Correctional Service Canada
www.csc-scc.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
FORUM on Corrections Research
Managing maximum security women in Federal Corrections 1989-2004
Lisa Watson, Acting Director General, Women Offender Sector1
Correctional Service of Canada
This article recounts the history of interventions with maximum security women in the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) since 1989. During the mid1990s the policy environment was moving very quickly and CSC had to adjust and manage its response as new facts and information emerged. As this is a complex story and space is limited, only the major highlights are included.
Background
In 1989, Commissioner Ole Ingstrup, Correctional Service of Canada, commissioned a Task Force to study the management of federal women offenders from admission to warrant expiry.
The report of the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women2, ‘Creating Choices’ was tabled and accepted by the Government of Canada in September 1990, and serves to this day as the conceptual foundation for women’s corrections in Canada.
In 1992, the Operational Plan for the Regional Institutions was developed, attempting to put a framework to the Task Force’s ideas. It was determined that approximately 10% of women offenders required enhanced security measures and proposed the construction of an “Enhanced Unit” at each site to house women classified at the maximum security level as well as newly admitted inmates. During the construction phase of the new institutions and following court challenges by women wishing to remain close to their home communities, CSC decided that women offenders from the Prairie Region would remain out west and in 1994 a unit at the Regional Psychiatric Centre (RPC) in Saskatoon was opened. Despite CSC and staff efforts, incidents continued to occur (i.e., assaults, self-injurious behaviour), and it became evident that the problem was not, simply, the environment of Prison For Women (PFW). In April 1994, four staff were seriously assaulted by six women offenders at PFW. This incident and the subsequent management of the women inmates over the following weeks, resulted in the Solicitor General appointing Madam Justice Louise Arbour to investigate the situation.
The development of the Enhanced Units
As a result of the PFW incident, CSC determined that the proposed Enhanced Units needed to have sufficient capacity as it would be inappropriate to place newly admitted women offenders with women who are acting out (particularly those using instrumental violence, i.e., violence as a way to gain benefits); some form of additional static security would be required. During the early attempts to develop a model to manage women using instrumental violence, the Executive Committee (ExCom)3 decided to increase the capacity of the Enhanced Units to 42 cells nationally, redesign the Units into two wings and include a permanent staff post. Twenty cells (9% of the then inmate population of 220) would be of traditional, non-combustible design. The remaining wing would have regular rooms for reception inmates.
Researching the problem
Between the fall of 1994 and March 1996, several reports were completed by outside consultants in order to better understand the needs of this small group of women offenders. In February 1995 two literature reviews were finalised: Women’s Anger and Other Emotions (Judy Crump) and Understanding Violence by Women (Margaret Shaw and Sheryl Dubois). On the basis of these reviews, in July 1995, CSC held a brainstorming session with external experts. This session4 led to the development of a potential pilot program to address the unique needs of women offenders. While this program was completed in March 1996, it was superceded by the findings of the “Rivera Report”5. The program was also considered both too resource heavy for the Enhanced Units and required an expansion of the Primary Workers’ role into that of a quasi-therapist, which is an awkward fit for corrections. As such, it was never implemented.
In October 1995, the “Whitehall Report”6 was tabled, focusing on the needs of women in the Atlantic Region. It recommended a unit similar to the current Structured Living Environment houses (8-bed, specialised units for women with mental health problems) and an accommodation option in a psychiatric hospital for the small group of inmates with significant mental health needs. The report also demonstrated that further in-depth reviews of the mental health needs of women offenders (see Rivera Report below) was required. However, the conviction that the new environment of the regional institutions would have a positive impact on the behaviour and mental health of the women remained a powerful assumption.
The Arbour Commission
In August 1995, the fact-finding phase of the Arbour Commission began, focusing on the April 1994 events at PFW. It was followed in November 1995 by the policy phase — round table discussions with CSC and external experts to assess CSC’s policy development for the new institutions which was already underway. In general, Justice Arbour felt CSC’s new policy framework for women offenders was on the right track. The Arbour report, the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, was officially released in March 31, 1996.
