut. Some Inuit wait for healing programs because they don't speak English. Inuit facilitators would be very useful. [There is a need] for more programs for Inuit. It would be helpful because some get tired of waiting for healing sessions. Counselling services are always delayed even when parole officers tell you that you are starting a program.
Further, 19% noted the need for Inuit-specific activities, such as carving and drum dancing. One offender noted:
I need to carve more because it gets me closer to my culture and it makes me proud. Carving could keep me busy and help me make money to send to my sister.
According to one key informant, there is a need for Inuit-specific services because:
.when we go through another persons culture we change. You have to keep in tune with your culture because it's what you know [and] who you are. [We need] retention or to learn of Inuit culture. We have to stay grounded. not to lose sight of who you are.
One-third (33%) of the Inuit offenders said that they needed country food in the institution. Sharing meals is central to Inuit culture. Eating country food such as caribou, seal, arctic char, and ptarmigan contributes in many ways to the well-being of individuals and forms an important part of healing (Kuhnlein, Receveur, Chan & Loring, 2000; Usher, Baikie, Demmer, Nakashima, Stevenson & Stiles, 1995). Some Inuit offenders feel the physical effects of the dramatic change in diet, which can result in difficulties learning and participating in programs. Other areas of need include contact with family/phone calls (13%), more Inuit staff, facilitators, healers and translators (13%), and contact with other Inuit generally (9%). These responses indicate a strong reliance on community and family ties, and the perseverance of Inuit culture and tradition.
Upon release to the community, respondents noted the need for programs and treatment (45%), support and guidance from family, Elders and others (29%), employment (29%), housing support (23%), and education (13%). According to one respondent:
[I need to] work with a counsellor for my personal problems. one-on-one counselling to keep myself focused and get out issues that build up in my brain. A counsellor could help me deal with problems.
The offenders were asked what programs they would like to see in the institution or in the community. A large proportion said that they saw the need for Inuit-specific programs. In the institution, 31% said that they needed more Inuit-specific programs generally, 17% said Inuit language or cultural programming, 16% said a carving or carpentry program, and 14% said Inuit sex offender program. Further, 17% noted the need for an Inuit food program. Finally, some noted the need for Inuit psychologists, counsellors and Elders (19%). Many also noted the need for programs in the community. In particular, one-half (52%) of the respondents noted the need for mainstream programs, such as substance abuse and violence programs. Other programs they suggested included Inuit sex offender programs, healing programs, family/parenting programs, Inuit Elders, release/transition programs, and Inuit language/cultural programs. According to one respondent:
There is a gap between leaving the institution and being released back into the community in the way of support. What is wrong with the system is that something must be done when the offender goes back into the community because if not he will be faced with the same problems. The offender needs help.
Inuit offenders clearly have a broad range of criminogenic needs when entering the federal correctional system and upon release to the community. Some of the programs in place are attempting to address these issues. A large proportion of Inuit offenders have participated in programs aimed at addressing their diverse criminogenic needs. Further, those interviewed tend to feel that the programs have been useful. However, they also note that the most useful programs were ones that were designed specifically for Inuit offenders. For other programs, they tended to feel that the cultural aspect was missing. In particular, the programs lack a focus on Inuit culture, the use of Inuit facilitators and delivery in Inuktitut. It is not clear whether all programs meet Inuit offenders' cultural or spiritual needs to the same extent. Although the programs target criminogenic needs identified at intake, the offenders may not respond fully to the programs unless they are given in an appropriate cultural context and in a way that is meaningful to the lives of Inuit offenders. According to one offender:
.[it is] hard to understand [programs].[they are] done in English and English and Inuit cultures are very different.
Needs of Family Members
Family is the foundation of Inuit culture. The family is surrounded by a larger social network that includes the rest of the community, even the region. Inuit families are large and interconnected, as intricate bonds are formed through childbirth, marriage and adoption. Therefore, in addition to examining the needs of Inuit offenders while incarcerated and upon release to the community, this study also examined the needs of the families of Inuit offenders (Table 9).
