Report of the Enhanced Partnership Model Guiding Team
March 31, 2011

Making the Relationships Work^{Footnote 1}

Preliminaries

At the heart of chaplaincy lies the unique relationship between incarcerated persons and chaplains. By the ministry that has been entrusted to them by their respective faith communities, chaplains attend to the suffering of offenders and to their yearnings for hope, healing and rehabilitation. The relationship between chaplains and offenders provides an environment where offenders may freely ask life questions, ponder choices made, begin a process of seeking and speaking truth, and take meaningful steps towards reintegrating society in a way that reduces risk to society and ensures its security. The chaplain, through respectful presence and compassionate listening, reminds incarcerated persons that their identities cannot be reduced to the offences they have committed nor to the sentences they have received. Rather, their identity lies in having been created by a God of love, who continues to call them to transform their lives.

This message, which chaplains proclaim to offenders and their families, to Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) staff and professionals, and to society at large, is also carried by networks of volunteers, many of whom have emerged from faith communities and have grasped the profound meaning of chaplaincy. Over the years, faith communities have acknowledged that chaplaincy corresponds to their sense of mission and to their deeply held values. Accordingly, they have offered to provide chaplaincy services to CSC through properly trained and competent personnel. Faith communities also recognize that they have a role to play in enabling CSC to carry out its mission and that the provision of qualified chaplains will ultimately contribute to meeting society's expectations regarding public safety.

The values held and proclaimed by faith communities are communicated to CSC through the leadership of the Interfaith Committee on Chaplaincy (IFC)^{Footnote 2}. Its dedicated volunteers participate in the preparation of the Memorandum of Understanding that embodies the shared vision of CSC and the faith communities. Among other things, the IFC carries out this role by coming alongside the CSC and potential contract-holders in the process of selecting chaplains.

CSC can continue to count upon faith communities for the provision of chaplaincy services, upon the IFC not only for timely advice but also for counsel in the selection of competent chaplains, and upon the chaplains themselves for intelligent collaboration. With such partners, CSC is better able to achieve its mission, and to meets its obligations under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the other international agreements to which Canada is a signatory.

More than anything else, chaplaincy is about the inmate: a man or a woman who has been removed from society and who is in dire need of healing and change. Chaplaincy reconnects the disconnected, speaks to, and for, those without a voice. Chaplaincy is also about faith communities carrying out their spiritual and social responsibility towards offenders, their victims and the families and communities offended by their actions. In CSC, chaplaincy is about an ongoing responsibility shared by partners, who together contribute to the reintegration of the offender within society.

Chaplaincy within CSC has a rich and proud history, one which has been well documented^{Footnote 3}. It is a history intimately tied to the story of numerous religious traditions within this country. More recently, chaplaincy within our federal institutions is delivered through a contract-for-service model. Faith communities (contract-holders) enter into a contractual relationship with the CSC to provide chaplaincy services in a specific institutional setting and through an identified and qualified individual - their chaplain. The chaplain is the agent of the faith community. While chaplains who operate within the realities of the prison environment are rooted in their respective faith tradition and bring that tradition to the institution, they accept to serve with an interfaith mindset that recognizes the variety of faith traditions represented among inmates.

Both the isolated institutional setting where the chaplain serves and the present contract-for-services model make the delivery of chaplaincy services particularly challenging for all the involved partners. Understanding of ministry responsibilities and methods varies depending on whether one is part of CSC administration (prison warden and staff), the chaplaincy management team at the national or regional level, the administrative authorities of the faith community holding the contract, the IFC at the national level, or the chaplain delivering services on the frontline. In addition, such understandings (or misunderstandings) have distinctive regional colours and vary from one particular situation to another. The chaplain invests lots of energy in attempting to answer a basic question: "Who do I report to; to whom am I accountable?" Understandably, tensions arise; irritants develop, not only for the chaplain, but for the other partners as well, oftentimes in the midst of competing expectations and mixed perceptions.

