The Effectiveness of the Tupiq Program for Inuit Sex Offenders

Abstract

This study examines the effectiveness of the Tupiq program, a culturally specific program for Inuit sex offenders that incorporates cognitive behavioural methods with traditional Inuit knowledge and culture led by Inuit healers and facilitators. Outcomes of 61 offenders who participated in the Tupiq program and were released were compared with outcomes of a cohort of 114 released Inuit sex offenders incarcerated during the same time period who had taken alternative sex offender treatment programs, or had not attended any sex offender program. On release, Tupiq participants had significantly lower rates of general reoffending and violent reoffending than those in the combined comparison group. The hazard of reoffending for the comparison group was almost twice that of the Tupiq group. Although the sexual reoffending rate for the Tupiq participants was less than half of that of the comparison group, the difference between the two groups was not significant because of reduced statistical power. Survival analysis controlling for covariates confirmed significantly lower rates of general reoffending for the Tupiq group. Further analyses comparing the outcomes of the subgroup of offenders in the comparison group who participated in alternative sex offender treatment programs with those who participated in Tupiq indicated that Tupiq participants had significantly lower rates of both general and sexual reoffending. These positive results for this culturally specific program suggest that similarly designed interventions have a probability of contributing to the reduction of sexual offending within Inuit communities and, potentially, other jurisdictions that work with cultural minority sex offender groups from relatively isolated communities.

Keywords

Inuit offenders sex offenders program evaluation Aboriginal offenders correctional program culturally specific correctional programs

The sexual abuse of Aboriginal women and children is a central issue in many countries where Aboriginal leaders and victims’ advocates have highlighted the need to address the alarmingly high rates of violent and sexual offending in their communities (Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, 2006). In a Canadian study of sexual homicides in Canada over the last 62 years, researchers found that 28.8% of perpetrators were Aboriginal (Beauregard & Martineau, 2013); this is compared with their 4% representation in the Canadian population (Statistics Canada, 2006). Data gathered by the U.S. Department of Justice indicate that Native American and Alaskan Native women are more than 2.5 times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than women in the United States in general (Perry, 2004). In Australia, the rates of sexual violence are so high in some Aboriginal communities that a report spoke of the “normalisation” of sexual violence that is now becoming intergenerational (Keel, 2004). According to statistics compiled based on police reports, rates of sexual offences in Canada were highest in the northern territories where there are more Aboriginal people: 2 to 3 times higher in the Yukon, 3 to 6 times higher in the Northwest Territories, and 7 to 14 times higher in Nunavut (Statistics Canada, 2006). Other research has indicated that Inuit women are particularly vulnerable to sexual assault The rate of reported sexual assault in Nunavut in 2004 was almost 13 times that of Canada as a whole with 941 reported sexual assaults per 100,000 people (Sauvé, 2004). Estimates of the rates of child sexual abuse in Aboriginal populations in Canada vary, but a 2009 study calculated that the rate is between 25% and 50% (Collin-Vézina, Dion, & Trocmé, 2009). Domestic abuse, including both sexual assault and other violent assault on intimate partners, is particularly high among Aboriginal populations in Canada, with the rates in some northern communities being cited as upward of 80% (Chartrand & McKay, 2006; Johnson, 2006). The perpetrators are most often Aboriginal men.

The impact of these high rates of victimisation on Inuit communities is devastating. The general research on child maltreatment has demonstrated the link between child sexual and physical abuse and later substance abuse, psychological disorders, school dropout, and childhood delinquency, although negative outcomes are not inevitable (Allwood & Widom, 2013; Byrd & Manuck, 2014). Childhood exposure to violence and violent role models has been linked in non-Aboriginal communities to a higher risk for adult criminality and violence (Byrd & Manuck, 2014; Widom, 2014). A similar link has been made based on research in predominately Aboriginal communities. Paletta (2008), for example, collected data on family violence and sexual assault offences from the files of the crown prosecutor in the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut from 1999 to 2004. She found that approximately three quarters (77%) of those accused of a family violence offence had suffered at least one form of abuse, as did just over two thirds (66%) of those accused of a sexual assault offence. There is a clear need for a coordinated effort of intervention that would include treatment for Aboriginal perpetrators, services to victims, and strategies to promote violence prevention.

The Inuit are a unique Aboriginal culture in Canada and share a heritage, language, and way of life more in common with Inuit from other circumpolar regions of the world than with the First Nations and Métis people of Canada. The colonization of Canadian Inuit is relatively recent; most Inuit offenders are the first generation to be raised in centralised communities and the negative effects of rapid change to Inuit social, economic, and education systems contribute to high rates of violent offending.

The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) is the Canadian federal correctional system that manages the sentences of offenders serving 2 years or more. Although only 0.1% of the Canadian population self-identifies as Inuit, Inuit offenders represent about 1% of offenders incarcerated in Canada’s penitentiaries, about 100 offenders at any given time (CSC, 2014). Previous research by Trevethan, Moore, Naqitarvik, Watson, and Saunders (2004) examining the needs of Inuit offenders within CSC has drawn attention to the uniqueness of this population relative to other Aboriginal groups. Based on interviews with Inuit offenders, their families, and staff in federal correctional facilities, Trevethan and her colleagues reported a need for targeted services and programs that are Inuit-specific rather than the more generic Aboriginal programs that impose content that is not part of Inuit culture. The authors noted several important differences between the general Aboriginal population and the Inuit that had implications for correctional service delivery. A much larger percentage of Inuit were serving a sentence for a sexual offence; most were from, and returning to, small Arctic communities; and the majority spoke Inuktitut, the Inuit language, as their mother tongue. Because of the remoteness of their communities from the federal penitentiaries, Inuit offenders received limited community and family support during their incarceration. These conclusions were consistent with previous research by Moore and Trevethan (2002) who compared First Nations, Métis, and Inuit offenders within CSC. They found that Inuit offenders were more likely to be incarcerated for sexual offences, but they were also more likely to have had histories of domestic abuse.