Of the 34 family members interviewed, about one-third (37%) said that there are areas that are currently causing them difficulty, such as a death in their family, physical health issues and issues relating to substance abuse.
Few family members (17%) said that programs are available to them while the offender is incarcerated. A slightly larger proportion (31%) said that services were available to them, such as counselling/psychological services, social services, and access to Elders. Fifty percent of family members said they think programs will be available to them, and 67% said that they think services will be available to them, once the offender is released.
When asked about their needs while the offender is incarcerated, almost one-half of family members (45%) said they need to support the offender while he/she is incarcerated. Twenty-nine percent felt that they need contact with the offender. Other areas of need include help from the community, counselling/Elders, and financial support. Upon release, the majority of respondents said that they need to support the offender (60%). Other responses included help from the community, counselling and financial and emotional support. These results point to the importance of having a network in place to provide assistance for families when needed.
Offenders gave somewhat similar answers about the needs of family members. The largest proportion felt that their family members needed more contact with them (36%). One-quarter (25%) said that family members need emotional support, 21% said they need family counselling, and 21% said financial support. Other areas of need while the offender is incarcerated include better understanding of the offender and community support. Upon release to the community, the offenders said that their family members will need to see or receive support from the offender (43%), will need to better understand or support the offender (22%), and will need family counselling/counselling in general (22%).
These needs of family members of Inuit offenders are likely similar to the needs of family members of all offenders. However, because of the distance they typically live from the offender, it is difficult for families to visit. Furthermore, to make the services most effective, they need to be provided in remote locations and by people who understand the culture and language. According to one offender:
It's hard for family members to see a brother or son sent to jail. [It's important] to have a visitors program. It's hard to have visitors come because it's too expensive to fly them here.
It is important to bridge the cultural and language gaps between CSC staff and family members of offenders. Furthermore, there is a need to facilitate the understanding of the correctional process and the needs of offender for family members. This could be aided by the use of Inuit facilitators or Elders. Although the role of CSC has not typically included work with family, family members are important links to the offender's successful reintegration into society, most particularly in more northern locations. Therefore, the role of CSC with family members should be better defined and perhaps broadened.
As a final question in this study, interviews with staff examined the knowledge or training of correctional staff regarding Inuit offenders and Inuit culture. Of the 65 parole officers interviewed, one-half (51%) said that they currently work with Inuit offenders (Table 10).
Based on the interviews with institutional staff, it appears that CSC staff have little knowledge of Inuit culture. For instance, although 77% said they had training about Aboriginal issues, only 15% had training about Inuit issues. This included some information sessions and working with an Inuk liaison officer. About three-quarters (72%) of the staff interviewed said they had no current knowledge about Inuit offenders, 17% said they had some knowledge, and 11% said they had extensive knowledge. The finding that staff have little knowledge of Inuit culture may be partially attributed to the fact that only about one-half of them currently work with Inuit offenders. Some of the reasons that staff gave for having little knowledge about Inuit offenders were lack of training or experience with Inuit offenders and little contact with Inuit. According to one parole officer:
I haven't really received any training on Inuit culture and background. The training I have received on Aboriginals grouped them all together. In working with them, we've realized the differences.
The lack of knowledge about Inuit culture and Inuit offenders may result in the needs of Inuit offenders not being sufficiently met. For instance, it could lead to some biases in intake assessments or inappropriate programming for Inuit offenders.
Although they had little knowledge about Inuit offenders, only one person said that all Aboriginal offenders share the same culture. Furthermore, 94% said that the needs of Inuit offenders are different from the needs of non-Aboriginal offenders, and 83% said that the needs of Inuit offenders are different from other Aboriginal offenders. Differences primarily related to traditions, language, diet and remote location.
Parole officers were asked how their understanding of Inuit offender needs could be enhanced. They noted the need for more training/education on Inuit culture (52%), training/education in general (34%), exposure to Inuit communities and lifestyle (31%), access to information on Inuit culture (31%) and exposure to Inuit offenders (15%).