Openings of the new Institutions
While the Arbour Commission was taking place in Kingston, the new institutions were preparing to open. Between November and December 1995, Nova Institution for Women (Nova), Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge (OOHL) and Edmonton Institution for Women (EIFW) opened.
EIFW experienced the most difficulty. During January to April 1996, self-injury by a number of inmates, two attempted suicides, two serious assaults on staff, and the apparent suicide of an inmate (though in May it was classified as a homicide and two inmates were later convicted) and seven (7) escapes from EIFW occurred. Staff, many of whom were new to the Service, were overwhelmed, not only by the incidents themselves but also by the unrelenting media attention. Following these events, the Commissioner ordered all medium and maximum security women removed from EIFW7. Until a review of the events could be done and until it was determined what changes were required nationally to ensure the safety of the public, staff and women inmates it was decided that women classified at the maximum security level would no longer be housed in the regional institutions.
The Rivera Report
During this same period, January to March 1996, Dr. Margo Rivera was interviewing 29 inmates identified by staff and conducting detailed inmate file reviews as well as case discussions with staff. Her conclusions (March 1996) became relevant to understanding the contextual framework of the events at EIFW, which were ongoing during her study. Dr. Rivera clarified that a certain component of the inmate population required both a secure environment and long-term intervention/treatment for needs which pre-existed their incarceration and which could be exacerbated by certain aspects of their incarceration.
She also indicated that some of this group of women would engage in treatment while others would not be interested or not capable. As such, CSC would have to devise a safe environment for at least three distinct sub-groups of women inmates.
Consultation with external stakeholders on the Rivera Report took place in June 1996. Concern was raised about pathologising women by describing any form of violence as a mental illness rather than focusing on the environment; however, this was balanced by Dr Rivera’s conclusions (above). On the other hand, the Enhanced Units would not be an appropriate environment for the long-term accommodation of this population.
“Healing houses” at each institution were recommended, but it was also believed that any attempt to implement these houses when the institutions were just beginning to establish the new correctional model would result in failures even more dramatic than the series of incidents at EIFW. As it was still open, PFW was supported as a site for a pilot project and in September 1996, also in response to a recommendation of the Rivera Report, the RPC began the Intensive Healing Program. It remains operational to this day.
The Rivera Report was the first documented, credible review which demonstrated that the assumptions underlying CSC’s understanding of women offenders’ violence as first articulated in Creating Choices and in the subsequent work, needed to be re-examined.
Aftermath of the Arbour report and the EIFW incidents
On June 20, 1996, Ole Ingstrup, returned to CSC as Commissioner and Nancy Stableforth, was appointed the first Deputy Commissioner for Women. Their priority was to find short and long term solutions to the situation of the maximum security women.
The women classified at the maximum security level could not be returned to the regional institutions, and until a comprehensive plan could be developed, few options remained. In August and September 1996, CSC began to open small units for women in men’s institutions (at Saskatchewan Penitentiary and Springhill Institution). During this time, perimeter and other static security measures were being enhanced at EIFW and Nova and would be added prior to the January 1997 opening of Grand Valley Institution for Women (GVIW) and Joliette Institution. In May 1997, a women’s unit was opened at the Regional Reception Centre in Quebec.
Plans to close the Prison for Women were proceeding. The women at PFW were to be moved to a co-located unit at the Regional Treatment Centre (RTC) across the street, however, four women launched a Habeas Corpus application in an attempt to prevent their transfer. As result, Mr. Justice Cosgrove ordered that the women “not be moved during the period of the adjournment of the habeas corpus application.” PFW remained open.