Fenbrook Institution in Gravenhurst Ontario houses the highest concentration of Inuit offenders in CSC. Recognising that this group of offenders needed a culturally appropriate intervention, staff and a contracted consultant with experience working in northern Canadian communities developed and implemented the Tupiq program for Inuit sex offenders in 2001. Tupiq is a high intensity program for moderate or high risk sex offenders designed to adhere to the principles of effective correctional programs (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996) and, at the same time, respect the cultural background of the participants by providing teachings and ceremonies based on traditional Inuit knowledge and facilitated by Inuit program officers in the Inuit language. The following research describes this unique program and reports on its effectiveness based on key correctional outcomes.

The Tupiq Program

Inuit retain a deep connection to the Arctic environment, which is not only a source of food and clothing but is also embedded in their culture’s pro-social values, skills, and perspectives. The Tupiq program seeks to improve adult learning by integrating Inuit values, language, and the Arctic environment in program content. Program referral criteria require participants to be male Inuit sexual offenders assessed as moderate or high risk to reoffend sexually, determined through a specialised sex offender assessment, the Static-99 (Hanson & Thornton, 1999), an actuarial measure used to assess static factors related to sex offending. Scores of 2 or greater on this measure would qualify the offender for the Tupiq program. The STABLE 2007 (Hanson, Harris, Scott, & Helmus, 2007) measures factors that are potentially changeable but endure for months or years and assists program facilitators in determining the focus of treatment for individual offenders. The primary goal of the Tupiq program is to prevent sexual reoffending by focusing on reducing thinking and behaviour patterns associated with sexual offending. The overall treatment approach is holistic, incorporating Inuit culture into cognitive behavioural skill training that addresses dynamic risk factors. The duration of the program is 18 weeks providing approximately 290 contact hours per participant and delivering content in parallel processes of group therapy, skill development, and individual counselling.

Inuit culture and the Inuit language are incorporated into every component of the program. The program is co-facilitated by experienced Inuit correctional program officers who are provided with training and supervision by a clinical psychologist. The community links component of the program connects each offender participant to a counsellor in his home community. The Inuit healing component of the program is an Inuit-specific therapeutic approach delivered by an Inuit elder incorporating Inuit values and perspective into the process of changing criminal behaviour.

The word Tupiq refers to the traditional Inuit tent that provides short-term shelter when travelling. The program is built around three major themes represented by the three poles that hold up the Tupiq. The participant is challenged to examine all discussion themes, skill practice, healing, and behavioural change components of the program in the context of his awareness of his own experiences (Self, Pole 1), his responsibility for his behaviour (Responsibility, Pole 2), and his relationship to others (Community, Pole 3). The poles anchor the program and tie all components together.

While the focus is on the prevention of sexual offending, the program also deals with interrelated issues, including family violence, substance abuse, and emotion mismanagement. Program content is adapted from recognised correctional models, in particular the standards and practices of CSC’s National Sex Offender Treatment Program and National High Intensity Family Violence Program. In addition to the primary goal of preventing sexual reoffending, corollary benefits of Tupiq include development of a release plan, social skills practice, increased cultural awareness, and enhanced literacy skills in both Inuktitut and English. For the Inuit communities, it is anticipated that as a result of the involvement of community counsellors and advisors during the institutional program delivery, a greater number of individuals living and working in Inuit communities will develop increased awareness and skills in abuse prevention and be able to provide community maintenance support to the offenders. A long-term goal of the program is to coordinate anti-violence work with other agencies as part of a national and regional effort to reduce the intergenerational transmission of physical and sexual abuse in Inuit communities and to promote the prevention of abuse in Inuit communities. For a more complete description of the Tupiq program, see Stewart, Hamilton, Wilton, Cousineau, and Varrette (2009).

Method

Participants¹

The treatment sample consisted of the total number of 61 Inuit offenders who participated in the Tupiq program at Fenbrook Institution and were subsequently released since the program began in 2001 and data collection in 2009. Almost all Inuit offenders from the territory of Nunavut serve their federal sentences at Fenbrook Institution so that cultural services can be provided that would not otherwise be available to very small dispersed groups. Tupiq referral criteria require participants to be Inuit and to be assessed as moderate to high risk for sexual offending. Offenders with active mental health problems that prohibited them from understanding program material were excluded from attending the program and offered alternative treatment through individual counselling. All offenders in this sample committed at least one sexual offence, although they may not have been serving their current sentence for a sexual offence. Four offenders who did not complete the Tupiq program were included as part of the treatment sample.

The comparison group was composed of the population of Inuit sex offenders who were released at the time of data collection, and were serving a sentence during the same time period as offenders in the Tupiq group (N = 114). This comparison group was largely composed of Inuit offenders serving their sentences in regions outside of Ontario and therefore unable to participate in the Tupiq program. Included in this combined comparison group were 32 offenders who had participated in alternative sex offender programs, either a sex offender program that did not provide culture-specific services, or an Aboriginal, but not Inuit-specific, sex offender program.

