III.Policies

A. Staffing

Recommendation

8. CAEFS urges that the Commission recommend that correctional policy for women prohibit the employment of men to work in front-line positions at the Prison for Women and in the new regional prisons and that sexual harassment policies be established for the new prisons.

We are concerned that the staffing model for the new prisons has shifted significantly from that envisioned in Creating Choices, and that this could result in a parallel shift from a human services orientation of staff as supportive facilitators, to a fairly clear correctional or guarding orientation. For example, although it was originally envisioned that the heads of the new facilities would be recruited from other social service fields, all of the "wardens" were hired from the administrative ranks of CSC. Also, while the titles of the new staff has been changed to "primary Workers", their duties will basically be a roll-up of current correctional officer and case management officer duties, with some programming responsibilities. In addition, their training will consist of basic CSC correctional officer training, plus a mere ten days of "woman-centred" training.

Most significantly, of course, is the decision to open up front-line staff positions to men in the new regional prisons currently under construction. The Task Force found that more than 80% of federally sentenced women have histories of physical and or sexual abuse, most at the hands of men in positions of authority over them. The figure rises to over 90% for First Nations women alone, a group that is disproportionately over-represented in the prison population. CAEFS is of the view that the potential risks and/or perceived risks of abuses of power in general, and sexual coercion, harassment and/or assault more particularly, are likely to be exacerbated by the presence of men in front-line correctional worker positions.

With the tabling of Creating Choices, the Correctional Service itself acknowledged that federally sentenced women would likely benefit in terms of personal growth, individuality and independence by having supportive and sensitive women as front-line workers, and that staffing policies would then be consistent with the current Correctional Service of Canada policy of not hiring men as front-line correctional officers at the Prison for Women. Moreover, in 1980, Canada endorsed international norms with respect to the assignment of male and female prison guards. Article 53 of the United Nations' Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners specifies that women prisoners are to be "attended and supervised only by women officers". In addition the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Conway case essentially reaffirmed current practices at the Prison for Women of allowing only women to fill front-line positions, stating that such practices were in keeping with the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For all of the foregoing reasons, as well as those articulated by LEAF, CAEFS continues to oppose the hiring of men to work in the living units or any other "front line" positions in the new regional prisons for women.

B. Security Classification Model

Recommendation

9. CAEFS continues to recommend the abandonment of CSC's "Security Management Model" and echoes the suggestion of the Correctional Investigator that access to the Healing Lodge, as well as to programs both within the regional prisons and the community, be determined based upon the individual needs and circumstances of each woman, with those representing the greatest need receiving priority access to same; also that all security classification, risk assessment and case management practices for federally sentenced women reflect the same priority.

CAEFS continues to view the need for a gender-specific process as vitally important to the implementation of the recommendations of the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women in the new prisons. While we recognize that some women sometimes pose a risk to themselves or to others, CAEFS advocates an holistic approach to the security needs of federally sentenced women, as opposed to pursuing the "male-oriented" offence-based models. By focusing on what is essentially a negative approach to classifying women, the model currently being proposed appears most likely to further disempower and therefore contribute to the continued infantilization of federally sentenced women.

Rather than promoting such approaches as condemnation and punishment, Creating Choices advocated the promotion of self-directed and peer-supported alternatives. It was felt that more behavioural change would be possible if prisoners and staff had a better understanding of human behaviour and relational dynamics. Understanding what makes a certain behaviour unsafe and what other alternatives exist is more likely to produce more constructive and desirable behavioural change, than is a punitive or manipulative response. An atmosphere of mutual respect and dignity was viewed as the ideal means of maintaining institutional order or discipline.

Current plans for security classification do not seem to have moved sufficiently from the problem of the old model and we are worried that this could transport the recent and perennial difficulties at P4W to the new prisons by importing behaviour modification style practices of punishment and privilege bartering. We are fundamentally opposed to continuing the process of transforming women's needs and often desperate life experiences into criminogenic factors and potential instruments of, or rationale for, punishment.

Research into violence and aggression reveal that there are strong situational factors operating either to facilitate or inhibit an outburst of violence, for example: anger and cognitive labelling; dehumanization and deindividuation; stress factors; perceived alternatives to violence. Even the most passive person is probably capable of some aggression if not outright violence under certain circumstances.