In December 1997, CSC decided not to open the RTC unit and PFW remained operational for maximum security women in the Ontario Region. Instead, staff from RTC crossed the street and implemented an intensive mental health program at PFW. Mr. Justice Cosgrove then ordered that CSC not establish a maximum security unit for women in the RTC. CSC announced that PFW would remain open and would move away from using the units in men’s institutions.
The Intensive Intervention Strategy
During late 1996 and well into 1997, numerous suggestions were made to resolve the issue of the co-located units, however, CSC decided to focus on interventions to assist women to quickly achieve their medium security status (e.g., reclassification reviews were done every 3 months), to improve programs, and to get the RPC program on track. Various options were suggested in order to move away from co-located units, such as: purpose-built units adjacent to men’s institutions; purpose-built units at women’s institutions (on the grounds but separate, stand alone units); expand the Enhanced Units; one central facility; east-west facilities (standalone); buy an existing facility; share a facility with a province. CSC also sought counsel from both the Human Rights Law Section at the Department of Justice and from its Legal Services Unit on the possible Charter risks and on gender equality of the various accommodation options.
In December 1997, ExCom reviewed all options; however, it was also time to talk to the women themselves. Two external contractors were hired to interview the maximum security women to help identify interventions that would address their specific needs. Two very different reports with similar conclusions resulted8 (with non-Aboriginal women offenders, Not letting the time do you (1998) by Dr. Donna McDonagh and with Aboriginal women offenders, Whatever Happened to the Promises of Creating Choices? (1999) by Sky Blue Morin).
From “healing house” to the Intensive Intervention Strategy
Both the Whitehall and Rivera reports recommended a “healing house” concept. As a result of the work of the inter-disciplinary teams at the RPC and at PFW, it became evident that some women at the maximum security level, with additional support for daily living or mental health needs, could function at lower security levels; ExCom approved the development of the “healing house” concept. Dr. Alan Warner, an external expert in community-living environments for persons with mental health needs was contracted to develop the framework. His report, Implementing Choices at Regional Facilities: Program Proposals for Women Offenders with Special Needs (March 1998), recommended that two treatment programs (Dialectical Behaviour Therapy and Psychosocial Rehabilitation) be introduced to enable some women to remain in the regional institutions but with enhanced support.9 In May ExCom approved implementation of the Structured Living Environment (SLE) approach at each institution as outlined by Dr. Warner. Principles were established for staffing, program model, staff training, budget and design.
In April 1998, a Creativity Focus Group on Options for Maximum Security Women was held with external stakeholders. Their options were presented to the Commissioner in May: intensive staff training, program options, continued research and a unit at each institution. Excom approved the option to construct the maximum security units (Secure Units) on the grounds of regional women’s institutions; either one at each institution or an east-west option. In June 1998, ExCom recommended renovating the existing Enhanced Units. Part of this approach was to keep the numbers low because “if you build it, they will come.”
Several ExCom discussions resulted in linking the SLE and the Secure Unit concepts into a comprehensive Intensive Intervention Strategy (IIS). Resource standards, conceptual designs and operational principles were developed and the Deputy Commissioner for Women presented the IIS to ExCom in November 1998. It received a mixed reception. There were concerns about the operational impact of having maximum security women housed near women classified at lower security levels. Regional and national representatives met to see if consensus could be reached, however, at that time, hesitation still reigned and a couple of regions expressed reservations about the maximum security plans.
In February 1999, ExCom agreed to renovate and expand the Enhanced Units (creating Secure Units); however, as many issues remained unresolved, ExCom agreed to deal with these issues through implementation. The Intensive Intervention Strategy submission, with distinct resource plans for the Structured Living Environment and Secure Units, was sent to Treasury Board in March. It was approved in May and planning continued through the summer. On September 3, 1999, the Intensive Intervention Strategy was formally announced by Solicitor General Lawrence McAulay.