Measures

Most of the background information was drawn from the Offender Intake Assessment (OIA), a comprehensive evaluation process conducted with all incoming offenders in CSC that includes the assessment of dynamic and static risk factors (Motiuk & Brown, 1993). A major component of the OIA is the Dynamic Factor Identification and Analysis (DFIA), which identifies a variety of dynamic risk factors (i.e., criminogenic needs) grouped into seven domains (employment, marital/family, associates, substance abuse, community functioning, personal/emotional, and attitudes). The level of need for each domain except for the substance and the personal/emotional domains is rated on a 4-point ordinal rating scale: asset, no need, some need, and considerable need. The substance abuse and personal/emotional domains are rated on a 3-point scale. The overall level of dynamic risk is categorized into low, medium, or high need. Another component of the OIA is the Static Factors Assessment (SFA), which provides comprehensive information regarding an offender’s criminal history. Based on a review of this information, a parole officer provides a final structured assessment of overall static risk level of low, medium, or high. Information from the DFIA and SFA is used to inform an offender’s correctional plan, with offenders assessed as moderate to high risk and need being prioritized for participation in correctional programs.

In addition to these generic assessments, specialised assessments are also conducted during the intake period. The Computerised Assessment of Substance Abuse (CASA) tool is a comprehensive assessment of the extent of offenders’ substance abuse and its relationships to offending and is completed on all offenders at intake. The CASA includes the results of several well-validated measures of substance misuse. In particular, the 20-item Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST) has been shown to have reasonable concordance with diagnostic criteria for drug abuse (Skinner, 1982), and the Alcohol Dependency Scale (ADS) has been shown to have reasonable concordance with diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence (Skinner & Horn, 1984). The CASA uses the ADS and the DAST to derive overall substance abuse scores and substance abuse program referral recommendations.

Information on offenders’ previous criminal history and on their reoffending after release was obtained from the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) files that are managed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This centralised system records all criminal charges and convictions for offenders across police forces in Canada. Data from the CPIC files were coded based on a coding manual prepared for the study. The assessment of interrater reliability on the CPIC record of reoffending resulted in perfect agreement. Information on offender participation in correctional programs was extracted from the corporate reporting system.

Procedure

Profile and case management data on study participants were extracted from the Offender Management System (OMS), the official electronic record for offenders within CSC. These data included demographic information on all offenders, the results of the risk and need assessments from the OIA, results of the substance abuse measures from the CASA, information on correctional program participation, and information on victim profiles from the SFA. OMS also records information on offenders’ performance while under supervision in the community, in particular, this study retrieved information on incidents of revocations of conditional release. This included both revocations for technical violations of release conditions and revocations for criminal offences. Common technical revocations would include non-compliance with the conditions of release such as evidence of alcohol or drug abuse or failure to report to the parole officer. CPIC records supplemented the data on revocations, allowing an assessment of criminal reoffending past the federal warrant expiry date.

Interviews with Tupiq participants and program participation reports were examined to provide additional background information. A coding manual was developed to guide the examination of participants’ files. Information on childhood experiences and connections with Inuit culture and language, traumatic experiences, mental disorders, brain injuries, and past solvent abuse was coded from these files. Interrater reliability between independent raters on the coded variables extracted from file review indicated an overall 88% agreement. This level of file coding was not completed for offenders in the comparison group as many of these offenders either had not taken a sex offender program, or had taken a program in which these variables were not recorded.

Analyses

Analyses include descriptive statistics on the Tupiq participants and, where possible, the results of inferential statistics assessing differences on demographic information and outcome variables between the Tupiq and combined comparison group. The profile analyses provide important information on the histories of the Tupiq participants, and the risk and need characteristics of both the Tupiq and combined comparison group.

The frequencies of correctional program participation and completion rates, age and sex of victims, revocations of conditional releases, and the following three types of criminal reoffending: reoffence of any crime (including property crime, violent crime, and sexual crime), reoffending for a violent offence (including all violent offences and sex offences), and reoffending of a sexual offence were examined. Differences in frequencies between the groups on these outcomes were tested by chi-square tests of independence with phi coefficients reported as a measure of effect size. Differences were analysed between the Tupiq and combined comparison group on rates of revocations between release and sentence expiry. The first of each of the categories of offences committed following release was included in the reoffending analysis.

In addition to frequencies and associated chi-square tests, the four outcomes following release (revocations, reoffence of any crime, reoffending with a violent crime, and reoffending with a sexual offence) were also examined through Cox Regression survival analysis. Survival analysis accounts for variable time-at-risk between the groups and also allows statistical control of covariates related to outcomes. Time-at-risk was defined as the number of days between release and either the date of the revocation or the date of the offence. For offenders who were not revoked and who did not reoffend, time-at-risk ended at the date of data collection. In survival analyses, offenders who are successful for short periods have relatively less weight in the analyses than offenders who are successful for longer periods. However, failures in a short period of time indicate a greater hazard of failure than those who fail later.¹ The covariates selected to be controlled in the survival analyses were overall dynamic risk level (need level), overall static risk, drug abuse as measured by the DAST, alcohol dependence as measured by the ADS, and a dichotomous measure of whether the offender had a sex offence or sex-related offence prior to the index offence on the current sentence. These covariates were selected to suppress error variability and increase the power associated with the program treatment effect. The alcohol dependence and past sex offence covariates were included to control for differences between the study groups.

Calculations in survival analyses are based on the proportion of a group that remains in the community without committing an offence. A key statistic provided by survival analyses is the hazard ratio which gives estimates of the comparative hazard of reoffending for the two groups. A hazard ratio of 1 would indicate that the two groups have the same hazard of reoffending; hazard ratios of 0.5 or 2 would indicate that one group has twice the hazard of reoffending.

The combined comparison group represents the total population of Inuit sex offenders under CSC supervision during the same time period as the Tupiq participants who were released to the community. Given that this group contained offenders who were treated in alternative sex offender programs (n = 32) as well as offenders who did not participate in a sex offender program, we conducted additional analyses disaggregating these two subsamples and comparing their results with those of the Tupiq group.