This report focuses first on the partners and their presence in institutional chaplaincy, then identifies the major problems that hinder chaplaincy service delivery. Next, we underline the principles that we have identified as foundational to an improved or enhanced partnership model. Finally, proposals are provided to ensure that the enhancement is enshrined within chaplaincy.

Correctional Chaplaincy: Engaged Partners

While the contract-for-services model of chaplaincy delivery has numerous advantages (such as enabling an open and non-judgmental relationship between inmate and chaplain), it carries its load of complexity. In 2009, a decision was made by the CSC Executive Committee to allow the Chaplaincy Branch to carry out a country-wide consultation among the four partner groups and to seek to identify the issues and irritants around the delivery of chaplaincy within CSC. The purpose was singular: to enhance the present partnership model of chaplaincy. It was soon obvious to each partner that the enhancement of the present model would require clarification of roles and relationships, and then more investment more into the relationships that make chaplaincy work.

The consultation produced many pages of comments, issues, opinions and reactions. For the first time, some members of the partner groups heard the irritants brought forth by the other partners. However, the more experienced members heard issues that had been raised over and over again through the years, issues which had never reached satisfactory resolutions for all partners. The challenge was clear: we needed to focus on what needed to change so that satisfying solutions could in practice be found and implemented. What processes were missing to ensure that these long-lasting tensions within chaplaincy could be settled? What kinds of changes would be needed to make the chaplaincy partnership work better?

In early 2010, a guiding team of twelve people was established to work through the information produced by the regional consultations and to make recommendations to the partners in view of engaging them in more effective ministry cooperation, specifically at this point with respect to the provision of full-time institutional chaplaincy. The team had representation from all of the CSC regions, as well as from the four partner groups directly involved in correctional chaplaincy: (1) chaplains, (2) faith communities or contract-holders, (3) the IFC, and (4) the CSC Chaplaincy Management Team.

Between April 2010 and March 2011, the team gathered together for four, intense, three-day meetings (April in Pierrefonds, Quebec, June in Calgary, Alberta, October in Pierrefonds, Quebec, and February in Nanaimo, British Columbia), worked in subgroups between the meetings, and participated in conference calls. Frank and open discussions happened among partners who were not in the habit of sitting together at the same table. Dreams as well as the hard realities of institutional chaplaincy were expressed. Our team hoped to fill the gap between dream and reality - or more realistically, put forth recommendations that could provide a working environment and a framework to ensure that this gap would be reduced in the coming months and years.

This report is our honest attempt to put our collective wisdom to the service of institutional chaplaincy. It is both a form of sincere prayer and a call to action to all those belonging to one of our partner groups. We recognize that each partner group and each individual bring with them a different and useful perspective on issues relating to chaplaincy.

We, the signatories of this report are the members of the Enhanced Partnership Model Guiding Team (EPMGT) as identified on the cover page. Before being members of the Guiding Team, we are men and women directly involved in the delivery of chaplaincy, day in and day out. We are not outside experts brought in to analyse and make recommendations. Rather, we are the players themselves. We know the length and width of the rink. We have grown accustomed to scrambling in the corners and behind the nets. We know how to put the puck behind the goalie. We know the joy of winning but also the pain of defeat when both the inmate and society lose out. We know how injuries happen and we do all we can to avoid them. It's a game - at times of life and death - that we love and are committed to. It is our focus and our lifeblood. From that perspective, the information and recommendations contained in this report are the result of our wide and varied experiences, understood and reflected upon.

Correctional Chaplaincy: Visible Presence

Correctional chaplaincy is already well established in federal institutions. It has a history and credibility within CSC and among the inmate population. All four partners have been involved for many years. Please refer to Appendix 1 for key documents produced by the partners.