The Task Force envisioned individualized woman-centred approaches, as opposed to a continued focus on male-norm based correctional classification strategies. Creating Choices anticipated that all assessment tools and program plans for federally sentenced women would be oriented to and driven by their respective community release plans, rather than the current move toward a model of specified or core correctional program categories.

CAEFS submits that during both phases of the Inquiry, CSC attempted to justify its actions surrounding the April 1994 incidents by demonizing the women involved, portraying them as dangerous, high risk women. As a result, following the April 1994 events at the Prison for Women, CSC developed a new "Strategy to Manage Federally Sentenced Women who Behave Violently" and doubled the capacity of the Enhanced Security Units of the new prisons, rather than examine such systemic and institutional factors as:

"... the overall differences between men and women and the[ir] use of violence ... gender blindness in research and practice and its different impact on men and women ... the traditional dominance of individual explanations of misconduct and criminology, and especially within the prison ... [a]nd their implications for practice, assuming individuals must change but leaving the environment unchanged ... the importance of legitimacy, fairness and justice, underlying the exercise of prison power whether for males or females ... the role of the institution in generating conflict ... differences in the incidence and characteristics of violence by men and women and in disturbances seen in institutions ... the pains of imprisonment and their relationship to women's experiences, and finally, the particular characteristics of the Canadian federally sentenced female situation which free us from some of the constraints imposed upon other countries or with male populations, but also require us to take account of their experiences as women and of the high proportion of First Nations and other minority women in the population." (pp. 590-591)

..."It is, for me, a curious thing that our knowledge of how to handle violence and destruction in schools or in psychiatric hospitals even has for some time included the organization and management practices of those institutions as a crucial element in the generation and the way that violence is encouraged and a major place for intervention. In prisons, while there has been some acknowledgement of management practices and routines as ways of improving the handling of events, the major focus is still on the identification of the characteristics of the individual most likely to be disruptive." (p. 598) Transcript of Phase II Proceedings: Margaret Shaw - November 21, 1995

Rather than encouraging prisoners to take responsibility for their actions and to respect the law, prisons tend to encourage the development or enhancement of coping skills that rely upon the use of manipulation and coercion. The more powerless and unable to influence their own circumstances people feel, the more likely they are to resort to increasingly desperate measures in order to feel as though they have some control over their lives. In the case of women in prison, this often results in women resorting to self-injurious behaviour in an effort to deal with a dehumanizing situation. Further, prisons tend to promote the very behaviour they are supposed to "correct".

It is not surprising that it is in those relatively few prisons where prisoner empowerment and self-actualization, as well as the development of a sense of community, are encouraged that self injury, assaults and suicides, as well as the need for institutional use of force is rare.

Recommendations

10. CAEFS recommends that prisoners be encouraged in self-actualizing and self-expression, and that institutional resources focus upon and promote opportunities for prisoners to exercise choice and preference, whilst staff simultaneously model and expect pro-social, humane and respectful interpersonal interactions.

11. CAEFS further recommends that staff screening, selection, training and professional development and advancement policies and practices reflect the foregoing by encouraging and rewarding same.

12. CAEFS also recommends the development of non-punitive conflict resolution training and support for prisoners and staff, as well as the abolition of any rule prohibiting behaviour or which defines as institutional infractions, attitudes as offences against the good order and discipline of the prison.

C. Preventing the Use of Force and other Punitive Mechanisms

Again, in keeping with the discussions during Phase II, as well as the views articulated by CAEFS and others, we promote the following submissions.

Recommendations

13. CAEFS recommends that the legislative and policy provisions pertaining to the regional prisons and federally sentenced women be amended so as to:

a) eliminate the use of mace or any other weapons;

b) eliminate the use and prohibit the establishment of institutional emergency response teams or police squads;

c) eliminate the use of arbitrary strip searching and restraints;

d) direct the use of dynamic and human interaction, as opposed to segregation and other forms of "enhanced security"; encourage the provision of immediate access to therapeutic/personal support in crisis situations, as well as such other approaches as peer support, to assist in diffusing and ultimately resolving situations; provide staff with additional training with respect to women's issues, such as how to work with women encountering flashbacks, et cetera;

e) prohibit the use of involuntary transfers;

f) mandate the establishment and monitoring of effective accountability and grievance mechanisms for prisoners;

g) prohibit the development of a Special Handling Unit (SHU) for women, in name or practice (ie. both, the establishment of a new SHU or the continued use of B-Range at P4W, or the Enhanced Units in the regional prisons and the Healing Lodge as separation units);