Results

Profile Information on Tupiq Participants

Most (72%) Tupiq participants spent their formative years in rural Arctic communities. The majority (64%) reported being immersed in Inuit culture as children, including being involved in hunting, constructing hunting and fishing tools and understanding Inuit cultural values. Only 6% reported being sent to residential schools as children. Most of the participants did not attend any school after the primary grades and 9% had no formal education at all. About two thirds of Tupiq participants were unemployed at the time of arrest and 80% were rated as having unstable employment histories. As illustrated in Table 1, the education levels and employment histories of the Tupiq and the total comparison group were similar. Tupiq participants primarily spoke Inuktitut as their first language (89.1%) with 9% being unilingual in Inuktitut when they came into CSC. About half (56.5%) of the comparison group spoke Inuktitut as their primary language, significantly fewer than in the Tupiq group, χ²(1, n = 124) = 15.76, p < .001, φ = .36. Half of the Tupiq participants planned to return to an Inuit community upon release.

Table 1.

Profiles of the Tupiq and Combined Comparison Group.

	Tupiq	Comparison
	% (n)	% (n)	φ
Overall static risk			.07^ns
Low	3.3 (2)	2.3 (2)
Medium	24.6 (15)	19.5 (17)
High	72.1 (44)	78.2 (68)
Overall dynamic risk (need)			.08^ns
Low	0 (0)	1.1 (1)
Medium	14.8 (9)	11.5 (10)
High	85.3 (52)	87.4 (76)
Education level
No Grade 8	42.6 (26)	1.9 (56)	.09^ns
No high school	83.6 (51)	79.6 (86)	.05^ns
Employment
Unemployed at arrest	62.3 (38)	60.2 (65)	.02^ns
Unstable job history	80.3 (49)	76.9 (83)	.04^ns
Previous adult convictions	80.3 (49)	80.6 (87)	.00^ns
Past sex offence or sex-related offence	45.9 (28)	66.7 (72)	.20**
Failed conditional release	98.4 (60)	97.2 (105)	.04^ns

Note. For all the following tables, the ns vary based on missing data among the 61 Tupiq participants and the 114 in the comparison group. Percentages were calculated with reference to valid cases, not the full group size. ns = nonsignificant.

p < .01.

All Tupiq participants reported experiencing pronounced traumatic events during their developmental years. The traumatic experiences included witnessing the murder of a loved one or friend, losing a loved one or friend through suicide or a violent act, witnessing the serious and ongoing physical abuse of their mother and/or primary caregiver by a father or male role model, and being victim to serious and ongoing sexual, physical, and emotional abuse by a person in trust. The impact of suicide on Inuit communities is reflected in information, indicating that 100% of the Tupiq sample had lost a family member or friend through suicide. It was common for offenders to have experienced more than one traumatic event.

More than 11% of Tupiq participants had a file report indicating a history of an Axis I mental illness and 15.7% had information on file indicating they had brain injury. This rate of mental disorder is comparable to data on the Canadian federal offender population, indicating 12% of the population had been identified with serious mental health concerns (CSC, 2008).

Substance abuse was a significant problem for both the Tupiq participants and the comparison group and was commonly identified as a dynamic risk factor associated with their sexual offending. Results indicated that about 30% of the Tupiq group and 50% of the comparison group had moderate to severe scores on the ADS. This represented a significant difference between the groups, χ²(1, n = 138) = 5.94, p = .01, φ = .21. The drop in sample size was due to missing data on some covariates. The impact of alcohol dependence on offenders’ outcome was examined as a covariate in the survival analyses. Although examination of drug abuse did not indicate a statistically significant difference between the groups, drug abuse was also a significant problem for all Inuit sex offenders in the sample with 42% of the Tupiq participants and 28% of the comparison group having scores in the moderate to severe range on the DAST, χ²(1, n = 138) = 2.80, p = .09, φ = .14. Furthermore, information extracted from file reports indicated that more than 50% of Tupiq participants had used solvents at least once in their life.

Profiles of Tupiq Participants and the Comparison Group

The results presented in Table 1 demonstrate that the Tupiq and the comparison group were equivalent with regard to several key variables related to criminal and sexual reoffending. The distribution of the overall static risk, χ²(2, n = 148) = 0.72, p = .70, φ = .07, and dynamic risk, χ²(2, n = 148) = 1.02, p = .60, φ = .08, of the two groups did not differ significantly. Most offenders in both groups were commonly assessed as overall high static risk and high dynamic risk. The majority of offenders in both the Tupiq (80.3%) and comparison (80.6%) group had prior adult convictions. The comparison group, however, had significantly more prior sex or sex-related offences (66.7%) than the Tupiq group, 45.9%; χ²(1, n = 169) = 6.96, p = .008, φ= .20. The impact of prior sex offences on outcome was therefore included as a covariate in the survival analyses.

Correctional Program Involvement

There is evidence that prior program involvement can confound research determining the impact of the program under examination (Lösel, 2001). For that reason, comparisons were made on correctional program participation prior to the date the reoffending rates were extracted. The programs included in the analyses were national correctional programs that were either Aboriginal-specific or generic (open to all offenders regardless of ethnic background who meet the referral criteria). These programs include substance abuse programs, living skills programs (i.e., Cognitive Skills, Reasoning and Rehabilitation, and Anger Management), sex offender programs, family violence prevention programs, and the national violence prevention programs. Table 2 shows the frequency with which the Tupiq and comparison groups participated in these programs. It demonstrates that the Tupiq group, apart from their involvement in sex offender programs, was more likely to have participated in a substance abuse correctional program.

Table 2.

Participation Rates in Correctional Programs for the Tupiq and the Comparison Groups.