Correctional Chaplaincy: Basic Problems

As the consultations were first held across the regions and members of the four partner or identity groups were heard, a picture of correctional chaplaincy soon emerged. The minutes of those consultations can be found on the IFC website^{Footnote 6}. Needless to say, various frustrations were expressed. But it was also a place where hope was seeded in view of a preferred future where some of irritants could be dealt with. Then, as the consultation process gave way to the work of the Enhanced Partnership Model Guiding Team, it slowly became obvious that the work to be done was first and foremost structural and foundational. Current irritants could not be solved and future ones avoided without a review of how the four partners perceived their individual roles as well as the roles of the other partners. They would have to learn to function as a partnership.

Our work began to focus on systemic issues rather than on particular problems. We began to admit that as partners who had far too often been working in parallel, often in isolation, some would even say in opposition. While the picture of chaplaincy flowing out of the consultations was "a list of irritants", the picture of chaplaincy that we hope will emerge from this report is one where roles, responsibilities and relationships are being clarified. As each partner commits to an Enhanced Partnership Model, we will learn to identify, analyse and bring solutions to specific areas causing frustration. While this will not happen overnight, it is a reasonable expectation for the near future.

We could at this point describe all that is working well in CSC chaplaincy, much that we are proud of, but considering that our purpose is to enhance the partnership model, we need to focus on what is not working so well, or at least what is perceived by one or more of the partners as not working well. Later in the report, we will present recommendations that address these weaknesses or tensions so as to enhance the partnership model for chaplaincy. More often than not, difficulties in the present model of delivering chaplaincy arise in areas where two or more partners should be partnering but are not.

Here are some "still shots" that describe the primary problems within chaplaincy and to which the EPMGT gave its attention.

• SLIDE NO 1: There is confusion as to the various roles and responsibilities of the partners. Every partner experiences some level of confusion as to its own specific role as well as to the roles of each of the other partners, their boundaries and as to how to work effectively with the others. Many of the irritants flow from this lack of clarity.

• SLIDE NO 2: More than any other partner, it seems that the chaplain who serves on the frontline, is the one who finds himself / herself the most affected by the confusion of roles, and as a result, is most prone to verbalizing to the other partners the unnecessary challenges that result from this lack of clarity. Contractors are probably next in line in experiencing confusion, followed closely by the CSC Chaplaincy Management Team. The IFC is last in line in experiencing the confusion or even in understanding why the confusion exists in the first place. To return to the hockey metaphor, some would say that this is understandable because IFC does not have the same presence on the ice as do the other three partners. Its place is perceived by all partners as being more behind the bench (this is quite different than sitting on the bench). However, this does not make for clarity.

• SLIDE NO 3: Typically, when confusion occurs, one party will turn to the other party(s) seeking resolution of the issue but the response is oftentimes further confusion as to whose responsibility it is to respond and / or address the issue: institutional management? regional chaplain? contractor? IFC? chaplain? The CSC Management Team and the contractors are often perceived as having most of the resources but also as withholding them. Learning to work as partners, rather than downloading the problem onto one another is what everyone seems to wish for, but there is a good way left to get there.

• SLIDE NO 4: There tends to be a default position that thinks the other three partners are there to serve one partner, the chaplains, whose issues are the only really important ones. While it is the chaplain who is on the frontline in the delivery of chaplaincy, he / she is not the only partner with needs and expectations related to chaplaincy.

• SLIDE NO 5: There are clear and functional lines of communication between some of the partners (e.g. between regional chaplains and contract holders; between IFC and the Director General of Chaplaincy; between a contactor and its chaplain) but a lack of such among other partners (e.g. between contractors and IFC; between chaplains and regional chaplains). In addition, little if any systematic communication exists among the four partner groups as a whole or single partnership.

• SLIDE NO 6: Unfortunately, when there are no clear line(s) of responsibility for an issue needing resolution, there is also no mechanism in place for the partners to come together to work toward clarification and resolution. There is no table, neither at the national nor at the regional level, at which all four partners can sit so as to bring creative solutions to an issue or even to simply monitor, or better yet, to enhance the partnership.