The Structured Living Environment houses accommodate women at the minimum and medium security level with mental health problems who require additional support and intervention. The house is staffed 24 hours a day with dedicated staff who have received specialised mental health training and who work as an inter-disciplinary team. The Secure Units are of a more traditional contruction (2 or 3 pods of 5-6 cells each, staff and program space), but they, too, have a dedicated roster who have received specialised mental health training and who work as an inter-disciplinary team.
Co-Located Units
During the period of 1999 to 2001, while CSC focused on the development of the IIS10, a series of very serious incidents (including hostage-taking of both staff and inmates) occurred at both the RPC and Saskatchewan Penitentiary units. These events prompted Commissioner Lucie McClung to recommend that elements of the IIS be implemented in the co-located units as soon as possible. Additional non-security staff were hired, mental health training was provided and increased regional and national support was made available, resulting in a reduction of incidents.
Conclusion
In May, 2000, the last inmates from PFW were transferred to Grand Valley Institution for Women and on July 6, 2000, PFW was officially closed. In August 2001, the first SLE opened at Nova and by December 2001, all SLE houses were operational. In January 2003, the Secure Unit opened in Nova, followed by the Edmonton Institution for Women in February, Joliette in May and finally, Grand Valley in October 2004. The women’s unit at Saskatchewan Penitentiary closed in March 2003, followed by the Springhill Institution unit in June 2003 and the Regional Reception Centre unit in the fall of 2004.
After years of partnership with the province of British Columbia, federal women inmates were returned to federal jurisdiction in March 2004 with the opening of Fraser Valley Institution in Abbotsford (main institution and SLE). The Secure Unit is under construction and is expected to open in the fall of 2005.
At the time this article was written, there were about 39 women classified at the maximum security level. This is about 10% of the incarcerated population. Since the fall of 1997, the maximum security population has fluctuated between 9% and 12% of the incarcerated population. Several women who had been incarcerated in the co-located units managed to attain their medium security status after 6-9 months under the Intensive Intervention Strategy.
The innovative path of Creating Choices has taken CSC to a place it has never been. Many assumptions were implemented, proved correct and are supported to this day. Others proved erroneous and CSC had to take a different path. The biggest challenge has been that of the women classified at the maximun security level. The Intensive Intervention Strategy, though still in its infancy, appears to be an effective approach.
1 340 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, ON K1A 0P9
2 Available on the CSC web site, www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/ publicsubject-eng.shtml/#women
3 The Executive Committee (“ExCom”) is the executive management committee of CSC. Members include the Regional Deputy Commissioners, NHQ Sector Heads, the Deputy Commissioner for Women and the Senior Deputy Commissioner. The Commissioner chairs the Committee.
4 Brainstorming Session-Understanding Violence by Women and Dealing with Women’s Anger, July 5-7, 1995, CSC 1995.
5 Giving Us a Chance: Needs Assessment: Mental Health Resources for Federally Sentenced Women in the Regional Facilities, Margo Rivera, M.Ed., Ph.D. March 31, 1996.
6 Mental Health Profile and Intervention Strategy for Atlantic Region Federally Sentenced Women, G.C. Whitehall, October 1995
7 The maximum and medium security women at EIFW were transferred to Alberta provincial facilities under an Exchange of Service Agreement and remained there until late August 1996.
8 For example, as indicated, in both the McDonagh and Morin reports, maximum security women continually cited positive and consistent staff communication, interaction and reinforcement as factors to help them to focus on reducing their security level, as well as a Correctional Plan that was appropriate and realistic. In general, the personal factors that helped women reduce security levels were self-respect, self discipline and greater self-awareness.
9 Dr. Warner initially reviewed cases at Nova and GVIW but later reviewed the situation at EFIW and Joliette. Because of changing population profiles CSC has moved away from only one type of intervention at a specific facility and offer both DBT and PSR in all regional institutions.
10 From 1999 on, staff from national headquarters led working groups of regional and institutional staff to develop and implement specialized program models, staffing plans, specialized staff training and two Operational Plans, for the SLE and Secure Units.