	Tupiq participants (n = 61)	Comparison group (n = 114)
Program	% (n)	% (n)	φ
Sex offender program	—	28.1 (32)
Substance abuse program	57.4 (35)	41.2 (47)	.15*
Living skills programs	26.2 (16)	31.6 (36)	.06^ns
Family violence program	8.2 (5)	6.1 (7)	.04^ns
Violence prevention programs	1.6 (1)	5.3 (6)	.09^ns

Note. ns = nonsignificant.

p < .05.

One of the arguments for culturally specific options for Aboriginal offenders is the claim that Aboriginal offenders’ program completion rates in the core programs are low relative to the general offender population. Advocates argue that the completion rates for culturally specific programs would be higher. Based on the data on correctional programs in CSC, 57 of the 61 (93%) Tupiq participants and 22 of the 32 (69%) offenders from the comparison group who had been referred to alternative sex offender programs completed their programs, χ²(1, n = 93) = 10.01, p = .002, φ = .33. The completion rate for the Tupiq program is an unusually strong result.

Victim Profile

Victim profile has been shown to be related to sexual reoffending with offenders (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998). Table 3 presents information on the victims of the Tupiq participants and the comparison group. The majority of offenders in both the Tupiq and comparison groups offended primarily against female victims. The most common victim type in both groups was adult female but about half of the offenders had female child victims. Ten of the offenders in the comparison group had young male victims (combining the age categories of less than 12 and 12-17 years) while the Tupiq group had none, representing a significant difference between the two groups, χ²(1, n = 175) = 5.68, p = .02, φ = .18.² There were 39.3% (24) of the Tupiq group and 36% (41) of the comparison group who had two types of victims (adult male, child male, female adult, or female child). This was not a significant difference, χ²(1, n = 175) = 0.19, p = .66, φ= .03. Most of the offenders in the Tupiq program had multiple victims. Two thirds of the Tupiq group had more than one victim, and one offender was convicted for sexual offences against 21 female children.

Table 3.

Victim Profile for the Tupiq and the Combined Comparison Group.

	Tupiq participants (n = 61)	Comparison group (n = 108)
Victim description	% (n)	% (n)	φ
Female child < 12 years	27.9 (17)	25.0 (27)	.03^ns
Female 12-17 years	47.5 (29)	41.7 (45)	.06^ns
Female 18-65 years	67.2 (41)	58.3 (63)	.09^ns
Female above 65 years	3.3 (2)	1.9 (2)	.05^ns
Male child < 12 years	0 (0)	7.4 (8)	.17*
Male 12-17 years	0 (0)	3.7 (4)	.12^ns
Male 18-65 years	3.3 (2)	1.9 (2)	.05^ns
Male above 65 years	1.6 (1)	0 (0)	.10^ns

Note. ns = nonsignificant.

p < .05.

Outcome: Measures of Reoffending

The outcomes of 61 offenders from the Tupiq group who had been released into the community were compared with the 114 Inuit sex offenders from the total comparison group who had also been released. The median follow-up time from release to reoffending or data collection for the Tupiq group was 910 days (SD = 808.6) and for the comparison group was 601 days (SD = 662.7). The follow-up times were positively skewed ranging from 69 to 2,755 days for the Tupiq group and from 3 to 2,744 days for the comparison group. A Kruskal–Wallis test indicated that the distributions of follow-up times of the Tupiq and comparison groups differed at a marginally significant level, Kruskal–Wallis χ²(1, n = 175) = 3.07, p = .08.

Previous analyses showed that the comparison group did not differ significantly from the Tupiq group on several key variables associated with sex offender outcomes; overall static risk and overall dynamic risk ratings, education level, employment indicators, previous adult criminal history, mental illness, and level of drug abuse problems were similar. Offenders from the comparison group, however, were more likely to have had a previous sex offence and the groups also differed in their rates of alcohol problems. Both variables were therefore statistically controlled in survival analyses. Although the comparison group was significantly more likely to have offences against male child victims—a particular concern for risk for sexual reoffending (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998)—the low rate among the comparison group (approximately 10% had young male victims) and the lack of young male victims among the participants in Tupiq prevented inclusion of this variable in the survival analysis.

The reoffending rates for the Tupiq and the comparison groups are presented in Table 4. Note that these values do not control for the possible influence of other variables. The Tupiq group had lower rates of revocations for any reason, and lower rates of general, violent, and sexual reoffending. However, only the result for general reoffending was statistically significant.

Table 4.

Revocation and Reoffending Rates for Tupiq Participants and the Total Comparison Group.

	Tupiq participants (n = 61)	Comparison group (n = 114)
Outcome	% (n)	% (n)	φ
Revocations	39.3 (24)	50.9 (58)	.11^ns
Reoffending of any kind^a	29.5 (18)	47.4 (54)	.17*
Violent reoffending^b	21.3 (13)	35.1 (40)	.14^ns
Sexual reoffending^c	4.9 (3)	11.4 (13)	.11^ns

Note. ns = nonsignificant.

Includes any criminal offence resulting in a provincial or federal sentence.

Includes armed robbery, assaults, homicide, manslaughter, assault causing bodily harm, and sex offences.

Includes any sex offence such as sexual assault, touching, pornography, incest, and so on.

p < .05.

Time to revocation, time to reoffending for any type, time to violent reoffending, and time to sexual reoffending were each examined through survival analysis. The survival model for revocations for any reason was not statistically reliable when study group was the only covariate included in the model, χ²(1, n = 172) = 1.13, p = .29, Hazard Ratio = 0.78, nor when the full set of covariates was included in the model, χ²(6, n = 131) = 9.04, p = .17. Although the hazard ratios for the Tupiq group were lower than for the comparison group, the survival analyses for time to sexual reoffending were not significant when the study group was the only variable in the model, χ²(1, n = 173) = 1.95, p = .16, Hazard Ratio = 0.44, nor when the full set of covariates was included, χ²(6, n = 131) = 7.22, p = .30.