  Note:

  The EPMGT is a first such table. Its mandate was temporary and ended March 31, 2011. The closest we are to such a permanent table is the IFC; however, the IFC gathers together only three of the four partners, two of which sit as observers rather than as full member representatives. In addition, IFC has not seen its primary role as facilitating an EPMGT-like partnership.

• SLIDE NO 7: There are many contract-holders across the country, some well informed and intentionally involved with the other partners, but many that are not. There is a growing awareness among the other three partners as well as among the contract-holders themselves that this partner group has a strategic contribution to make to chaplaincy, one that goes beyond signing a contract for services with CSC and providing an institutional chaplain. There is a shared desire to see contractors gather together so as to play a more significant role in the partnership model for chaplaincy.

Correctional Chaplaincy: Enhancing Principles

To many players, it seems that over the years the "rules" of the game changed, or at least that the rules have varied from region to region. There is lack of clarity as to what exactly these rules are as well as the various roles, responsibilities and rights of each partner in the present partnership model. With "partnership" must necessarily come clarity of relationships and communication, a shared and explicit understanding of our respective boundaries. To get to this point, we need to once again rally around the foundational principles that mobilize us as essential partners committed to chaplaincy.

Chaplaincy is faith-based. It is energized by faith communities as well as by individual men and women who believe in a God who is committed to the disenfranchised. The value we place in those that are sentenced and incarcerated flows from our understanding of the value that God places in each one of us. The high value we place on the incarcerated man or woman translates into the high value we place in chaplaincy itself, especially as it is carried out by a partnership of individuals and organizations. It is not our purpose here to expound on the why of chaplaincy. Rather, we want to underscore what we, as partners, agree to be foundational in the how of chaplaincy, its operations and the conditions to its success. We have broken this down into a few guiding principles. In our deliberations over the past 12 months, our team has had to learn to live out these principles, to more and more to incarnate them. They have proved to be true and essential to our growing partnership. Later in this report, we will translate these convictions into concrete action plans (recommendations) that will enhance the partnership model and impact how we will do chaplaincy in the future.

Chaplaincy calls upon at least four distinct and necessary partners to work together. Independent initiatives or actions taken by one partner, even with the best of intentions, without consulting with the other partners usually do not serve chaplaincy well. As partners, we are committed to working together and that means that key issues are dealt with not uni- nor duo-laterally, but as a team of four equally important partners. Contractors need to be involved in important decisions that relate to their chaplains. Chaplains need to be involved in decisions that impact their contractors. Ideally, no partner should be excluded from the process leading to significant decisions, even though particular legal responsibilities may exist between certain specific members of the partnership. As a rule, major operational decisions that impact chaplaincy should involve all partners. Obviously, the employer-employee relationship between a contract-holding faith community and its chaplain requires an ongoing conversation between those two parties alone, without including IFC members or CSC chaplaincy personnel. However, our desire as partners is that even those conversations keep in mind and as much as possible involve the other partners. We are committed to working as a team. This is the path of success for chaplaincy in the CSC. While each partner has a distinct role and particular responsibilities not shared by the other three, the health of chaplaincy depends on the health of the working relationships. This togetherness alone will ensure quality chaplaincy in an interfaith context where religious and spiritual diversity is recognized and fully respected.

As in any essential relationship, healthy communication is the bread and butter of a living, trusting, creative and enduring rapport among Chaplaincy partners. Effective chaplaincy requires on-going, quality communication among all the parties. Trust grows only in this context. Communication that happens between partners must be clear and open, on-going, bi-directional (conversational), and as often as possible consultative rather than solely informative or worse yet, after-the-fact. Even when the roles and responsibilities of each of the partners are adequately delineated, the need for conversational communication among the partners remains.