h) direct reform of the internal investigative process by ensuring that investigators are external to the CSC, with at least one member of each board of investigation examining issues involving federally sentenced women being a nominee of CAEFS; and that such boards have the independence to expand the scope of their investigations, the nature of evidence sought/collected, the publicizing of findings, et cetera);

i) provide non-violent, women-directed and lesbian positive environments that create healthy atmospheres for prisoners, including lesbian positive staff who understand and support women who are dealing with a multiplicity of issues, including past experiences of violence, separation from children, et cetera;

j) mandate the provision of a mother-child and prisoner parenting policy in each of the regional prisons and the national Healing Lodge, whereby participation is voluntary and may only be interfered with by relevant child welfare authorities;

k) mandate the provision of enhanced personal and professional development opportunities in each of the regional prisons and the national Healing Lodge for prisoners serving prison terms, particularly for those serving prison sentences in excess of five years;

l) mandate the provision of mental health resources in each of the regional prisons and the national Healing Lodge for women who desire/require same, such services to be developed in conjunction with relevant community-based mental health authorities;

m) provide training for prisoners and staff in non-violent crisis intervention techniques, as well as crisis debriefing; also, provide and promote professional support and on-going professional development in these areas via the provision of a minimum 50 hour per year training requirement for staff;

n) advance the protection of prisoners' rights and entitlements, such as the access of prisoners to legal counsel;

o) direct the provision of mandatory staff and prisoner orientation and ongoing educational programs designed to alert both to the obligations of staff to protect the human rights of prisoners, in accordance with Canada's agreement with the United Nations Minimum Standard Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian Human Rights legislation, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, as well as provincial corrections legislation and regulations;

p) enhance the power of CAEFS and others whose mandate it is to promote the dignity and autonomy of prisoners to positively intervene to support and protect the rights and entitlements of women in Canadian prisons both with respect to specific incidents as well as the more general administration of the regional prisons, including the power to initiate appeals to the regional and/or national advisory bodies contemplated in recommendations 2 and 4 above.

D. Discouraging the Use of Incarceration in Canada

CAEFS and other national women's and social justice groups condemn the use of incarceration as the least effective and most expensive means of addressing criminal transgressions. Incarceration is too frequently a dehumanizing and brutalizing experiences for prisoners, and therefore tends to promote the very behaviour it is designed to correct. We feel it is imperative that the Commission call upon the federal government to limit the use of incarceration by making the following recommendations.

Recommendations

14. CAEFS recommends that the federal government immediately institute a moratorium on the number of prison beds available for federally sentenced women throughout Canada and limit the utilization of same by capping the number of prison bed days available to each sentencing judge.

15. CAEFS further recommends that the federal government provide resources to judicial education authorities to support the provision of educational opportunities to enable members of the judiciary to gain a greater understanding and assessment of the relative merits and long term effectiveness of sentencing options.

16. CAEFS further recommends that the federal government actively support the provision and use of such non-incarceral criminal sanctions as probation, suspended sentences, attendance centre, educational and vocational programming or training, therapeutic and self-help services, neighbourhood and community service, restitution, compensation, mediation, and the variety of alternative forms of residentially-based treatment and community supervision options -- from halfway or quarterway houses to supported independent living and satellite housing projects.

17. CAEFS further recommends that the federal government repeal all mandatory minimum sentences and limits for parole eligibility.

18. CAEFS further recommends that the federal government de-institutionalize as many women in prison as possible, ensuring that all "correctional" resources attached to the incarceration of each woman follow her in to the community for at least the period during which she would have otherwise been in prison [CSC's 1992 figures indicate that the annual cost of incarcerating each federally sentenced woman at the Prison for Women is approximately $92,000], thereby ensuring that the needs of the women, as well as their respective communities could be met -- even community-based security concerns could be addressed by 24-hour support and supervision if necessary.

19. CAEFS further recommends that the federal government fund and promote the access of women in prison to legal aid services to address issues related to their conditions of imprisonment and conditional release, so that adequate legal aid coverage is provided throughout the country and/or legal clinics are established specifically for prisoners, preferably staffed by experienced lawyers, as opposed to reliance upon student-staffed clinics alone.

20. CAEFS further recommends that the federal government promote public access to and exposure to prison, with a view to facilitating public education and dispelling myths with respect to the realities of the role, conditions and ineffectiveness of our prisons.

Table of Contents

Home