The test of the difference in survival functions of the Tupiq and comparison groups for general reoffending was significant, χ²(1, n = 174) = 6.46, p = .01, Hazard Ratio = 1.94. The hazard ratio for this analysis indicates that the hazard of reoffending for the comparison group was almost twice that of the Tupiq group. The test of the difference in survival functions of the Tupiq and comparison groups for violent reoffending was also significant, χ²(1, n = 174) = 3.8, p = .05, Hazard Ratio = 1.81. The hazard ratio for this analysis indicates that the comparison group was 1.81 times more likely to reoffend with a violent offence than offenders in the Tupiq group. Survival functions are presented for the Tupiq and the comparison group on both general and violent reoffending in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Survival function for any reoffence and violent reoffence by group.

As displayed in Table 5, when key covariates including overall dynamic risk, drug abuse, alcohol dependence, past sex offences, and overall static risk were included in the model examining survival to any type of reoffence, the comparison group remained twice as likely as the Tupiq participants to reoffend with any type of offence. Furthermore, only the treatment group and overall dynamic risk variables were significant in the model. This survival model was statistically reliable, χ²(6, n = 132) = 15.70, p = .02.

Table 5.

Survival Analysis of Any Type of Reoffending After Release.

Covariate	χ²	p	Hazard ratio
Tupiq participation	5.31	.02	0.45 (2.22^a)
Overall dynamic risk	3.92	.05	4.23
Drug abuse	3.45	.06	1.79
Alcohol dependence	1.65	.20	0.68
Past sex offence	0.41	.52	1.25
Overall static risk	0.23	.63	0.84

This hazard ratio indicates that the hazard of reoffending of the comparison group participants was more than twice (2.22) that of the Tupiq group, which is equivalent to its inverse that the hazard of reoffending among Tupiq participants was less than half (0.45) that of the comparison group.

The survival model testing violent reoffending with the covariates included in the model, displayed in Table 6, approached statistical significance, χ²(6, n = 132) = 11.65, p = .07. Although none of the factors entered in the model were significant, the pattern of results was similar to that of the model for any reoffence. The hazard ratio indicated that the comparison group was twice as likely to violently reoffend as the Tupiq group.

Table 6.

Survival Analysis of Violent Reoffences After Release.

Covariate	χ²	p	Hazard ratio
Tupiq participation	3.04	.08	0.51 (1.96^a)
Overall dynamic risk	3.41	.06	6.59
Drug abuse	2.63	.11	1.77
Alcohol dependence	0.22	.64	0.85
Overall static risk	0.17	.68	0.84
Past sex offence (yes or no)	0.05	.83	0.92

Hazard ratio is the inverse.

A subsample (n = 32) of the comparison group had participated in either a generic correctional sex offender program or an Aboriginal-specific sex offender program (i.e., not an Inuit-specific program) and were available for follow-up. In Table 7, outcomes for participants in this subgroup were compared with those of the Tupiq group and with a group of offenders who were not treated. Despite the small group sizes, the three groups were significantly different regarding any type of reoffence and rates of sexual reoffending. The lowest frequencies of both categories of reoffending were in the Tupiq group and the highest were in the treated group. This suggests that the Inuit cultural-specific component of the Tupiq program may be critical to the positive treatment effect.

Table 7.

Revocation and Reoffending Rates for Tupiq Participants and the Treated and Untreated Comparison Groups.

	Tupiq (n = 61)	Alternative treated (n = 32)	Untreated (n = 82)
Outcome	% (n)	% (n)	% (n)	φ
Revocations	39.3 (24)	59.4 (19)	47.6 (39)	.14^ns
General reoffending^a	29.5 (18)	56.3 (18)	43.9 (36)	.20*
Violent reoffending^b	21.3 (13)	43.8 (14)	31.7 (26)	.17^ns
Sexual reoffending^c	4.9 (3)	21.9 (7)	7.3 (6)	.21*

Note. ns = nonsignificant.

Includes any criminal offence, provincial, federal, and so on.

Includes armed robbery, assaults, homicide, manslaughter, assault causing bodily harm, and sex offences.

Includes any sex offence such as sexual assault, touching, pornography, incest, and so on.

p < .05.

To explore this difference and determine whether the variable outcomes of offenders in the groups may be related to pre-existing differences among the offenders in the three groups, survival analyses compared the Inuit sex offenders who participated in the other sex offender programs and the untreated subgroup with the Tupiq group as a baseline. These analyses used the same covariates as were entered in the previously described survival analysis. Although the Tupiq group consistently performed better, the omnibus tests for the models for revocation, χ²(7, n = 131) = 9.45, p = .22; violent reoffending, χ²(7, n = 132) = 11.88, p = .10; and sexual reoffending, χ²(7, n = 131) = 8.39, p = .30, were not significant. The test for the model for any type of reoffending, χ²(7, n = 132) = 16.63, p = .02, however, was significant. The offenders who participated in alternative sex offender programs were more likely to have any type of reoffence than the Tupiq group, χ²(1, n = 132) = 6.31, p = .01, Hazard Ratio = 2.72, as were the sex offenders who had not participated in a sex offender program, χ²(1, n = 132) = 3.03, p = .08, Hazard Ratio = 1.94, although this effect did not reach a level of statistical significance.

Discussion

This study examined the profile and treatment outcome of 61 Inuit sex offenders who participated in the Tupiq program over the first 7 years since the program first began and compared them with a cohort of 114 Inuit sex offenders incarcerated and released during the same period.