Behind the scene of almost every conversation we had as an EPMGT was this reality check. Every partner has responsibilities and every partner brings resources to chaplaincy. A quick overview of responsibilities indicates that CSC is called upon to provide appropriate administrative support for chaplaincy to happen, including space and access to the inmates. The faith communities have the responsibility of "supervising" their chaplain, consulting their chaplain, supporting the faith journey of the chaplain and keeping them connected to the faith community whom they also serve. As for the chaplains, they need to embrace their particular role of being firmly rooted in the life of the institution, its inmates and staff all the while being firmly rooted in their faith community and ministry. IFC responsibilities within the partnership are also crucial even though they are often one step removed. They play a monitoring, supporting and advisory role towards interfaith chaplaincy as a whole as well as to each one of its partners.

Resources are often limited. Working together to discover how the resources and responsibilities of each partner contribute to chaplaincy assures an effective partnership into the future. Each of the recommendations brought forth later in this report calls upon one or more partners to invest resources into chaplaincy. Some recommendations invite the partners to discuss their expected return on an investment. The question is never if a partner wants to invest- each partner has been investing for a long time- but rather to what extent a partner is able to invest and in which circumstance it is legitimate for one partner group to tie their investment of resources to the investment of another partner group.

The partnership itself and not only the individual partners that make it up, is foundational to the delivery of chaplaincy. Enhancing the partnership will give greater credibility and success to chaplaincy. This will provide the environment to address irritants constructively. Each partner is committed to seeing the other partner as part of the solution, never as the problem. A single fragile partner weakens the whole partnership, chaplaincy itself and down the line to the chaplain-inmate relationship. Each partner must ask not only the obvious questions such as "What can my partner group bring to chaplaincy?" or "How can my partner group improve its contribution?" A partner must also ask questions such as: "In this area or at this time, what needs do I notice in the other partners and how can our group assist in strengthening these other partners?" This will ensure that the partnership does not only exist on paper, but in real life.

Each partner group has areas or moments of weakness which call for the support of the other three member groups. It is detrimental to the partnership if one partner holds most of the power (by intent or by default), is even only perceived to hold most of the power or again is asked to hold most of the power. Shared ownership is essential to chaplaincy as is the presence of each partner at the "chaplaincy table". As partners, we watch over the partnership, the relationships, over and above the needs of our partner group. The partnership ensures that no single partner becomes over-responsible for the delivery of chaplaincy, covering up for the lack of engagement of another partner and that no group is left in a position of under-responsibility towards chaplaincy.

Having said this, we regret that until now the contract holders have not been at the partnership table. There are a number of reasons for this (the most important being their vast number as well as religious and geographical diversity), but they remain a huge influence within chaplaincy. This quasi-absence of this partner at the "chaplaincy table" has been a loss for chaplaincy. The presence of four contract-holders among the twelve men and women gathered at this EPMGT table has provided us with a conclusive experience: everything must be done to continue to bring this partner into the conversation and into the decision-making process. That is essential to an enhanced partnership model for chaplaincy.

Much in chaplaincy needs to be enhanced. For that to happen, we invite partners to embrace hope, determination and creativity. The EPMGT itself became a dynamic demonstration of this principle. Over the 12 months, the members pushed cooperation and communication to a new level. In that light, our first and most important recommendation will be to ensure that the "EPMGT experience" continues into the future in one way or another, formally or informally, but definitely intentionally. While the EPMGT table was temporary, its ongoing experience has proven to be necessary to the future of an enhanced model for chaplaincy. An occasional "checking in with the partners" in times of crises, will not suffice. An occasional repeat of the EPMGT every few years will not lead to an Enhanced Partnership Model. The quality of chaplaincy and the ongoing development of each partner group require that all the relationships work to ensure ongoing and creative change to correctional chaplaincy. While every partner has a contractual relationship with at least one other partner, we operate primarily from a position of hope and of commitment to each other. Our service is a response to an invitation from "beyond ourselves" to share in a common mission to love our neighbour, both inmates and community. We are part of a covenantal relationship with our God, our Canadian community and our partners in chaplaincy.

Correctional Chaplaincy: Enhancing Proposals

The following recommendations will impact how in the future we as partners skate, how we will together work the boards, how we will pass the puck to the one in the best position to score. This report is our commitment to our respective Faith communities, to Canadians and to their security. It is a promise to work close and personal with each other so that men and women may be rehabilitated. This report is about MAKING THE RELATIONSHIPS WORK among the chaplaincy partners.

The immediate implication of this focus on relationships among partners is that our report has chosen not to go through a (legitimate) list of irritants and their possible solutions. Rather than seeing ourselves first and foremost as a council of the wise seeking answers to every question, we came to understand that our unique strength was in our RELATIONSHIPS, in our partnership of four. Not surprisingly, this report focuses on the changes that need to happen for the relationships to work, relationships that will contribute in an ongoing manner the focus, the wisdom, the commitment and the process needed to generate solutions not only to problems existing today for chaplains, contractors, CSC Chaplaincy management team members and IFC representatives, but to the problems that will emerge tomorrow. As we deliberated, listened attentively to each other, the question "How can we solve this problem or that irritant?" became "What are the relational structures required among the partners to reduce or even remove such problems or irritants?"

Whereas some of us came to the EPMGT table determined to settle some specific issue, we discovered that the structures and relationships were not yet in place to deal adequately with issues that needed not only our present attention but long-term solutions flowing out of a context where partners know how to work together. The most important recommendation that this report will make is to facilitate the continuation of this team's experience, in particular at the regional level. Simply put, our speaking, listening, questioning, debating and dreaming together over the last twelve months has worked and it needs to continue. Relationships between the four partner groups have improved, but it is only a start.

In this report, we have described the partners (people groups involved in chaplaincy), the problems within chaplaincy as well as the principles we are committed to and have sought to live out as an EnhancedPpartnership Model Guiding Team. We conclude our report with proposals that will position chaplaincy in such a way that the partnership model for chaplaincy will be enhanced and lead to more effective chaplaincy in every CSC region.

Annual Regional Partnership Forums (one recommendation)

Recommendation 1:

Whereas the partnership needs a growing ethos of trust- filled engagement, we recommend:

• That annual forums be convened in each region for the 4 partners to come together to share experiences, identify best practices, dispel myths, and generate creative approaches to fulfill our shared mission and build relationships as we develop an effective partnership,
• that the forums begin in fiscal year 2011-12 and continue until 2013-14 with a benefit analysis to be completed following the third forum,
• that each regional chaplain, in conjunction with the partners in that region, provide the structure, the resources and the opportunity to facilitate the partnership forums, and,
• that during this three year period, the Director General considers hosting meetings at a national level which will include representatives of the partners / regions to consolidate any best practices which emerge and that could lead to national protocols.

Clarifying Roles and Working the Relationships (six recommendations)

Recommendation 2:

Whereas the roles and responsibilities of each partner need ongoing clarification in order to ensure the greatest return for the overall partnership and a quality delivery of chaplaincy in our institutions, we recommend:

• That to clarify how the four partners relate one to another, the Director General and IFC lead the partnership in providing a developmental diagram outlining the roles, responsibilities and relationships of each of the four partner groups along with a 1-2 page explanation of the diagram.

Recommendation 3:

Whereas the roles and responsibilities of each partner need ongoing clarification in order to ensure the greatest return for the overall partnership and a quality delivery of chaplaincy in our institutions, we recommend:

• That every partner contribute to developing a culture of partnership through the opportunities already in place in the provision of Chaplaincy services in CSC (recruitment, selection, reviews, development of pastoral plans, renewing contracts, regional and national meetings, etc.). The use of a simple Chaplaincy Partnership Grid (Appendix 3) can help each partner think through the role of the other partners in both existing services as well as in new initiatives, involving them where appropriate.