The profile of Tupiq participants indicates that they deal with significant problems that contribute to reoffending and can pose barriers to reintegration. They have high rates of unemployment, low educational achievement, serious substance abuse problems, and substantial histories of criminality. In addition to having current and prior sex offences, the majority also admitted to high rates of domestic abuse. These men have themselves been exposed to traumatic experiences such as physical and sexual abuse and violent loss of family members through murder or suicide. This profile is consistent with previous research noting the multiple disadvantages of Inuit offenders (Mann, 2009).

Several markers point to the efficacy of the Tupiq program. Program completion rates are much higher than those for the national sex offender programs. Previous research has shown that low motivation and negative attitude toward correctional treatment are two factors that contribute to program attrition (Olver, Stockdale, & Wormith, 2011; Wormith & Olver, 2002). Based on such impressive completion rates, it appears that the Tupiq program and its facilitators have been successful in motivating and engaging offenders. Post program, Tupiq participants had significantly lower rates of general and violent reoffending than offenders in the combined comparison group. Of the 61 Tupiq participants who were released to the community at the time of follow-up, three sexually reoffended producing a sexual reoffending rate of 4.9%. This base rate over an average follow-up period of 4 years compares favorably with rates cited for general sex offenders. An overall sexual recidivism rate of 14% over 5 years is expected when sexual recidivism is defined by charges and convictions (Harris & Hanson, 2004). The Tupiq participants’ sexual reoffending rate, though less than half that of the comparison group (4.9% compared with 11.4%), was not significantly lower. Elsewhere, Barbaree (1997) has discussed the challenge of demonstrating significant treatment effects in programs where the base rates for reoffending are low and the number of participants in the study is also low. Both low base rates of reoffending and small samples sizes increase the chances of a Type II error (accepting the null hypothesis when there is in fact an actual difference), thus making it difficult for smaller scale programs for sex offenders to demonstrate effectiveness. To ensure that significant treatment effects will be detected if they exist, further research extending the follow-up period (thus increasing the base rates) and increasing the number of participants in the treatment and comparison groups is required.

Despite its success, administrators will have to consider the costs with the benefits of this program. The program is substantially more expensive than those associated with the national standardised sex offender program but less expensive than the costs for the national Aboriginal sex offender programs. Some of the costs for the Tupiq program are associated with the cultural-specific components of the program such as bringing the Inuit healers from the north and hiring Inuit facilitators on contract. A lower average group size also contributes to Tupiq’s higher program costs per offender. Tupiq has averaged seven offenders per program cycle while the national standards allow for up to 12 participants when the program is delivered by two facilitators. More efficient participant recruitment strategies are needed to make the program more cost-effective and to reduce the wait times when program delivery start dates are delayed because of insufficient referrals. It should be acknowledged, however, that a thorough cost–benefit analysis may reveal that the savings to corrections and to communities due to the effectiveness of the program in reducing recidivism may offset these additional costs.

Many Inuit offenders will face challenges in returning to northern communities after their release including: high unemployment, housing shortages and social problems. Nevertheless, Trevethan et al. (2004) provided hope for the future reintegration of Inuit offenders by pointing out that their communities have indicated that they welcome the opportunity to take a more active role in justice, corrections, and rehabilitation initiatives. Justice committees in these communities are willing to advise and assist government agencies with crime prevention and enforcement and these communities have a resource in the elders, healers, counsellors, educators, and community workers who are active in supporting healthy lifestyles. Furthermore, these positive results for this culturally specific program demonstrate that similarly designed interventions could be implemented that have a probability of contributing to the reduction of sexual offending within Inuit communities and, potentially, other jurisdictions that work with cultural minority sex offender groups from relatively isolated communities.

Conclusion

This study shows encouraging results for this innovative program for Inuit sex offenders. Tupiq’s unique design combines key elements outlined in the effective corrections literature with culturally specific and linguistically sensitive material. A limitation of the study is the lack of analysis of the results of pre- and post-program participation assessment tools that might have evaluated the impact of the program on specific criminogenic needs. Examination of appropriate methods of assessing components of the program and their relationship to outcome may allow researchers to determine the relative impact of the Inuit-specific cultural teachings and healing services.

The costs of a program like Tupiq, the multiple dynamic risk factors of most Inuit offenders, and the logistical problems of delivering culturally sensitive programs to a distinct but small group of offenders point to a need to examine a strategy for the development of an Inuit-specific integrated program that will treat offenders with multiple needs in a modularised format. This is a strategy that would appear to be particularly relevant to a high needs Inuit group that is so sparsely scattered across institutions. Dynamic risk factors common to most Inuit offenders are in the areas of substance abuse, and sexual and domestic violence. In addition, given the barriers to reintegration posed by Inuit offenders serving much of their sentences far from their families and communities, it would be appropriate to assess the viability of providing a correctional intervention that targets these criminogenic areas in one integrated program and provides ongoing maintenance for the graduates of the program closer to Inuit communities and to the resources and services that form a key component of the Tupiq program.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This study is the result of the work and dedication of many people. Our thanks to the program’s participants for taking advantage of the opportunity provided to them to make important changes in their lives, to the program’s facilitators, and Inuit healers and writers who are contributing in important ways toward making their communities safer and healthier: Myna Ishulutak, Pitsula Akavak, Meeka Arnakaq, Abraham Arnakaq, Moosa Akavak, Leena Evic, William Qumuaqtuq, Tina Meharrie, Kanayok Salamonie, Mary Thompson, Denise Constantineau, Tracy Qaqassiq, Angangaq Lyberth, Sylvia Mala, Leetia Kowalchuk, Nuvalinga Kingwatsiak, and Okie Kunnuk. Our thanks as well to the clinical director, Dr. Dana Anderson, who has provided long-standing clinical oversight and expertise, and a special thanks to the administrators of Fenbrook Institution, Nancy Kinsman, Willie Gladue, Corrine Hagerman, Jim Spicer, and Mike Provan who originated the project and every year renewed their support for the program.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Allwood

M. A.

Widom

C. S.

(2013). Child abuse and neglect, developmental role attainment, and adult arrests. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 50, 551-578.

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Press.

Barbaree

(1997). Evaluating treatment efficacy with sexual offenders: The insensitivity of recidivism studies to treatment effects. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 9, 111-128.

Beauregard

Martineau

(2013). A descriptive study of sexual homicide in Canada: Implications for police investigations. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 1454-1476.

Byrd

A. L.

Manuck

S. B.

(2014). MAOA, childhood maltreatment, and antisocial behavior: Meta-analysis of a gene-environment interaction. Biological Psychiatry, 75, 9-17.

Chartrand

McKay

(2006). A review of research on criminal victimization and First Nations, Métis and Inuit Peoples 1990 to 2001. Ottawa, Ontario: Policy Centre for Victim Research, Department of Justice Canada.

Collin-Vézina

Dion

Trocmé

(2009). Sexual abuse in Canadian Aboriginal communities: A broad review of conflicting evidence. Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Aboriginal and Indigenous Community Health, 7, 27-47.

Correctional Service of Canada. (2008). The changing offender population: Profiles and forecasts. Ottawa, Ontario: Author.

Correctional Service of Canada. (2014). Unpublished raw data from the Corporate Reporting System.

10.

Gendreau

Little

Goggin

(1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575-608.

11.

Hanson

R. K.

Bussiere

M. T.

(1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362.

12.

Hanson

R. K.

Harris

A. J. R.

Scott

Helmus

(2007). Assessing the risk of sexual offenders on community supervision: The Dynamic Supervision Project. Ottawa, Ontario: Public Safety Canada. Retrieved from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ssssng-rsk-sxl-ffndrs/index-eng.aspx

13.

Hanson

R. K.

Thornton

(1999). Static 99: Improving actuarial risk assessments for sex offenders. Ottawa, Ontario: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.

14.

Harris

A. J. R.

Hanson

R. K.

(2004). Sex offender recidivism: A simple question. Ottawa, Ontario: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.

15.

Johnson

(2006). Measuring violence against women: Statistical trends. Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-570-x/85-570-x2006001-eng.htm

16.

Keel

(2004). Family violence and sexual assault in indigenous communities: Walking the talk (Research Brief No. 4). Melbourne: Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault, Institute of Family Studies.

17.

Lösel

(2001). Evaluating the effectiveness of correctional programs: Bridging the gap between research and practice. In Bernfeld

G. A.

Farrington

D. P.

Leschied

A. W.

(Eds.), Offender rehabilitation in practice (pp. 67-92). New York, NY: John Wiley.

18.

Mann

M. M.

(2009). Good intentions, disappointing results: A progress report on federal Aboriginal corrections. Retrieved from www.oci-bec.gc.ca/cnt/rpt/pdf/oth-aut/oth-aut20091113-eng.pdf

19.

Moore

J.-P.

Trevethan

(2002). Profiling federally incarcerated First Nations, Métis and Inuit offenders. Forum on Corrections Research, 14(3), 25-27.

20.

Motiuk

L. M.

Brown

S. L.

(1993). The validity of offender needs identification and analysis in community corrections (Research Report, R-34). Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service of Canada.

21.

Olver

M. E.

Stockdale

K. C.

Wormith

J. S.

(2011). A meta-analysis of predictors of offender treatment attrition and its relationship to recidivism. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 6-21.

22.

Paletta

(2008). Understanding family violence and sexual assault in the Territories, First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. Ottawa, Ontario: Department of Justice Canada.

23.

Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada (2006). A national strategy to prevent abuse in Inuit communities and sharing knowledge, sharing wisdom: A guide to the national strategy 2006. Retrieved from http://pauktuutit.ca/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/assets/InuitStrategy_e.pdf

24.

Perry

S. W.

(2004). American Indians and crime. A BJS statistical profile, 1992–2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

25.

Sauvé

(2004). Crime Statistics in Canada, 2004. Juristat, 25(5). Retrieved from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection-R/Statcan/85-002-XIE/0050585-002-XIE.pdf

26.

Skinner

H. A.

(1982). The Drug Abuse Screening Test. Addictive Behaviours, 7, 363-371.

27.

Skinner

H. A.

Horn

J. L.

(1984). Alcohol Dependence Scale (ADS): User’s guide. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Addiction Research Foundation.

28.

Statistics Canada. (2006). Aboriginal peoples in Canada in 2006: Inuit, Métis and First Nations, 2006 census: Highlights. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-558/p1-eng.cfm

29.

Stewart

L. A.

Hamilton

Wilton

Cousineau

Varrette

(2009). An examination of the effectiveness of Tupiq: A culturally specific program for Inuit sex offenders (Research Report R-213). Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service Canada.

30.

Trevethan

Moore

J.-P.

Naqitarvik

Watson

Saunders

(2004). The needs of Inuit offenders in federal correctional facilities (Research report R-142). Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service of Canada.

31.

Widom

C. S.

(2014). Longterm consequences of child maltreatment. In Korbin

J. E.

Krugman

R. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of child maltreatment (pp. 225-247). Dordrecht: Springer.

32.

Wormith

Olver

M. E.

(2002). Offender treatment attrition and its relationship with risk, responsivity, and recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 447-471.

The Effectiveness of the Tupiq Program for Inuit Sex Offenders

Abstract

Keywords

The Tupiq Program

Method

Participants 1

Measures

Procedure

Analyses

Results

Profile Information on Tupiq Participants

Profiles of Tupiq Participants and the Comparison Group

Correctional Program Involvement

Victim Profile

Outcome: Measures of Reoffending

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Notes

References

Participants¹