Recommendation 4:

Whereas the roles and responsibilities of each partner need ongoing clarification in order to ensure the greatest return for the overall partnership and a quality delivery of chaplaincy in our institutions, we recommend:

• That every partner extend invitations to one or more of the other partners so as to enhance the partnership, nourish better understandings of roles and responsibilities and the principle of reciprocal communication. These invitations may include conferences, events, meetings, etc.

Recommendation 5:

Whereas the roles and responsibilities of each partner need ongoing clarification in order to ensure the greatest return for the overall partnership and a quality delivery of chaplaincy in our institutions, we recommend:

• That the Chaplaincy Management Team lead the partnership in updating handbooks and pertinent information to reflect the current roles and responsibilities of each partner.

Recommendation 6:

Whereas the roles and responsibilities of each partner need ongoing clarification in order to ensure the greatest return for the overall partnership and a quality delivery of chaplaincy in our institutions, we recommend:

• That the IFC lead the partnership in a review of the recruitment, selection, and evaluation processes in the delivery of chaplaincy services in order to affirm the roles and responsibilities of each partner.

Recommendation 7:

Whereas the roles and responsibilities of each partner need ongoing clarification in order to ensure the greatest return for the overall partnership and a quality delivery of chaplaincy in our institutions, we recommend:

• That during the 2011-2012 fiscal year, each regional chaplain, in conjunction with the partners in that region, provides the structure, resources and opportunity to facilitate communication among contractors and promote their growing participation in the partnership.

Promoting Communication Among the Partners (two recommendations)

Recommendation 8:

Whereas communication between partners is key to a healthy partnership, we recommend:

• That the annual pastoral plan be used as a tool to foster dialogue between the partners in fulfilling the mandate of Chaplaincy services.

Recommendation 9:

Whereas communication between partners is a key to a healthy partnership, we recommend:

• That the regional chaplains maintain a database of all chaplaincy contract holders within the regions and makes this information available to the fours partner groups, where appropriate.

Issues of Liability (one recommendation)

Recommendation 10:

Whereas liability concerns exist for faith communities who provide chaplaincy services to CSC;

Whereas some contract-holders lack expertise in understanding and acquiring insurance;

Whereas informed and experienced contract-holders could offer peer support to other contractors in this area, we recommend:

• That by September 2011, the IFC lead the partnership in working with available, experienced contract-holders to ensure that general information for all (both present and future) contract holders in the area of liability and insurance made easily available.

Supporting our Chaplains (one recommendation)

Recommendation 11:

Whereas all partners are committed to supporting chaplains, even though chaplains are the employees/agents of only one of the partners (the contract-holders) we recommend:

• That each partner group affirm and/or establish intentional processes for the continued development and support of chaplains using, among other things, the document Resources / Support for Chaplains (Appendix 4) as an educational tool and guide in determining which partner may be best suited to respond to a particular challenge or opportunity in the life and work of a chaplain.

Conclusion

Over a 12-month period, the EPMGT members gathered four times for three-day working sessions. The first weekend (April 2010), we looked at each other from far across the table. In subgroups, we preferred meeting with our own partner group members but finally deferred to more mingling. We all seemed to be about protecting our own territory. We expressed ourselves, regardless of the cost. Each person wanted his or her issues at the top of the list. Nevertheless, we had started to listen to each other and were on the road to better mutual understandings and to a foundation for an Enhanced Partnership Model.

The second weekend (June 2010), we had a rough first evening but surprisingly peaceful and fruitful next couple of working days. The proof: an end-of-session group picture revealing some smiles! In October 2010, we began to work as a kind of group and produced (and reproduced) "lots of stuff". But by the final weekend (February 2011), we had almost forgotten to which partner group each one belonged to. We were finally working as a real team, as a partnership, just in time for the formulation of our recommendations.

Have we arrived? No. Have we made real progress that can significantly move us towards an enhanced partnership model that serves chaplaincy, the chaplain, the incarcerated and Canadian society? Definitely yes.

We understand that our experience is not transferable simply by way of a written report and some recommendations, no matter how "right on" they might be. The experience of real partnership will happen to more and more chaplains, contractors, CSC Management Team members and to IFC representatives as they make it a habit (that is the key word here) to do what all successful partnerships do: gather together regularly and dialogue strategically. Listen to one another, clarify for one another, dream with one another and support one another.

We call upon all partners to experience partnership at a new level. This is the road that leads to an enhanced partnership model for chaplaincy, to better chaplaincy overall and to incarcerated men and women choosing to live in a way that promotes justice and security in Canadian society.

Signature Page

Dennis Alexander, Kent Institution, Pacific Region, Roman Catholic Church

Jeff Anderson, Prairie Region, Evangelical Covenant Church of Canada

Bob Britton, Atlantic Region, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Halifax

Lloyd Bruce, Springhill Institution, Atlantic Region, United Church of Canada

Ted Hughes, Regional Chaplain, Ontario, Roman Catholic Church

Kate Johnson, Pittsburgh Institution, Ontario Region,Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)

John (Jean) Martin, Christian & Missionary Alliance

Brian McDonough, Quebec Region, Archidiocèse Catholique de Montréal

Denis Patry, Institution Donnacona, Quebec Region, Église Catholique Romaine

Deborah Tanasiecuk, Regional Chaplain, Prairies, Church of the Nazarene

Wayne Varley, Ontario Region, Anglican Church of Canada in Kingston

Earl Wood, Church of the Nazarene

Appendix 1 - Resources

• A Code of Professional Conduct for CSC Chaplains
• Memorandum of Understanding with the IFC
• Pastoral Care Report (PDF)
• Pastoral Care Action Plan (PDF)
• Religious and Spiritual Services Report
• Role of Chaplains

Appendix 2 - Chaplaincy Partnership Diagram

The EPMGT has given some thought to this and provides in Appendix 2 two complementary diagrams as a good starting point for the work of the Director General, Chaplaincy and the IFC.

2.1 How the Relationships Work (Diagram1)

2.2 How the Relationships Work (Diagram2)

Appendix 3 - A Partnership Grid

Appendix 4 - Resources / Support for Chaplains

I. Executive Summary

We heartily affirm the vocational call of prison chaplains and are impressed with the strength of their sense of vocation in respect of the provision of inter-confessional chaplaincy. We believe that each faith community has the responsibility of ensuring the chaplains they raise up are prepared to care for themselves in the face of this demanding ministry. We believe that faithful, qualified chaplains are deserving of support from their faith community. We have found it helpful to consider the following areas of need:

Self-care; Professional identity; Spiritual health/ professional and vocational development; Administration; Financial security; Safety/liability; Communication; Clarity of roles

This document was built by first identifying the needs of chaplains and then moving outwards to other parties in the contractual arrangement to identify as many vulnerabilities as we could. The structure of the document serves not only to name the needs and vulnerabilities of the various partners but also to name the first resort for problem solving. We recognize that no situation is perfect. Each institutional setting and chaplain or chaplaincy team will have their own strengths and areas for improvement. We hope the following pages will act as a resource for chaplains, their faith communities, colleagues, the Interfaith Committee and the Correctional Service of Canada.

II. Areas of Resources for Chaplaincy Needs

• Chaplains and their personal vocation
  • A. Professional Identity (Public)
  • B. Spiritual Health/Professional and Vocational Development
  • C. Self Care
• Chaplains as denominational ministers
  • D. Administration
  • E. Financial Security
  • F. Safety/Liability
• Chaplains in relationship with others
  • G. Communication
  • H. Clarity of Roles

CHAPLAINS AND THEIR PERSONAL VOCATION

CHAPLAINS AS DENOMINATIONAL MINISTERS

CHAPLAINS IN RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHERS