The National Workshop to Develop a Community Strategy for Federally Sentenced Women was organized around several keynote presentations for all participants and, as well, provided an opportunity for small group discussion, with "reports" to all participants in plenary sessions. These Proceedings follow the general format of the workshop commencing with the introductory remarks and followed by a summary of keynote presentations.

The small group discussion on the first two days of the workshop focussed on topics pertaining to two central themes: risk management and meeting needs/supporting success. A copy of the discussion topics and questions which were provided to participants is included in Appendices A and B. A detailed version of the groups' feedback on each of the discussion topics is included in Appendix C.

A synopsis of key issues flowing from the discussion groups was provided to all participants on the final morning of the workshop and is included in the Proceedings in the section entitled Key Issues for a Community Strategy Framework. The synopsis was provided prior to convening the regional/Aboriginal/national discussion groups on the final day of the workshop. These discussion groups were organized in order to permit an opportunity for the participants to further examine issues and ideas that had been raised, particularly in terms of implementation or applicability within the respective regions. As well, there was a discussion group for the various Aboriginal participants and another for national-level participants in order to discuss specific implementation issues. Each regional group was also requested to confirm whether they were in agreement that the synopsis identified the key issues raised over the course of the workshop.

A copy of the workshop agenda is included in Appendix E.

Introduction To The Workshop

The workshop was opened with a blessing given by Elder Lisa Mosher to help the participants focus on the workshop goals.

Summary of Opening Remarks by
Arden Thurber
Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Research and Development
Correctional Service of Canada

Within a few months the institutional portion of federal corrections for women will have reached a major milestone - the closing of the Prison for Women. The new facilities represent only one aspect of corrections for FSW. On a conceptual level, the new facilities cannot be only a more humane place to serve a sentence; their success must be judged by the degree to which they assist FSW to return to their communities and succeed in their home communities.

On a practical level, the number of FSW has grown faster than foreseen. Until such time as laws are changed to send fewer people to prison and social conditions are changed to reduce the number who become involved in criminal activity, the only effective response to the situation rests with community corrections. Together we must find more and better ways to safely release offenders as early as possible. Equally, if not more important, we must find better ways to assist these women to stay in the community.

This workshop is your workshop. The format allows you to benefit from the views of others from across the country. There will be the opportunity to work as regional groups to develop concrete action steps. This is particularly important for two reasons:

We know that a community strategy must reflect the realities of local communities. It cannot be dictated from a national office. This is not to say there should not or cannot be national standards or principles. However, delivery should be sensitive to local situations.
The new facilities mean that FSW issues are not the concern of one institution, one region nor the National Headquarters. Every region has responsibilities for the issues and the appropriate resolution for their region. This implies change for CSC and for our partners.

What I want to bring are a few key points of context which originate from my experience.

It is my experience that more real change comes from relatively small, practical, "do-able" ideas than from grand schemes. This is particularly true when we remember that FSW is not a concept but several hundred individuals with individual needs who will be involved with many different communities.

There is more room to be creative with FSW than in other areas. There are relatively few FSW in the community and there are few sensational incidents. All of our risk measures suggest that the vast majority of FSW are low risk after release. Thus, we can experiment more without exposing the community to significantly more risk.

We have to guard against creating dependencies in the community. The new facilities are based on concepts of self-responsibility and community living. In our efforts to be supportive of released offenders we must not diminish their self-responsibility or, unless absolutely necessary, place them in community based institutions.

Our strategy choices must be explainable to and understandable by local communities and Canadians in general. Our approaches should be grounded in empirical data whenever possible. When we choose to do something different from the way in which we supervise conditionally released males, we must be able to explain why in terms that are clear and logical. Not to say that we must always have a definitive answer but we must be willing to say what we know and what we don't know, but are trying to find out through experimentation.

In our explanations we have to be careful about language. For example, while I respect the labeling problem inherent in some terminology, we do little to build public confidence by appearing to deny the criminality of behaviour.

Finally, no issue can be discussed these days without some reference to resources. This workshop is about generating ideas and starting actions. The detailed resourcing strategy will be part of the implementation phase of the strategy. However, we cannot ignore reality: government expenditures are being reduced. CSC is affected by restraint as much as any other department. There are no new pots of money available to fund new programs. Resources are distributed to regions based on formulas that try to ensure a fair distribution. If something new is to be funded, something else must receive less funding. We all know there are many legitimate needs in the Corrections field. Therefore, we need to be creative in trying to find cost-effective ways of achieving our goals. We must be able to demonstrate that our costs per offender, per program or per contract are defensible when compared to similar efforts and that we receive good value for each dollar spent.

Summary of Opening Remarks by
Gerry Minard
Corporate Advisor, Community Corrections
Correctional Service of Canada

There are three (3) significant pieces of work that are being managed by the National Community Corrections Council (NCCC) that will assist, largely by providing a structured framework to meet the objectives set out for this workshop.

1. Risk/Reassessment

The Community Risk Needs Management Scale (CRNMS) has been modified to fall in line with the seven need domains in the Intake Assessment Process (OIA). A further modification is that risk/reassessment will take place at any time following OIA. The necessary changes to Offender Management System (OMS) have been identified and the technical work is now underway.

2. Formula Funding for Community Corrections

This project was designed to equitably distribute resources to the regions on an offender-based ratio for cases under supervision. For 1996/1997 resources will be distributed under such headings as:

basic residential service
maintenance
programs
travel
minor capital

What is significant for this workshop?

At the beginning of the project it was noted that the Atlantic Region was spending by far a significant amount on programming for offenders supervised in the community. We agreed that their per capita spending would be the national standard. Each region, therefore, has new monies to upgrade their program offerings to better meet the specifically identified needs of all conditionally released offenders.

The decisions on programming to meet the needs are regional ones.

1. Differential Supervision Strategies and Interventions

This long-term project has been defined as taking what we have learned from the research into correctional practice and combining it with what we know from our experience in delivering supervision services. We are applying this knowledge to particular types of offenders (e.g. robbery, drug, homicide) and defining what are the most appropriate strategies and interventions that can be used to manage the risk of offenders while appropriately matching the program to the needs of conditionally released offenders.

We have a long way to go in this area, but we are convinced that we havemoved a significant distance in improving supervision practices.

Conclusion

I am convinced that while we are meeting here in a national forum the actual focus of alignment of community programs to the work within the FSW facilities should be a regional one. The responsibility for delivering an appropriate program continuum that manages risk to the public while providing clinically appropriate programs is that of each region.

National forums, such as this one, should have as one of its major priorities the identification and sharing of best practices.

Presentations

FSW Community Typologies

Summary of Presentation by
Larry Motiuk
Manager, Correctional Research, Correctional Service of Canada

A difficult challenge is presented in terms of how we can best respond to the unique needs of Federally Sentenced Women (FSW). In the 1980's, CSC looked at research from a generic point of view and did not make many distinctions based on gender, but rather took a "broad brushed" approach as to how correctional services were being allocated. This presentation is aimed at raising awareness about the nature of the FSW community supervision population and where CSC is at, in 1996, in terms of managing this population.

Static vs. Dynamic Factors

Static versus dynamic factors in prediction is an age-old correctional dilemma. There is a large body of literature supporting the belief that offenders do not change, i.e., "once a criminal, always a criminal." Within Canada , there are many advocates of the rehabilitative model, which is indicative that offenders can change. The underlying assumption is that if we do a good job identifying risk factors and assist offenders, then offenders can become law-abiding citizens.
Dynamic factors refer to case needs or criminogenic risk factors that are capable of reflecting change in an individual. This is a critical component of not only risk assessment, but also of risk management because this is where intervention takes place.
Little can be done about static risk factors , e.g., criminal record or criminal history. There is, however, considerable predictive power in those variables. While you should not ignore history, you cannot do much to change those variables; this is where dynamic risk factors come in.
Risk/Needs: Needs are considered to be a sub-set of overall risk. These are the dynamic risk factors . The goal is to effectively target these factors and apply appropriate interventions, in order to have an impact on the likelihood of a criminal future.
In the eighties, there was a lot of debate on the use of static and dynamic risk factors. There was the position that static factors were the mainstay and that we could deliver supervision on this basis. This is very problematic, however, because it is difficult to vary either frequency of contact, level of supervision or amount of service to be delivered if people do not change. It is also problematic as there is no mechanism to demonstrate that a person has changed. This situation resulted in a conceptual shift towards a thorough examination of offender needs as a set of risk factors, thereby allowing some flexibility in service delivery.

Past Research

In a 1988 pilot study, CSC Parole Officers were asked to review their cases to rate offenders, on a low- versus high-risk continuum, on the basis of criminal history record, the Statistical Information on Recidivism Scale, National Parole Board decisions, their experience working in with offenders and their knowledge of the offender's criminal record.
Similarly, a systematic approach was used by the Parole Officers to assess the offenders' needs to arrive at a global rating of low-, medium- or high-need. The Community Risk/Needs Management Scale was used which identifies needs on twelve separate dimensions, including academic/vocational skills, employment, financial management, living arrangements, addiction issues (alcohol or drug abuse), emotional/behavioral problems, accommodation, health, attitudes, etc.
This was an important step as it meant we were assessing offenders on truly dynamic factors - the idea being that these needs somehow should change over time. The problem, however, still remained that the static risk, namely the criminal history was not going to change over time.
There is a distinction between caseload samples and new release samples which is important in considering the results of prediction studies or other information about an offender population. Caseload samples consist of the entire group under supervision, whereas a new release sample have recently been on conditional release. The latter group of offenders is at greater risk versus those who have been in the community for a longer period of time.
Phase of conditional release is an important concept. The first six months of release is a risky time for offenders and it may be necessary to vary level of supervision and interventions accordingly. The second phase is considered to be between six and twelve months. Should the offender remain on conditional release for twelve months and beyond, the likelihood of making it further is considerably increased. The interplay between phase of conditional release and assessing offenders on risk and needs becomes complex. Therefore, risk and needs became the focus.
A classification grid was developed which included a criminal history and a case needs continuum of low, medium or high. A six-month follow-up was conducted as this was considered to be a good outcome measure, i.e., whether or not the offender was suspended during that period of time, usually indicates a breakdown in the case and a higher risk for re-offending.
In the pilot study, a distribution of the federal offender population under community supervision showed that about one-third (about 35%) of the overall population were assessed as low-risk/low-needs. For high-risk/high-needs, there is a much smaller percentage (13%). What is important in terms of prediction is whether there is any difference between the offenders in the low-risk versus high-risk group. Results showed a tenfold increase in the likelihood of the high-risk/high-need group being suspended within six months relative to low-risk/low-need offenders. In terms of revocation, which is a more stringent outcome measure, the recidivism rate is considerably reduced, indicating that the offenders assessed as low risk/low needs are generally going to do very well under supervision. These findings have been replicated time and time again over the years in terms of predictive validity.
The issue of needs has been a source of debate throughout North America for about the last ten years: whether or not we should assess offender needs, whether needs have predictive validity and whether intervening on these needs makes any difference whatsoever in the likelihood of criminal futures.
The early pilot work explored distributions of identified needs which lists the twelve need dimensions of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale. Parole Officers rate offenders on a continuum as to whether each factor was an "asset to community adjustment" up to whether there was "considerable need for improvement". The purpose of the pilot tests was to learn more about each factor in terms of managing cases. The research showed the proportion of offenders suspended within six months and other statistically significant relationships between specific factors and the likelihood of suspension.
Mental ability and health bear little relationship to performance on supervision. In fact, health was a positive correlate: the poorer health you had, the better you did under supervision.

1995 Study

In August 1995, a sample was taken of the offender population to examine the Community Risk/Need Management Scales on caseload at that time. (see Table 1). Historically, FSW have been outnumbered by the male population much to the demise of research in this area, because it was very hard to generalize or to make any conclusions based on very small samples. But 202 is an ample sample size.

Population Facts

FSW in Ontario and Prairies are highly represented in this group.
Release type: FSW are more likely to be on Full Parole.
What is critical to risk management is knowing what phase of condition of release they are on.
About a quarter of FSW on community release have been out less than six months. This group is at a greater risk for intervention.
There was about 30% of the FSW in the 6-12 month phase.
The largest percentage of FSW have been on release for 12 months or longer. This population can be explained by the simple fact that there is a large group of offenders who are probably serving life and accumulate over time.

Demographics

This is an important variable in terms of risk management and risk assessment.

The bulk of FSW on community release are between 30-50 years of age. There is almost the same amount of FSW 50 and over as under thirty, a trend which has been increasing over recent years as our offender population continues to age. This is in keeping with demographic trends within Canada . The age group has implications in terms of the trends in future of risk management: you can probably expect a bi-modal age distribution in the FSW population, where there is a sizable younger group and an equally as large older group.

In terms of offence type and management of cases, it is important to keep in mind the nature of offences for which the community supervision population was convicted:

About one quarter of FSW under community supervision are likely to have been convicted of a homicide offence.
Sex offenders are small in numbers.
Robbery offenders account for about 13%.
Another large group are those with drug offences - nearly one third of FSW.

Note: these do not add to 100% because some homicide offenders have drug offenses as well; so, there is overlap.

What becomes important is the unusually high proportions of certain kinds of offenders within the regions. A typology develops in terms of the nature of offences across the regions and there is variation:

For example, there is a high likelihood in Ontario that one in three FSW supervised is a homicide offender. The FSW in the Pacific region have a better than 50% chance of being a homicide offender.
The number of sex offenders is so small it is almost insignificant, other than the fact that they draw a different type of attention towards themselves.
Robbery offenders are found in high proportions in the Quebec and Prairie Regions.
The number of drug offenders -- those with records for drug trafficking, drug importation or cultivation -- is fairly evenly distributed across the regions.
In terms of other offenders -- having property or fraud related crimes -- there is a large representation in the Atlantic Region, followed by the Prairies.

The Community Risk/Needs Management Scale allows us to do a distribution of needs (see Table 2). This is fairly recent data based on the whole population. It is representative of some 600 Parole Officers spread across Canada , reflecting their collective experience and knowledge of the cases which they have supervised.

The distribution indicates high employment needs, financial, marital/family problems and behavioural/emotional problems. What is significantly different between the female and male population are health problems and family background issues. Note: data is skewed because it contains those who have been on release for 12 or more months and that is over 50% - so these are the good cases.

When you look at case needs, cut by phase of release, some interesting, yet different patterns emerge for FSW (see Table 3):

The first six months - employment, financial management, companions, and behavioural/emotional issues.
6-12 months - academic/vocational skills, employment and marital/family needs are more significant and by 12 months there is a significant drop in the number of needs. A good example is companions with whom FSW associate. One of the most potent predictors is companions. Breaking ties to criminal companions has been the mainstay of many interventions -- it is very difficult to do, particularly when we put them in prisons together.
By the third phase (12 months or more), there is a much reduced level of need on all these dimensions.

The other perplexing problem in community supervision concerns those FSW that have no identified needs at all - about 20% (see Table 4). There is some research which would suggest that these people can do as well or better in the community with minimal intervention and less intensive services. You can create dependencies and actually expose offenders to higher risk cases by giving more intensive services.

Risk/Need Levels

Nearly 70% of FSW on caseload are at the lower end of continuum - low-risk/low-need (41.1%), low-risk/medium-needs (27.1%), with a distribution along that continuum (see Table 5).
There are striking differences by the time you get a population that has survived at least twelve months on release -- over 70% are low risk/low need (see Table 6).
Another 15% can be added (85%) getting minimal level supervision at twelve months. There is no FSW rated high risk/high needs who has been on conditional release for over 12 months.

This has important implications for risk prediction. We know from previous studies that static variables, like criminal history, probably has more predictive validity than needs at the early stages of release. There is, however, a good explanation for this, in that over time, if an FSW manifests recidivism, it is usually the other more dynamic variables that are driving the likelihood of recidivism.

Inter-correlation Matrix

In terms of needs and risk level, FSW convicted of homicide are not problematic to supervise (this is what our parole officers are telling us relative to other groups). The homicide group are more likely to be rated lower risk/ lower need and not have significant problems in any one of the twelve need dimensions (see Table 7).
Sex offenders - the data is suspect considering the small sample size (5 cases) -- however, there are very few statistically meaningful relationships.
The robbery offender group is probably the most important one, demonstrating that the highest risk, more multi-need individuals are those FSW with robbery offences. They are rated high risk, high need with significant problems with their marital/family situations, with whom they are associating, accommodation needs, behavioural/emotional control, alcohol use and attitude.
There were not many significant relationships among the drug offender group -- rated low risk, low need and not as problematic cases to manage. People find this a curious phenomenon. When we look at recidivism studies of drug offenders, they do quite well post-release.
Other offenders - no major significant relationships.

Clearly, what this shows is that within offence type categories, if you want to target a particular group which is going to be multi-problematic while under supervision, it is robbery offenders. Looking at robbery studies, the targets for intervention are clearly addressing their criminal companions - breaking their ties, reducing chemical dependencies and tackling pro-criminal attitudes.

Regression Analyses

This analysis determined the most important variables driving the determination of risk, determination of need and frequency of contact (see Tables 8 & 9):

For determining level of risk , these are the variable that come into play:

Phase of conditional release -- recent releases;
Age -- particularly if younger;
Those on non-discretionary release; and
Those convicted of a drug offence.

This explains much of the variance in terms of static risk determination for FSW on community supervision.

For determining level of needs , these are the variable that come into play:

behavioural/ emotional;
employment;
companions;
whether early in phase;
mentally ability;
homicide offenders ; and
drug offence.

Frequency of contact is determined by inter-play between risk and needs. Low risk/low needs cases are, according to the supervision standards, seen at least once per month. Those who are assessed as low risk/medium needs are to be seen at least twice a month and all others are to be seen at least once a week. Often the high risk/high need cases are seen more often than that.

Using this regression analyses, we asked, " what is driving frequency of contact under community supervision?" The list follows as such:

needs level;
risk level;
drug use;
younger age; and
other offences by FSW.

This is a clear demonstration of the shift that has gone on over the last five years to where offender needs, a subset of overall risk are driving community supervision programming on conditional release.

Conclusion

By way of summarization, it is clear that we have more information about FSW that we did not have before. If it serves anything, it serves to instruct us with whom we are dealing, where they are, what they are like and what kind of problems they are facing and experiencing out in the community. There is still plenty of work to be done. It is necessary to establish a level of risk and needs to target key areas, however, the kind of strategies you envisage to respond to these needs is really the challenge at hand.

Table 1

COMMUNITY RISK/NEED MANAGEMENT SCALES ON CASELOAD (AS OF 31 AUGUST 1995)

REGION :	Males	Females
Atlantic	776 (13.0)	26 (12.9)
Quebec	1,897 (31.8)	20 ( 9.9)
Prairies	1,029 (17.2)	47 (23.3)
Pacific	741 (12.4)	18 ( 8.9)
	5,967 (97.6)	202 ( 3.3)

RELEASE TYPE :
Day Parole	804 (13.5)	32 (15.8)
Full Parole	3,750 (62.9)	152 (75.3)
Statutory Release	1,413 (23.7)	18 ( 8.9)

PHASE :
0 to 6 months	1,519 (25.5)	53 (26.2)
6 to 12 months	1,715 (28.7)	64 (31.7)
12 months or more	2,734 (45.8)	85 (42.1)

AGE:
< 30	1,434 (24.0)	44 (21.8)
30 TO 50	3,622 (60.7)	125 (61.9)
50 +	912 (15.3)	33 (16.3)

NATIVE:
No	5,456 (93.2)	176 (91.2)
Yes	397 ( 6.8)	17 ( 8.8)

OFFENCE TYPE:
HOMICIDE	941 (15.8)	44 (27.2)
SEX	802 (13.4)	5 ( 2.5)
ROBBERY	1,656 (27.8)	27 (13.4)
DRUG	1,781 (29.8)	64 (31.7)
OTHER	1,471 (24.7)	59 (29.2)

Table 2

DISTRIBUTION OF IDENTIFIED NEEDS

	Males	Females
NEED AREA:
Academic/vocational	1,929 (36.6)	60 (34.3)
Employment	2,334 (44.2)	76 (43.4)
Financial mngt	2,038 (32.6)	63 (35.8)
Marital/family	1,455 (27.7)	60 (34.3)
Companions	1,482 (28.2)	50 (29.1)
Accommodation	592 (11.4)	27 (15.5)
Behavioral/emotional	2,072 (39.4)	77 (43.8)
Alcohol use	794 (15.1)	19 (10.9)
Drug use	837 (15.9)	18 (10.3)
Mental ability	255 ( 5.0)	8 ( 4.6)
Health	896 (17.0)	41 (23.3)
Attitude	558 (10.6)	14 ( 8.1)
	941 (15.8)	55 (27.2)

Table 3

DISTRIBUTION OF IDENTIFIED NEEDS BY PHASE (FEMALE OFFENDERS)

	0 to 6	6 to 12	12+	p
NEED AREA:
Academic/vocational	39.1	48.2	20.6	**
Employment	52.2	55.4	28.8	*
Financial mngt	52.3	40.4	21.9	**
Marital/family	34.8	48.2	23.3	*
Companions	45.7	43.6	7.0	***
Accommodation	10.9	20.0	15.1	ns
Behavioral/emotional	58.7	45.6	32.8	*
Alcohol use	17.4	14.3	4.2	*
Drug use	19.6	12.5	2.8	*
Mental ability	4.4	3.6	5.6	ns
Health	17.0	25.0	26.0	ns
Attitude	8.9	7.1	8.2	ns

Table 4

Number Of Identified Needs

#	Males	Females
0	1,059 (20.6)	32 (18.8)
1	830 (16.2)	26 (15.3)
2	756 (14.7)	33 (19.4)
3	681 (13.2)	20 (11.8)
4	502 ( 9.8)	16 ( 9.4)
5	432 ( 8.4)	16 ( 9.4)
6	336 ( 6.5)	10 ( 5.9)
7	246 ( 4.8)	6 ( 3.5)
8	165 ( 3.2)	7 ( 4.1)
9	89 ( 1.7)	1 ( 0.6)
10	32 ( 0.6)	3 ( 1.8)
11	9 (0.2)	-
12	3 (0.1)	-

Table 5

RISK/NEED LEVELS

LEVEL	Males	Females
LOW-LOW	2,315 (38.8)	85 (42.1)
LOW-MED	1,423 (23.8)	55 (27.2)
LOW-HIGH	133 ( 2.2)	11 ( 5.5)
MED-LOW	75 ( 1.3)	3 ( 1.5)
MED-MED	336 ( 5.6)	16 ( 7.9)
MED-HIGH	159 ( 2.6)	3 ( 1.5)
HIGH-LOW	68 ( 1.1)	1 ( 0.5)
HIGH-MED	500 ( 8.4)	11 ( 5.5)
HIGH-HIGH	959 (16.1)	17 ( 8.4)

Table 6

RISK/NEED LEVELS BY PHASE (FEMALE OFFENDERS)

LEVEL	0 TO 6	6 TO 12	12+
LOW-LOW	20.8	20.3	71.8
LOW-MED	34.0	37.5	5.3
LOW-HIGH	5.7	4.7	5.9
MED-LOW	1.9	1.6	1.2
MED-MED	13.2	10.9	2.4
MED-HIGH	3.8	1.6	0.0
HIGH-LOW	1.9	0.0	0.0
HIGH-MED	3.8	9.4	3.5
HIGH-HIGH	15.1	14.1	0.0

Table 7

INTERCORRELATIONS

	Homicide		Sex		Robbery		Drug		Other
	M	F	M	F	+	F	M	F	M	F
Risk level	-	-	+	0	+	+	-	0	+	0
Need level	-	-	+	0	+	+	-	0	+	0
Risk/need level	-	-	+	0	+	+	-	0	+	0
Academic/vocational	-	0	-	0	+	0	0	0	+	0
Employment	-	0	-	0	+	0	0	0	+	0
Financial mgnt	-	-	-	0	+	0	+	0	+	0
Marital/family	-	0	+	0	+	+	-	0	0	0
Companions	-	-	-	0	+	+	+	0	+	0
Accomodation	-	-	-	0	+	+	0	0	+	0
Behavioral/emotional	-	0	+	0	+	+	-	-	0	0
Alcohol use	-	0	-	0	+	+	-	0	+	0
Drug use	-	-	-	0	+	0	+	0	0	0
Mental ability	0	0	0	0	0	0	-	0	0	0
Health	+	0	+	0	+	0	-	0	-	0
Attitude	-	-	0	0		+	0	0	+	0

Table 8

REGRESSION ANALYSES

RISK LEVEL:	Males	Females
	1. Phase (early)	1. Phase (early)
	2. Discretionary (non-)	2. Age (younger)
	3. Age (younger)	3. Discretionary (non-)
	4. Robbery	4. Drug Offence
	5. Native
	6. Sex Offender
NEED LEVEL :	1. Phase (early)	1. Behavioral/Emotional
	2. Behavioral/Emotional	2. Employment
	3. Academic/Vocational	3. Companions
	4. Discretionary (non-)	4. Phase (early)
	5. Employment	5. Mental Ability
	6. Companions	6. Homicide
	7. Martial/Family	7. Drug Offence
	8. Alcohol Use
	9. Sex Offence
	10. Financial Mngt
	11. Mental Ability
	12. Age (younger)
	13. Native
	14. Drug Use
	15. Robbery
	16. Attitude

Table 9

REGRESSION ANALYSES (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY OF CONTACT:

Males	Females
1. Needs Level	1. Needs Level
2. Risk Level	2. Risk Level
3. Phase (early)	3. Drug Use
4. Employment	4. Age (younger)
5. Alcohol Use	5.Other Offences
6. Age (younger)
7. Behavioral/Emotional

Risk Predictors For Federally Sentenced Women

Summary of Presentation by
Kelley Blanchette
PhD Candidate, Carleton University /
Correctional Research, Correctional Service of Canada

Almost all research that is conducted with offenders is conducted with male offenders. We know very little of female offenders, relatively speaking. Nowhere is the knowledge more lacking than in the area of risk assessment.

The objectives of this study were to:

add to the body of research on predictors of female offender recidivism, i.e., whether variables such as mental disorder, criminal history, case history, etc., predict recidivism, and which ones were the best predictors; and
determine the relative importance of these variables in the prediction of post-release outcome.

Hypotheses for this study were based on a extensive review of the literature.

In relation to the first objective, it was expected that offenders diagnosed with major mental disorder were more likely to have their conditional release revoked for minor technical violations. This pattern was found with male offenders.
Secondly, it was expected that offenders diagnosed with anti-social personality or alcohol/drug dependent problems would demonstrate higher recidivism across all measures. Four measures of recidivism were used: (1) return to custody for any reason; (2) a revocation for technical violations; (3) new offences and (4) new violent offences.
Finally, it was expected that criminal history, relative to case history and mental health, would be the most accurate predictor of new convictions and new violent convictions. Again, this is based on research with male samples.

Background Information about the Sample

The participants of the study were all at Prison for Women at the time of the mental health interview.
There was an over-representation of homicide offenders and there were more Aboriginal women in the sample than in the prison at that time.
Criminal histories were relatively equal, in terms of previous offences. The women in the sample were serving slightly longer prison terms, which is consistent with the fact that many were homicide offenders.

Sources of Information

Diagnostic Interview Schedule, which is what CSC used to assess mental health in 1989; it provides diagnoses according to DSM criteria; and
demographic and case history data, retrieved from the institutional files at Prison for Women, primarily the case management files.

Descriptive Statistics

This sample size was 76, and at release it was 66 because 10 were still incarcerated at the time of follow-up (i.e., May 1995).
With the case history variables, the amount of abuse, drug and alcohol problems, psychiatric problems by the caregivers or parents is very high when compared to the non-incarcerated population of women. The women in the sample come from very disadvantaged backgrounds with multi-needs.
Of those with partners, 75% had a partner who had an alcohol/drug problem or a criminal history.
More than 50% were abused in adulthood.
There was a low level of employment and a high level of reliance on social assistance.

Criminal History

The average age at admission was 30 years.
The average length of time served at the time of the survey was 2.9 years.
Age at first non-violent conviction was almost 22 years.
The age at first violent conviction for those who had violent convictions was 26, indicating a delay of a few years prior to committing violent offences.
The aggregate life sentence, excluding lifers, was 65.3 months.
Most of the women had previous non-violent convictions -- almost 65%.
30% had violent convictions in the past, that is, excluding the offence for which they were incarcerated in 1989 (at the time of the survey). Most had previous terms of incarceration.
It is very relevant that 41% used alcohol and 42% used drugs in their current offence, that is, the offence for which they were incarcerated at the time of the survey.

Disorders

The women in the sample were examined in terms of seven mental disorders. This was for comparative purposes with a previous study on male offenders which used the same diagnostic instrument and these seven disorders. These disorders are based on lifetime criteria, meaning: do they meet diagnostic criteria for ever having had the disorder (but not necessarily now)? The disorders included in this study were:
any major mental disorder - included in this category are the psychotic disorders. These are characterized by a loss of touch with reality. Examples include schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder and mania.
major depression
generalized anxiety disorder
psychosexual dysfunction
antisocial personality
alcohol dependence
drug dependence

Post-Release Outcome Variables

Four measures were used to examine recidivism:

Almost 60% returned to custody after their first release from their incarceration in 1989.
44% returned to custody due to technical violations.
44% returned due to new convictions, including violent and non-violent offences.
17% returned due to new violent convictions.

Partial Correlation

A correlation is measure of association between two things, the value of which can range from -1 to +1. The closer it is to either end of the continuum the more significant the relationship, i.e., the stronger the relationship. A negative correlation indicates that as one variable increases, the other decreases. A positive correlation indicates that the variables co-vary together. A partial correlation, removes some variation that may be due to another reason.

In this study, a partial correlation was done, controlling for the women's time at risk in the community. Since we are looking at four measures of recidivism, this will be a function of how long they are in the community.
Looking at the relationship between case history variables and the four measures of post-release outcome, what we see is that those with less education are significantly more likely to get revoked for a technical violation.
Those who relied on social assistance or who reported financial problems in the year prior to committing the admitting offence, were more likely to return for any reason.
Interestingly, if the caregiver or parent had drug or alcohol problem, those offenders were more likely to be returned to custody.

Criminal History Variables

More significance is indicated in the case of criminal history variables, which generally means that these variables are more predictive of recidivism than case history variables.

The strongest variable is whether they had previously been incarcerated. Therefore, past behaviour is predictive of future behaviour.
If they had a violent offence at admission, they were less likely to have a new conviction when released.
There was considerable significance in terms of the number of previous offences.
The younger offenders were more likely to return to custody.

Diagnoses with Post-Release Outcome

The major part of the study was to determine whether mental disorder predicts release outcomes and how strong a prediction relative to criminal history and case history. As expected, among the diagnoses, anti-social personality, alcohol and drug dependence were the most strongly associated with returning to custody for any reason.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis

Hierarchical regression analysis was used to determine whether the following 11 variables might be important in predicting recidivism, as well as relative importance. The eleven variables consisted of a combination of mental health variables, case history variables and criminal history variables:

major mental disorder
alcohol dependence
drug dependence
anti-social personality
whether drugs or alcohol were used in the commission of the admitting offence - this is different than having a diagnosis of alcohol or drug abuse because you might have the diagnosis, but you might not be necessarily under the influence at the time of the offence
level of education
employment status
history of reliance on social assistance
number of previous offences
past incarcerations
nature of admitting offence

Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis

Variables Predicting Return to Custody

The most important variable was whether or not they had been incarcerated in the past. This was the most predictive, accounting for 43% of the variance in return to custody.
The second was whether or not they used alcohol or drugs in the commission of the admitting offence.

Variables Predicting Revocations for Technical Violations

The first one was whether or not they used drug or alcohol in the commission of the offence.
The second was past incarcerations.

Variables Predicting New Offences and New Violent Convictions

Again, it was past incarcerations. This statistic indicates that 26% of the variance in new convictions is accounted for by having being incarcerated in the past.

Conclusions

These results will aid to dispel the myths that women offenders with a diagnosis of major mental disorder present a greater risk to society upon release.

The hypothesis that those with a major mental disorder would be more likely to have their release revocated, was not substantiated. While with male samples, it has been demonstrated that a major mental disorder is predictive of future revocation, for various reasons, this is not indicated in the female sample.
Of the seven disorders examined, the diagnosis of anti-social personality and alcohol or drug dependence are most highly associated with criminal history and most predictive of post-release outcome. This pertains only to the disorders, and does not include criminal history variables.
Relative to criminal history variables, having any diagnosis (including drug or alcohol dependence or anti-social personality) is really unimportant in the prediction of post-release outcome.
While criminal history risk variables are most predictive of a criminal future, i.e. past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour, some of these, for example, use of drug or alcohol prior to the offence also appear to reflect criminogenic needs. This is promising for correctional staff seeking to simultaneously predict risk and target needs for appropriate intervention.
It is important to note that included in each regression paradigm, was a woman's diagnosis of alcohol or drug abuse and whether or not she had used alcohol or drugs prior to the commission of the offence. One may think that these two variables might be highly correlated, however, this was not the case. This indicates that we have a large group of offenders with drug or alcohol problems, but a smaller proportion of that group for whom this need is criminogenic -- related to offending. That is, just having the alcohol/drug problem does not mean you are at a higher risk for re-offending.

The practice we have seen in the past decades of conducting research with male inmates and generalizing to female offenders is really unacceptable. Further research is needed regarding women offenders. Notwithstanding this, it is interesting to note that the results of this study show that the most widely accepted risk predictors for male samples are also applicable to the federal female offenders in this sample.

SAMPLE

Percentage Distribution of Demographic Traits and Federal Offence History: Representativeness of the Sample.

Variable	Study Sample ( N = 76)	Population ( N = 152)

Mean Age (years)	32.9 ( SD 8.2)	33.6 ( SD 8.9)

	% ( n /76)	% ( n / N )

Race
Caucasian	74.0 (54) a	74.3 (113/152)
Aboriginal	13.7 (10)	9.8 (15)
Black	4.1 (3)	7.2 (11)
Other	8.2 (6)	7.8 (13)

Marital Status
Single	39.2 (29) b	55.2 (84/150)
Married / Common law	37.9 (28)	28.2 (43)
Sep. / Div. / Widowed	23.0 (17)	14.9 (23)

Aggregate Sentence
< 3 years	15.8 (12)	21.6 (33/152)
3 < 6 years	30.2 (23)	30.2 (46)
6 < 10 years	15.8 (12)	15.0 (23)
10 < 20 years	10.5 (8)	8.4 (13)
Life	27.6 (21)	24.3 (37)

# of Previous Federal Terms
None	82.9 (63)	80.2 (144/152)
One	13.2 (10)	13.8 (24)
Two or more	3.9 (3)	5.7 (12)

Note. : There were 3 missing cases for variable "race", therefore percentages are based on a sample size of 73. b There were 2 missing cases for variable "marital status", therefore percentages are based on a sample size of 74.

Means and Percentage Distribution of Case History Variables

Variable	M (SD)

Highest level education (grade)	10.0 (2.5)
Longest period of employment (months)	28.8 (34.2)

	% ( n / N )

Lived with parents until age 16	50.0 (29 / 58)
Victim of abuse in childhood	61.2 (41 / 67)
Caregiver had alcohol/drug problem	50.9 (28 / 55)
Caregiver had psychiatric problem	18.6 (8 / 43)
Caregiver had criminal history	22.9 (11 / 48)

Lived alone at time of offence	30.9 (21 / 68)
Married at time of offence	37.9 (28 / 74)
Partner had alcohol / drug problem	75.7 (28 / 37)
Partner had criminal history	74.4 (29 / 39)
Victim of abuse in adulthood	58.7 (27 / 46)

Employed at the time of offence	26.6 (17 / 64)
Financial problems in year prior	60.0 (24 / 40)
Relied on social assistance in year prior	55.9 (33 / 59)

Means and Percentage Distribution of Criminal History Variables

Variable	M (SD)

Age at admission (years)	30.7 (8.1)
Age at survey (years)	32.9 (8.2)
Age at first non-violent conviction (years)	21.6 (5.9)
Age at first violent conviction (years)	25.9 (8.1)
Number of previous convictions	11.4 (14.0)
Aggregate sentence (months)	65.3 (40.5)

	% ( n / 76)

Previous non-violent convictions	64.5 (49)
Previous violent convictions	30.3 (23)

Has served provincial term	55.3 (42)
Has served federal term	17.1 (13)
Ever incarcerated	56.6 (43)

Admitting Offence:
Homicide	47.4 (36)
Robbery	21.1 (16)
Other Violent	9.2 (7)

Drug Offence	11.8 (9)
Property / Fraud Offence	9.2 (7)
Other Non-violent	1.3 (1)

Admitting offence violent	80.3 (61)
Used alcohol in current offence	40.7 (24)
Used drugs in current offence	42.3 (22)

Note. a N = 59. b N = 52.

Percentage Distribution of DIS / DSM Disorders with Stringent Criteria

Disorder	% ( n / 76)

Any major mental disorder	17.1 (13)
Major depression	32.9 (25)
Generalized anxiety disorder	19.7 (15)
Psychosexual dysfunction	34.2 (26)
Antisocial personality	36.8 (28)
Alcohol use / dependence	63.2 (48)
Drug use / dependence	50.0 (38)

Percentage Distribution of Post Release Outcome Variables

Variable	% ( n / 66)

Return to custody for any reason	59.1 (39)
Revocation for technical violation	43.9 (29)
Any new conviction	43.9 (29)
New violent conviction	16.7 (11)

Partial Correlations between Case History and Post-release Outcome

Variable	Return for any reason	Revocation: technical violation	Any new conviction	New violent conviction

Lived with parents until age 16	-.18	-.24	-.09	-.09
Victim of abuse in childhood	-.01	-.07	-.16	.00
Caregiver had alcohol / drug problem	.28 *	.21	.11	-.04
Caregiver had psychiatric problem	-.25	-.16	-.30	-.13
Caregiver had criminal history	-.11	-.25	-.04	.19

Lived alone at time of offence	.03	-.12	-.09	.13
Married at time of offence	.10	-.11	-.10	-.04
Partner had alcohol / drug problem	.23	.15	-.03	-.09
Partner had criminal history	.11	.10	.07	.12
Victim of abuse in adulthood	.00	-.15	-.24	.04

Level of education	-.22	-.37 **	.00	.11
Employed at the time of offence	-.10	-.09	-.12	-.06
Financial problems in year prior	.34 *	-.03	.41 *	.00
Relied on social assistance in year prior	.12	.16	-.02	.05

Note. * p <.05, ** p <.01.

Partial Correlations between Criminal History and Post-release Outcome

Variable	Return for any reason	Revocation: technical violation	Any new conviction	New violent conviction

Age at admission	-.24	-.06	-.18	-.20
Age at time of survey	-.25 *	-.06	-.19	-.20
Age at first non-violent offence	-.08	.03	-.07	-.11
Age at first violent offence	-.30 *	-.20	-.14	-.19

Number of previous offences	.27 *	.05	.27 *	.06
Previous non-violent offences	.24	.02	.25 *	.06
Previous violent offences	.18	.17	.15	.02

Has served provincial term	.56 ****	.14	.30 *	.18
Has served federal term	.20	.09	.27 *	.05
Ever incarcerated in past	.58 ****	.18	.33 **	.16

Admitting offence violent	-.19	-.02	-.28 *	.15
Use of alcohol in current offence	.20	.18	-.02	-.18
Use of drugs in current offence	-.04	-.03	.11	-.11

Note. * p <.05, ** p <.01, **** p <.0001.

Partial Correlations between DIS / DSM Diagnoses and Post-release Outcome

Variable	Return for any reason			New violent conviction

Any major mental disorder	.13	.16	.02	-.08
Major depression	.14	.11	.05	.00

Generalized anxiety disorder	-.18	-.10	.06	-.11
Psychosexual dysfunction	-.31 *	-.21	-.11	.11

Antisocial personality	.27 *	.13	.06	.08
Alcohol use / dependence	.31 *	.24	.13	.01
Drug use / dependence	.30 *	.08	.23	.17

Note . * p <.05.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting

Post-Release Outcome

Variables Predicting Return to Custody for Any Reason (N = 66):

Variable	B	SE B	b

Step 1

Has been incarcerated in the past	.65	.09	.66

Step 2

Has been incarcerated in the past	.58	.09	.58
Used drugs / alcohol in commission of offence	.34	.10	.31

Note. R 2 = .43 for Step 1; R 2 = .52 for Step 2. * p < .05.

Variables Predicting Revocation for Technical Violation (N = 66):

Variable	B	SE B	b

Step 1

Used drugs / alcohol in commission of offence	.52	.12	.47

Step 2

Used drugs / alcohol in commission of offence	.36	.11	.38
Has been incarcerated in the past	.43	.12	.08

Note. R 2 = .22 for Step 1; R 2 = .34 for Step 2. * p < .05

Variables Predicting New Conviction (N = 66):

Variable	B	SE B	b

Step 1

Has been incarcerated in the past	.52	.11	.51

Note. R 2 = .26 for Step 1. * p < .05.

Variables Predicting New Violent Conviction (N = 66):

Variable	B	SE B	b

Step 1

Has been incarcerated in the past	.23	.09	.30

Note. R 2 = .09 for Step 1. * p < .05.

Federally Sentenced Women On Conditional Release:
A Survey Of Community Supervisors

Summary of Presentation by
Moira Law
PhD Candidate, Carleton University

This presentation will focus on the major findings of the above-noted Survey. For regional breakdowns, please refer to the Survey report. Relevant survey page numbers are included in brackets for further reference.

Creating Choices highlighted the need for enhanced programming and options for federally sentenced women (FSW) on conditional release.

Through this survey, it was hoped that the following questions would be answered and contribute to the development of a release strategy:

Who are we going to "service "?
What is their status once they are released?
What programs are currently available?
How can we enhance existing programming?

Who responded to the survey?

49% of FSW in the system are under community supervision.

The surveys were sent to all parole offices across all five regions, to the supervisor directly responsible and in touch with the FSW.

The survey was conducted within a short timeframe - between June and August of 1995. The survey includes:

demographics
the supervision status of that individual
programming - program FSW was in and the programming will need.

Response Rate (p. 1)

The survey had a 33% response rate, which is reasonable for the short timeframe during which the survey was conducted. It is important to note that there was a lower response rate coming from the Pacific and Quebec Regions. This is due primarily to the Exchange of Services Agreement, where FSW are under provincial supervision; therefore, information was not available within CSC. The response rates in these regions was between approximately 18% to 20%. So we can tentatively, but carefully, generalize the findings of the survey all across Canada , to these areas.

Demographics (p. 5+)

Who is the typical FSW in the community? There are individual differences and a range of characteristics, but the following is a general picture.

a single, white female;
living in the city;
on full parole;
employed;
has an education of less than grade twelve;
probably receiving financial assistance;
and most likely to be released from Prison for Women or from Maison Tanguay. Otherwise most of the women were released from across the country.
21% (27) of those represented in the study were lifers. The remaining FSW in the study had served, on average, four years.

Caregiving (p. 9+)

The survey's interest with regard to "caregiving" was not how many children the women had, but rather, the type of caregiving responsibilities by women on community release.

29% of released FSW were responsible for primary caregiving. This does not necessarily imply that the children are living with the FSW.
Of the 29% with primary caregiver responsibilities, only 70% of FSW had all of their children. This is an area for possible future research. Most of the women represented in the study were in the first phase of release (i.e., in the first six months). There is the possibility that these women were involved in a litigation process for child custody issues. The expectation then would be that not of all the women are legally able to be with their children. It would be interesting to examine the changes in primary caregiver status across the three phases of release. Another aspect to this issue is the FSW's attitude towards her caregiver status. Perhaps FSW on community release feel the need to be settled before having their children join them. Bringing the mothers and the children together during the first phase of release may not necessarily be the best scenario for the FSW.

FSW with Primary Caregiver Status -- Demographics (p. 11)

the ages of the children ranged from less than one year to twenty years old;
FSW were involved a relationship, i.e., married, common-law;
FSW tended to be in their own housing unit, i.e., apartment, own house;
and the women were not on financial assistance.

Index Offence (p. 6)

58% of women on release were incarcerated for a violent offence (i.e., second degree murder, manslaughter, robbery, assault, attempted murder, non-capital murder, sex offense and first degree murder). This statistic appears to be unusually high. However, it is comparable to the overall population of FSW --52% of all FSW on release have a violent index offence.

Supervisory Status

47% of the women in Phase 1(first six months of their release)
17% were in Phase 2 (six to twelve months of their release)
36% were in Phase 3 (more than twelve months of their release).

Frequency of Contact with Supervisors (p. 31)

The majority of FSW contacted their supervisor one to two times per month or four times per month (weekly). This is an interesting incongruence with risk level. On a subjective risk assessment scale, supervisors indicated only 8% of FSW were high risk. Yet, 35% of FSW on release visit their supervisor weekly.

Levels of Risk (pp. 24-26)

Supervisors were asked to rate, on a subjective scale what overall level of risk their client presented to the community. Note: this rating was not based on any objective risk measurement.

8% were considered high;
41% were average to moderate and
51% were low.

This subjective assessment by the supervisors was based on:

the supervisor's overall attitude
the FSW's ability to reintegrate
the FSW's level of commitment to programs. Also interesting to note, is that we see objective risk assessment as the basis only 7% of the time and psychological status less than 1% of the time.

The "good news" about the supervision status area of the survey was that it found that the higher risk women were getting more attention from their supervisors. They were not necessarily getting more visits, but were getting longer visits and more intensive services.

Needs Assessment (p. 27)

This was just a subjective rating by the supervisor.

The number one need that women were initiating as topics of discussion with their supervisors was social adjustment. Social adjustment includes relational issues with family, friends, companions and getting back into the community. These needs are in keeping with the fact that the majority of women are in Phase 1.
Women who were considered high need tended to discuss issues regarding substance abuse.
Women with average or moderate needs discussed social adjustment issues, i.e., community, friendships, relationships.
Women with low needs women had employment issues.

The pattern emerges that once serious issues (i.e. substance abuse) are dealt with, then secondary issues can be handled and need level declines.

Programming (pp. 35-56)

Information on programs was categorized into residential services, community skills, counselling, education/vocation, financial assistance, substance abuse and violence (perpetrators of victims of violence).

substance abuse programs had 75 participants
counseling programs had 81 participants
education/vocation programs had 39 participants.

These numbers indicate that community programs are available for some of the identified needs. Also noteworthy is the percentage of FSW who participate in programs because of a release condition compared to those who participate of their own volition.

Future Programs (p. 56)

Supervisors were also asked what they thought was important for future programs. This list should not be interpreted as programs that are not available, but as what programs which supervisors are suggesting, based on their experience and knowledge, that will be needed in the future.

training programs, i.e., employment
counselling programs
substance abuse programs

It is important to differentiate between criminogenic needs and non-criminogenic needs. At some point there must be an overlap between CSC contribution of programming and what is already established in the community.

Regional Program Requests

There are significant regional differences for program requests (refer to Appendix H for regional differences).

In the Pacific, they are looking toward employment programs.
Prairies indicates a need for more halfway houses.
Ontario suggests counselling programs need to be available.
Quebec requests training programs, i.e., employment programs, parenting programs.
Atlantic requests counselling programs.

Interestingly, these numbers match with what is being heavily utilized.

Aboriginal FSW (pp. 64-74)

There are quite a few statistically significant differences between Aboriginal FSW and the larger sample. Of the 126 FSW in the sample, 16 were Aboriginal.

On average the Aboriginal FSW in the survey is 34 years old (compared to 39 years old for larger sample).
She has engaged in violent crime(s) on a proportionally higher ratio (94%) compared to the larger sample (58%).
She is single (94%) (larger sample had 40% FSW as single).
Five (5) of the sixteen women had caregiving responsibilities, which was slightly higher at 35% than the 27% of the larger sample.
She is more likely to be located in the Prairies.
She probably lives in the city in non-subsidized housing, just as with the larger sample.
Aboriginal FSW have a comparable unemployment rate as to the larger sample.
75% FSAW did not have their grade twelve education (higher than larger sample).
The risk levels and needs levels were compatible to the larger sample.
The most frequently requested programs are substance programs and community skills. Other fewer requested programs are anger management and employment programs.

Recommendations for Future Work (p. 75)

71% of FSW in the community are not primary caregivers. Investigation into the women's opinion towards this status and allowing for changes in custody that occur between 0-6 months and 6-12 months are worthy of further exploration.
The area of risk assessment could be explored further. The empirical literature increasingly supports that attitude is a dynamic risk factor. Comparisons between the supervisor's "feeling" of risk of their clients and a risk level derived by an objective risk measurement is needed.
Programming needs to be looked at on a regional basis. There is so much regional variability in terms of programs that are available and what programs are requested.

Healing The Relationship Between
Federally Sentenced Women And Communities

Summary of Presentation by
Lorraine Berzins
Church Council on Justice and Corrections

Note: A copy of the Discussion Paper by the Church Council on Justice and Corrections (CCJC) -- Healing the Relationship between FSW and Communities -- was distributed to participants prior to the workshop.

Presentation focussed on the background of the Discussion Paper given that the model is in its infancy and many issues still need to be worked out. At this point, it is more important to see where the model came from and what we hope to achieve through this model.
Background on CCJC: national ecumenical group whose mandate is to help churches and communities deal with the social problems related to crime and to bring about changes in the criminal-justice system that better assist communities in doing so. Proposal in the Discussion Paper is a community initiative that the CCJC wanted to pursue, and one for which they wanted to seek community perceptions and ideas.
For the past 20 years, CCJC has wrestled with what is fundamentally, systemically wrong with the justice system. CCJC's vantage point in doing the Discussion Paper is not as an offender advocacy group. However, CCJC's analysis has led to advocate a different approach to justice which recognizes that the person stigmatized as an offender is often from a highly disadvantaged or oppressed group in society, and is much less equipped to recover from it.
It is recognized that our society deals with crime by scapegoating and blaming and often those who are already suffering from an imbalance of power and social advantages tend to become the offenders who are labelled and imprisoned. Further, we know our criminal-justice system distorts the true context of many situations with rigid labels on victims and offenders. Therefore, we know that often we are not on an even playing field with victim, offender and communities.
CCJC are advocates for the community, and this includes victim and offender. More than that we advocate for the transformation of a community into one of which has more just and mutually compassionate relations.
The criminal-justice system is adversarial-based and there are many other realities which need to be addressed in addition to the official definitions from court cases. The model proposed in the Discussion Paper brings a different focus to what the has traditionally been the approach in prison.
We need to help women offenders deal with the harm that they have done -- the unfinished business -- which must be dealt with or it will stand in the way of healing their relationship with the community. The importance of this comes out in the film Double Tour (French version) (English version: Twice Condemned ) which has interviews of women serving life sentences; as well it comes out in Tina Hattem's work. One important objective of the model proposed in the Discussion Paper is to establish a process and context in order to make this possible.
Healing the relationship between FSW and communities is a three-way street: victim, community and the woman; each has something to learn from the others. CCJC believes in a different way to justice so that healing can take place and this includes the important elements of: calling to account for one's actions; reparation; dealing with what went wrong; dealing with the feelings and issues around it; dealing with the harm of crime, but also of the harm of the criminal-justice process, and giving an opportunity to deal with the problems underlying the crime.
Ideally, this needs to commence at the outset in the criminal-justice system, and there are examples of where this holistic process is happening, for example, in the Aboriginal approach to justice, such as with Circle Sentencing and with Family Group Conferencing, which use concept of "reintegrative shaming". If the opportunity is missed at the outset, we should be looking for opportunities to make up for this at any point in a woman's sentence. This is important to rebuilding her place in the community. Preparing the woman for release is also a goal of the model.
CCJC has attempted to build a concept and process that has as its goal helping with a woman's family bond or significant other bond which is important in healing.
The model also attempts to deal with victim concerns, community concerns, fears and relationships, and access to community services. The community needs to learn more about women who are imprisoned if there is to be change and acceptance. An effective way of doing so is with direct contact and experience with the women. CCJC is also trying to get assistance for the woman to plan for release.
This is not a charity model; it is in keeping with the philosophy of Creating Choices and the principle of empowerment. It is not a therapeutic model nor a case management model, although there may be a lot of connections to the case management process.
It is an empowerment model, but not in an adversarial process -- empowerment for a woman to be able to say what she feels and needs, and also to hear and take into account what others say they need. It is an accountability model and a healing model. It is a highly individualized model, as it was felt there was no way around this; a community building model, holistic model -- focuses on the woman as a total person and the woman in her relationships. It is felt that it is a culturally sensitive model, in that the only way we think it can happen is to individualizing it, bringing into each circle the relevant people, with the relevant approach and relevant cultural understanding for that woman. It is a process to build a community bond through which the other linkages can be accessed.
Based on the established objectives and principles for the model, CCJC has tried to build a process and procedure for accessing it on a voluntary process. This is a complex undertaking and there are many concerns and issues around this. This conference is an opportunity to get your ideas, concerns and suggestions.
The next step should not be to develop a bureaucracy or logistics around the process -- it is too early for this. We are focussing on a process and a procedure that will help a circle of people in the woman's original community to come together and a circle of people in the community surrounding the facility to come together to work in a way which honours the issues discussed in a way that is voluntary on the part of the woman, shows respect and dignity for all those harmed by what has happened and gives a voice for trying to work out some of the issues and with a communication process that most helps to do that in a respectful way that empowers all participants.
The only way to take a step further is to try it out somewhere -- a hands-on experience. There are pilot projects now underway, e.g., in the Prairie Region there is a pilot going to be undertaken with male offenders; as well, there is a case before the courts in Montreal in which the Mennonite community is attempting to assist.
A few more cases are needed to learn from the process. A major challenge will be to remain community-based, rather than system-based, and to be respectful of all the fears the women will have around this process.

Elizabeth Fry Society Community Initiatives

Summary of Presentation by
Kim Pate
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS)

There is a sense of urgency for concrete action in the development of a national community strategy for women, borne out by several factors, including concerns and tragedies with regard to Prison for Women and the regional facilities.
The introductory remarks spoke to regionalized community strategies and, while the intentions of those in CSC are good, there is grave concern about the lack of national leadership on this issue and the need for strong national focus on getting women into the community as quickly as possible.
CAEFS is very much focussed on what happens in the community and ensuring, as much as possible, that women stay out of prison, and also that they can move into the community in a productive, useful way to meet their identified needs, and we help them link up to resources in the community. We also work with a network of other organizations to make appropriate linkages for women within the community.
CAEFS mandate is to work with women in conflict with the law, therefore, it is recognized that these women have committed crimes. However, our focus is: the extent to which women are criminalized is very often a function of how they are marginalized, and not just their behaviour. This often leads to an assumption by others that CAEFS does not feel women should be held accountable, and this assumption needs to be challenged.
Societal norms are white, middle-class and male. There is evidence of biases and systematic discrimination when we see who gets criminalized, imprisoned and who does not get released. We also see this in terms of research, wherein there is bias as it is based on a white, male middle class model. Recognizing these biases should point out where we have some deficits and what we need to look at.
CAEFS bias is that we work with and on behalf of women in prison at the national level, as well as on law reform efforts, direct service and a whole range of issues which impact on women. In doing so, we connect and work with many other groups, including women's groups and social justice groups.
In keeping with the regionalization of the women's prisons, there has been a restructuring of CAEFS -- Executive Director reports to Board consisting of three representatives from each of the regions and a representative from the Healing Lodge Planning Circle . Some of the advocacy role has also been regionalized.
Areas of focus for a community strategy -- In talking to the women over the years, the areas which predominantly come out and which are being addressed are:
- contact with their children or community of support -- families, extended family, etc.
- accommodation/housing
- supporting oneself -- social assistance, planning to care for children, job placement, with family support to assist.
The women have expressed that once basic needs are met, they want to deal with issues around substance abuse, abuse they have suffered, coping mechanisms, and have the support of Elders, sisters, etc., and be able to access other services in the community. Often they also want to create services, for example, the peer support group, Strength in Sisterhood.
Concretely, CAEFS is looking at establishing a liaison (e.g., Elizabeth Fry Society, Native Counselling Centre, etc.) for the women as they are coming into the prison to link them to their home community. They are looking, at the least, a liaison in the community where the prison is and resourcing for work to be done in the home community.
Examples: facilitating visits of children and other family members from a woman's home community while a woman is in prison; linking up with other community services in various areas; and satellite apartment options supplemented with supervision support; looking at and promoting appropriate work release and employment options for the women. There are many feasible options in terms of work releases to a woman's home community that should be pursued and there needs to be more recognition and action in this regard from the national level of Corrections.
All Elizabeth Fry Societies in B.C. are involved in a housing project which has been funded through B.C. Housing, not Corrections. They have hired the women to do the research, consultation, and develop plans to examine housing release options for women in B.C. Similar processes are needed in other parts of the country. Participant-focussed research and program development means that the women are at the front and center directing the process, in a supported and encouraged way. There are many examples of this approach which can be shared.
More discussion needs to focus on resources: CAEFS suggests an allocation of resources for a woman at day parole eligibility that would flow with the woman to encourage an individualized approach to address her direct needs and risk. There needs to be a shift in thinking in terms of concerns regarding the release of women into the community. This means dealing with perceived public opinion and conservative vocal opposition. As well, we should not be continuing to look for models and "best practices", as they may not be applicable in all situations, and it encourages a narrow focus on some of the women in prison, meeting some needs but not all.
We need individualized approaches that are women-directed, women- supported; need to provide opportunities for women to be responsible and accountable in the community and ways to support them.
In terms of accountability, the issue of trust for the women is mammoth. CSC is setting too unrealistic expectations for itself by trying to combine too many roles, with tragic consequences for the women. There is an urgency to our encouraging that the ownership, responsibility and partnership envisioned by Creating Choices start to happen now, and not study this any more. CSC now has research to demonstrate much of what many people have been telling them for a long time, so we should move quickly and soon.

Community Initiatives
Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge

Summary of Presentation by
Sharon McIvor
Aboriginal Advisory Committee

Yesterday we heard about the number of Aboriginal FSW who are incarcerated - about 33% of the population. I have worked in this area for a while, and have heard that Aboriginal women should have a voice, should be represented, etc. Thanks to Kim Pate for recognizing that the First Nations women were not represented on the agenda for this workshop and for giving up some of her time for me to speak. My usual party line is that if there are 33% Aboriginal women incarcerated, and we are talking about Aboriginal women, there should be 33% Aboriginal representation at the workshop and have 33% of the agenda. Unfortunately, I have 15 minutes and will try to make the best of this.
The normal process in dealing with Aboriginal women in corrections, is that we are very under-represented in any of the decision-making bodies. At National Headquarters, for instance, we have a section for Federally Sentenced Women in which there is no Aboriginal representation. In most of the regions and institutions, that is also the case. We have the Healing Lodge which has been operational for about four months, which has over 50% Aboriginal staff, which is very unusual. Therefore, there is very little input for Aboriginal women when decisions are being made at any level in Corrections or on FSW.
In 1989, I was asked to represent Aboriginal women on the Task Force on FSW, due to their high numbers in the FSW population. We are very pleased that the recommendation of the Task Force on FSW to have a Healing Lodge for Aboriginal FSW is now in place. It has not been an easy road; it is difficult to mesh two principles, i.e., how we as Aboriginal women want to treat the Aboriginal FSW and what Corrections requires within the correctional structure.
We want to talk about separate solutions because of the difficulties we have had trying to mesh what we think should happen so that the women can serve their sentences and go back into the community in a position where they will not reoffend -- i.e., how we approach that from the Aboriginal perspective -- with how Corrections must approach it given their policies and guidelines. We have always talked about separate solutions -- something separate that can be controlled outside of what is going on in Corrections. We have had difficulty trying to get the powers-that-be in Corrections to consider the distinct needs of Aboriginal women -- this requires a different solution. How we put this into place is a problem. The major players in Corrections are non-Aboriginal, and while the intentions have been good and there has been a lot of discussions, we have not come to any kind of a solution.
We need to have control over what is going on in any systems. We thought this would happen with the Healing Lodge and, unfortunately, given the constraints that have to satisfy correctional policies and CCRA, we have not been able to have control. Aboriginal women need different kinds of supports than are in place now. In terms of releasing women on parole, there seems to be an attempt to fit a woman into the white, middle class concept or mold of what is thought to be a good parolee. This may be the root of some of the problems which FSW have encountered.
In speaking to the FSW, we find that the profile of an Aboriginal FSW is generally: a young woman under 30, single, a good percentage have children, come from non-supportive backgrounds, have fragmented families, fostering situations, physically/sexually abusive backgrounds. When looking at what would make this woman function without getting into conflict with the law, you look at a different standard. If you look at educational background and job preparation, they still have all the other baggage that goes along with what they grew up with -- their alienation from who they are as Aboriginal women.
What can we do to bring these women to a point where they can function without the conflict? One of the main ingredients to do so is teaching them that being an Aboriginal woman is okay, in fact darn good. To do that they have to be immersed in something they have never had. The Aboriginal traditions include very special processes for women, and if you have pride in how special it is to be an Aboriginal woman and have the traditional teachings, you do not run into the abuses -- drug abuse, selling your bodies, etc.
What the Elders tell us we should be doing with the Aboriginal FSW is first allow them to know who they are. If they do not get this first, they will never be able to function in all the other areas. What the Elders want to do is take the women to a place where they can teach them what they should have been taught when they were much younger -- to focus on more instrumental things before things such as cognitive skills and job skills can come into play.
With the Healing Lodge, we are trying hard to use it in the way in which the Elders have told us it should be used when they were on the Planning Circle . They also want to use the CCRA -- under Section 81 -- to open other healing centres. Elders are not sure about the halfway house approach; they feel what should be happening is healing centres and running the women through a process after which they will be ready to come back into the community. For the last quarter of the time they are in the healing centres, their families should live on-site to contribute to the process in terms of assisting the woman to function within the family.
The Aboriginal FSW in prison need a specific kind of input that Corrections cannot give them at this point -- there is no one in Corrections to give the women the type of support they need to develop enough to successfully move on in their lives. Therefore, we advocate that it be turned over to the Aboriginal community in certain circumstances.
The Healing Lodge in Nekaneet is up and running and there have been growing pains. We are very optimistic despite all the obstacles we have to overcome, e.g., reviewing all Commissioner's Directives for Aboriginal appropriateness, security classifications, etc.
The Aboriginal community is looking for support to do a lot of our own work. What we do not have is the authority to take over the custody and care of the Aboriginal FSW, nor the resources in our communities. With the support of Corrections and other groups, we can divert some resources toward opening facilities that will help the women become individuals that will get out of prison and successfully live outside the prison environment without coming into conflict with the law again.

Key Issues For A Community Strategy Framework: Synopsis

As mentioned in "Format of Proceedings", this section is a synopsis of issues raised in the discussion groups.

FSW Typologies

Typologies are not as clear-cut as presented.
Need more refinement from a variety of perspectives: 1) reasons why women offend -- the contextual issues; 2) perhaps have sub-groupings for the homicide group and the armed robbery group. To do this refinement, this would flow from the continued focus on individualized case management approaches.
We can, and should, take a different approach for FSW -- should be a multi-dimensional approach involving many different resources and sources of support -- there needs to be creativity here. Suggestions:
- more extensive use of volunteers for one-on-one support
- more extensive use of Elders
- more extensive use of external social service groups
In most regions, inadequate resources have been identified for high risk FSW. This will continue to be a problem that will need more attention because there are so few FSW at any given time or any one given location.

Halfway Houses

There is a continued role for halfway houses.
- looking to reinvent them
- use them as halfway-back options
- problems with coed houses - support the risk rather than identifying the risk of companions
- need to focus on much more development. Examples: private family placement; independent living; housing support for first two-three month on release; healing centres for Aboriginal women.
Release planning -- need effort in the critical first six months; multi-dimensional support should be most evident at this time.

Caregiving for Children

Caregiving needs to be formally recognized with respect to women and primary care responsibility.
Need to be careful of stability of child's environment, i.e., in suspension of releases.
Need to have emergency support for child care and support for parenting function -- i.e., babysitting relief, accessing daycare programs.
Need more work here if we are going to have mother/child program in institution; then needs to be followed through by community.
Should be seen as an appropriate role for work release for women with primary caregiving responsibility.

Employment

Basic skill development should be supported by the institution and once on release, the focus should be on job placement.
Need to take into account the impact of the recession.
Volunteer work -- difficulty finding, needing creative approaches by CSC starting from when women incarcerated through to release, perhaps focus an interest aware of the woman.

Aboriginal Offenders

Need to continue to work intensively with Aboriginal groups in communities and support CCRA Section 81 approaches in terms of interventions and support; look for Aboriginal options.

Volunteers

Need strong and enhanced role of volunteers; need to find ways to support volunteers and how to best utilize them, e.g., group, one-to-one, etc.

Healing Circle (Church Council on Justice and Corrections)

Ideal place to start this process would be at the pre-sentence stage, use as an alternative to incarceration.
Benefit of finding support circles for FSW through carceral and release phases.
There are benefits, but some issues need to be addressed:
- What would CSC's role be in this process?
- How is the facilitator of process selected -- what are necessary qualities?
- Preparation and protection of victim -- possibility of retraumatizing, put them under an obligation too quickly to participate.
- Preparation of community.
- Preparation of FSW.
Leads to two approaches -- no consensus on which way to go:
- "Hands-on" approach around a particular case to deal with issues.
- Do non-case specific consultation discussion around the issues before a pilot.
It was clarified that the project was never intended to be a CCJC-owned project -- the intention was to develop a concept that any group could pursue.
It is important that the project be community driven to keep it at "arm's length" from CSC. This is why the Interfaith Committee was suggested for the project.
Communities want to undertake this model; it is in the interest of CSC to help with resources to make this possible.

Additional Conditions imposed by National Parole Board

Should only be used in exceptional cases
Should not be standard process
Need more understanding of risk factors for FSW
Even when there are additional conditions, return to prison -- not on technical violations -- should be a last resort, therefore looking for halfway back options, enhanced support in community, etc.

Home Community Connections

Look into potential for meaningful volunteer work which will facilitate/enhance connection to community.
Need to be more creative with linkages to home communities; no consensus how to best approach this other than through a multi-dimensional approach. Suggestions:
- perhaps have specific liaison to coordinate linkages, create support circles, keep communication going;
- continued intermittent contact between supervising parole office throughout the sentence;
- need enhanced communication to various players here -- CSC and non-CSC; and
- target resources on community development work -- not defined.

Electronic Monitoring

Perhaps could be used in certain cases to allow for release that would not be possible due to small communities, no structured release option.
There are still dangers in using this -- problem of over use, inappropriate use and question of whether it is useful at all.
Seen as viable particularly in halfway back option.
There was some opposition expressed.

General Issues

There should be a strong community ownership and woman-directed component in strategies/options implemented, i.e., the woman must be at the forefront.
At this time, there is insufficient input solicited from the community.
More action and resource allocation is required.
There is not a strong interlinkage between the community and CSC at the national level in terms of strategy development.
We need to promote the involvement of Elizabeth Fry Societies, Aboriginal communities and women's groups.

Implications Of Key Issues At Regional/Aboriginal/National Level

Prairies

concur with issues as presented.
risk/needs scale appears to be a useful and , but more refinement is needed. This should be pursed at the national level, i.e., Larry Motiuk
we support a multi-dimensional approach to all offenders. There is a need to be creative in our approach and we should continue to strive for involving the community at large, particularly the Aboriginal community
high needs/high risk offenders have a need for transitional housing - CSC/community agency support based on offender needs i.e. programs, monitoring, supervision
halfway houses
- community resources must be explored
- FSW in male dominated CRFs is not appropriate or ideal
- possible options: private family home placements; contracted beds from existing residential facilities designed for females; apartments.
need concentrated resources during the critical first six month release time frame
caregiving program
- during the institutional phase, while we feel that this could be beneficial to the offender, we recognize this as a sensitive and complex issue
- need to approach issue cautiously and consult other jurisdictions for professional feedback
- liability issue should be explored
- within the community concur that resources should be in place to assist the mother after release that parallel the resources and services that were provided for in the institution - this will require a coordinated care approach between the institution and the community - community support essential at this phase
employment
- concur that all offenders should be provided with employment training that are realistic to their needs and more diverse that follow labour market trends upon release, if full time or part time employment is not available, alternatives such as: contracting with community agencies to assist in developing employment skills; educational/training; volunteer work.
- goal is to locate, secure and maintain employment
Aboriginal issue
- we must continue our efforts to work with support of Aboriginal agencies and communities
- nationally CSC could examine the Pathways process to involve communities to assist them in reintegrating offenders to their home communities. i.e. Volunteer Parole Officers in northern Manitoba - 18 contracts throughout, provide support to the offenders; are our eyes and ears dynamic supervision - community supervision
Church Council on Justice and Corrections
- model has merit
- has to be community driven and case specific
- concerns - victim participation or non-participation, CSC role in the process
Additional conditions
- this continues to be an issue that we have discussed over the years between CSC/NPB. However we concur that additional conditions should be limited and restricted to criminogenic factors
- we support that supervision should be the last alternative and support and use of halfway back measures
linkages to home communities
- concur that contact between the offender/case management officer and others with the home community is essential. Must be a partnering between CSC and a variety of groups
Electronic Monitoring - we do not support
length of programming in the community is not long enough
- we are not familiar with this issue as addressed but feel we have control over the length of programs that we deliver on
community involvement is supported and we will continue our efforts to solicit their support in all facets of our operations
action plan once receive results of the report - meet with the Warden of the FSW facility and will discuss this issue with Regional Management Committee and believe it is appropriate to discuss with CSC and NPB for Interlinkages meeting

Pacific

resurrect Community Initiative Project - includes a community worker to be involved early in the sentence and to follow all the way through the sentencing - community worker would be from the home community
involve Helen Joe (Stola Nation) to get Section 81 of CCRA in place - assisting Aboriginal women return to home community
going to have strategy meetings with NPB to work on creating realistic options that are different from what using now - Fraser Simmons will talk to Don Bell regarding BC Parole represented
perhaps more use of the open unit for day parole - the UTA process at present holds up the lifers
will consider use of Electronic Monitoring because only one halfway house and feel it is better to get women out and to keep them out
- day parole for FSW (not lifers) going to remote community
- in conjunction with supervision - would this meet the legislation definition
- CSC policy - check with legal regarding our standards on how we can be less rigid, specifically as it relates to lifers
- B.C. will proceed cautiously but in select cases, in order to keep women in the community
- will be used where applicable
Community Advocacy Model
- proceed cautiously, but need to know more before volunteer to fully participate - need clarification on how it would work, who would be on the "team"
- suggest title change to avoid "Church" and Church focus because may deter involvement of the women, especially Aboriginals
- would need outside resources
- would have to identify two possible clients but not before more planning
- work on re-unifying with older children, weekend visits would allow both parent/child to get to know each other slowly
work towards getting a program for treatment of sex offenders and women with violence and women with personality disorder
- now nothing available
- although numbers small, the women get stuck in the system
- would like the national group to look at option how this could be done, should poll regions to see whether this group be brought together for treatment or bringing a small program into BCCW - or research possibility of coed programming for women who have a violent background, not for women who have themselves have been violently abused
explore option for using the Open Unit for Day Parole release for FSW re: day parole, work release
Section 81 - this could be used as an alternative for release of Aboriginal - Helen Joe to be contracted , actively pursue this
additional condition - policy states the condition must be justified
- Fraser Simmons (NPB) will send copy of NPB policy on this and will note why policy does not follow - will work with Board members regarding additional conditions
- must work to ensure substance abuse as condition is needed for women to succeed, must be linked to criminogenic factors and to risk of reoffending
- Fraser Simmon (NPB) will raise issue regarding condition "all intoxicants" - pursue option as in Newfoundland where they specify exactly what the problem is i.e. alcohol, inhalants etc.
- have a NPB Liaison Member for BCCW
Work Release - can be granted by BCCW Lifers - not tell DP eligibility dates - caregiving an option
day parole possibility - reverse the usual - at the site during the day for programming and leave for home for evening and night
continue to work with the Mother/Child program
- has worked well for some women, must be decided case by case
- we must be cautious and ensure what we are doing is the best for the child
- strict criteria to be followed
- women to show commitment
have a good working relationship with Elizabeth Fry and will continue to do this - Balaclava House is very successful
want to pursue halfway back option - can use Open Unit or Electronic Monitoring if this would assist in maintain conditional release
at present province supervises FSW, except lifers, has consideration been given to CSC taking back all supervision
recommend a longitudinal study - follow-up an evaluation on whatever strategy decided upon to see the impact of strategy/effects or programming - including typologies - see if making a difference
further to community initiatives, need help dealing with social services, difficulty in getting allowance for women at Balaclava
arguments about who/what is legally responsible for living allowance, medical, dental etc. - need protocols, not each local office - suggestion to national group
continue federal/provincial working group which has input from community agencies - female offender advisory group

Ontario

agree with issues
in Ontario have already started strategizing around community framework and can take the emerging issues away from the workshop and more clearly define them and put some action plans to them
recommend that there is a need to look at the assessment tools that are determining the risk levels of women - need to be designed for women - need modifications to existing tools done now - suggest as a national project and should be a priority

Quebec

agree with the issues
looked at where community resources are necessary - we already well provided for by partnership from CSC, from national and Quebec and community services - this is an excellent basis - this is a good starting for it
want to meet with NPB and Elizabeth Fry Society to decide what FSW needs are (note they are taken care of by provincial, so federals lack the expertise and experience)
have already focused on strong and weak points of community focuses
going to find new partners for correctional agencies to meet the needs, particularly for remote regions vs. Quebec City and Montreal

Atlantic

agree with issues
would like to see the FSW community release initiative continue as a topic on the National Council of Community Corrections because support is needed from here as well as from the FSW Program.
mother/child is a national issue (where support is needed) -- mother/child and caregiving that must be extended into community because of additional costs
possibility of establishing a regional working group, which is CSC driven - want to liaison with regional Advisory Council - will have specialists from each district in women's issues - want specialists to be a part of the networking of the women's organizations in their community
want NPB to be involved in regional group and to be national issue because there is an educative role that has not been achieved

Aboriginal Advisory Committee

discussion around residential schools (parallel experiences of FSW)
need to continue to work with corrections to reword or revamp the structure
need to use different criteria on Aboriginal residents (prefers word residents to inmates)
learning to deal with CSC - i.e. how to write things out and CSC implement it - need patience and learning here - things only happen when CSC finally sees the "idea" and then action starts
have some methods would like to apply but will be some time before these are understood and accepted
discussion of events recently - need to be able to openly discuss to help avoid these situations in the future - will be meeting with Elders in Edmonton to teach this is not the way to deal with one's life
CSC/NPB allow us to do more concrete things
CSC needs to understand the different teachings of various Aboriginal groups

National Representatives

lacking halfway houses - will have to find apartments, independent living should be cheaper than the halfway house; could be reallocation
transition to welfare is critical; how to wean off
Formula Funding - indications are that all regions have sufficient resources, except Atlantic ; question of internal restructuring when regions have to find money for FSW community
CAEFS identified need for national leadership and focus and accountability
- need to have an FSW gender lens analysis
- model of regionalizing
- see impact of Prison for Women

Community Council

May meeting - will be on the agenda -how does the Council provide leadership on key issues - does the Council need to draw in more people to deal with FSW?

look at FSW expenditures - how it is currently being spent - where should it be spent more effectively?
Council to look at this before go to Excom
Edmonton Committee - are they self-directed?
CAEFS
- feels not self-directed (re: above comment?)
- do not have access to information through anything but the Warden - the facility
Church Council on Justice and Corrections
- does not want institution to decide what gets resourced if something starts happening in the community
- does not want fee for service for her model/process but also a facilitation question; how to do this? has to be neutral person.
Corporate Advisor Community Corrections, NHQ indicated he will:
- take the proceedings to interlinkages national meeting to ensure the Commissioner and Chairman are aware of the discussions at the workshop
- make a commitment on the national Community Corrections Council; view need to provide leadership or ownership in respect to the community aspect of developing the strategy
- ensure the issues are put on the agenda and will begin to work through them so that there are some national principles
- ensure that we have a dynamic and involving community strategy that will address FSW

Appendix A

Topics For Discussion: Risk Management

WORKSHOP TO DEVELOP A COMMUNITY STRATEGY FOR FEDERALLY SENTENCED WOMEN (FSW)

MARCH 5, 1996 , p.m.

The following topics for discussion were compiled based on issues raised within CSC and by external agencies.

1. FSW Community Typologies

What is your operational experience with the theoretical groupings?
Do you have the community resources to manage the high risk group?
Can supervision for FSW be different from that for federally sentenced men given their small numbers and lower risk?
How should CSC respond to the typologies?

2. FSW Community Mental Health

What resources exist in the community for these FSW? The 1995 Community Survey regarding FSW on release indicated a high proportion of FSW obtaining psychological counselling (90%). Is this a necessity/good approach, or is it due to the lack of programming/treatment in the community and the small number of FSW and their widespread distribution at any given time?
How can existing community mental health resources best be accessed for FSW? (e.g., Burnaby Correctional Centre for Women arranges for a social worker to visit the institution and participate in the release planning for such women -- is this a model CSC can use?)
How can we ensure the link between mental illness and risk is well understood and taken into account by supervising officers?

3. Halfway Houses

Is there a role for halfway houses for FSW given the semi-independent living model of the new facilities? Is it the most effective form of transitional housing support for FSW or are there others that CSC could pilot such as paying 2-3 months' recent for FSW who require such transitional support?
If halfway houses were to be used for higher risk FSW, are there implications for selection, training, staffing and operational management (e.g., the support/monitoring balance) of house personnel?

4. Education and Employment Support

For FSW with caregiver responsibility for pre-school children, should caregiving be considered employment?
What are the pre-requisites to enhance the employability of FSW?
What support, both practical and moral, is required to assist FSW to enter or re-enter the job market? Who can best provide that support? Is there a role of volunteers in this area?
What is the role and value of volunteer work for FSW on release? Is it avoidance of job search reality or is it a way into job reality? Advantages/disadvantages -- more suitable for some FSW groups than others?

Appendix B

Topics For Discussion: Meeting Needs/Supporting Success

WORKSHOP TO DEVELOP A COMMUNITY STRATEGY FOR FEDERALLY SENTENCED WOMEN (FSW)

MARCH 6, 1996 , p.m.

The following topics for discussion were compiled based on issues raised within CSC and by external agencies.

1. FSW - Substance Abuse

In light of the findings of K. Blanchette's study, should there be special conditions for all FSW who have a substance abuse dependency, or can this measure be limited to that sub-group for whom there is a causal link between substance abuse and re-offending? Should the special condition for the non-link group not result in automatic suspension/revocation? Is a halfway back option feasible?
There is now a new FSW substance abuse program. How can we ensure appropriate on-going relapse prevention in the community which builds on the institutional program? What are the treatment/options/programs available in the community?

2. Community Advocacy Network (paper by Church Council on Justice and Corrections)

Should CSC pilot this model?
What are the advantages?
Would FSW participate on a voluntary basis?
Where should the responsibility for coordinating the establishment of a circle of support be located -- in CSC or in the community-at-large?

3. Maintaining Home Community Connections

The regional facilities are closer to the home communities of many, but not all FSW. How can connections be maintained/fostered for those from other parts of the region/province?
What is, or should be, the role of the parole office in maintaining/fostering the connection?
How can CSC best facilitate the use of services and networks (volunteer and staff) of external agencies in this area?

4. External Agencies

Most FSW are low risk for re-offending and there are few high profile community incidents involving FSW. The 1995 Survey of FSW on release indicated a small proportion of FSW being supervised by external agencies. Does this trend reflect external agencies' interest in providing more of a support role rather than a supervision role? Is supervision the most effective way of utilizing external agencies or should CSC supervise and external agencies provide support? What about in remote areas?
What about accessing the support of Aboriginal communities and individuals for federally sentenced Aboriginal women on release?
Is there scope for greater volunteer involvement in support services?

5. Reintegrating Families

There will be a mother/child program at the regional facilities; some FSW on release will be participating in this program on either a full-time, part-time or occasional basis. What are the implications for release, both planning and the release itself?
FSW who did not participate in the program may be seeking to re-unify with their children on release. We know from research that the issue of separation and re-unification with children is a significant factor for women with respect to motivating them to live a law-abiding life. What should be the role of CSC Community in facilitating and supporting FSW in this need area?
How should the community assessment be used to address this need area?

Appendix C

Detailed Version Of Group Discussions

Risk Management

COMMUNITY TYPOLOGIES

Operational Experience with Typologies

applicable in terms of homicide, robbery and drug offenders
relate fairly well to known experience
sex offenders - very high risk/need
there is a correspondence, e.g., homicide reoffending not a problem
general trend that there is an emerging violent female offender
manslaughter cases are often higher risk than murder cases
only group where risk was seen as more important was the robbery offenders where substance abuse was seen as a contributing factor
perhaps there is the assumption that the women fall into low risk/low need because most are on full parole
the large percentage of women on full parole may simply reflect the lack of halfway houses across the country, therefore a difficulty in putting together release plans for day parole applications
Provincial Board is active so CSC is involved with lifers mainly (B.C.)
Prairies - increasing commercial crime
Prairies - Native Counselling Centre supervises natives
In terms of having the community resources to manage the high-risk group, the problem is the small number of FSW under supervision in any one location. Regional disparities can make a difference - distance to travel to make frequency of contact stands at the minimum, perhaps does not appropriately deal with it. Management of these cases may well be traditional reliance on halfway houses backed up by psychological referral
the typologies may not be so clear cut
difficult to typify the small numbers of women as seen in our areas
need to take into account contextual issues
issue of women as compliance/accomplice in offenses, especially in robbery and narcotics offenses
referral outside of core CSC programs does not deal with the criminogenic factors - should look more to community groups who might be interested in providing service to FSW - is it possible to receive core service in this manner - we need to look at the elements that we need delivered and look to outside groups without saying it is a core program within CSC
statistic of 29% of women as caregivers is not worn out by reality
resources are needed for first six months on release
Phase 1 (0-6 months) - needs in this period may not be criminogenic, however, they are important for successful reintegration

How should CSC respond to the FSW typologies?

need to do individualized risk/needs assessment to refine typology groupings
need to be aware of crisis intervention
need continuing reassessment of the usefulness of the measurement tools
need to further differentiate robbery offenders i.e. violent vs. non-violent
need to develop new ways of looking at women's risk and need levels - there is a danger in assuming men's scales can be applied to women
the typologies should not necessarily be the guide.
do not to get too locked in these rigid ways of looking at women
CSC maintain a research orientation, detector of emerging trends, determine what works
response must be cautious to the use of typologies
develop differential supervision techniques based on risk factors
focus programs on high risk/high needs group
alternatives should be developed for release and for preventing revocation. There is no need to reinvent resources when they already exist in the community. First 6 months are crucial to reintegration and all possible support should be given.
develop community education strategy to increase community involvement
expand role of volunteer parole officers - commitment to success - often more frequent contact
need increased communication - all players need to understand risk factors for FSW
encourage flexibility and creativity in the construction of release plans and ensure those preparing them are educated in the real relationships between need and actual risk to reoffend i.e., issue of abstinence on release
need to backtrack and look at logic of sentencing and the incarceratory period in the first place -- need alternatives to incarceration and reconciliation within the community. This is a necessary part of reducing recidivism and criminality and of including the communities in the process of dealing with crime

Can supervision for FSW be different from that for FSM given their small numbers?

effective delivery of programs hampered by the numbers of FSW, therefore issues of risk are not being addressed
Quebec does not have the same issue respecting numbers given Montreal and Quebec City
need to work with women in a way that is different than men
should be similar as for men, but do not underestimate the risk
supervision for FSW should be the same as for men, although less predominant, risk should never be underestimated
referral outside of core CSC programs does not deal with the criminogenic factors
we should look more to community support groups who might be interested in providing service to FSW - is it possible to receive core services in this manner?
a correctional strategy for women should recognize that it may not be possible to use CSC core services to meet criminogenic needs
the issue is risk when looking at men/women and community supervision
definitions are required when looking at men/women and community strategy

Needs of high risk group and availability of resources

creative development is needed
working with the community to be able to welcome prisoners back, offer support, employment - need resources to do community development work
positive attitude, as well as ensuring availability of concrete resources is vital e.g., northern communities
need residential options, strong volunteer community, woman-centered counseling, network of community people/agencies who will share responsibility for high risk parolees
overall resources are available to deal with high-risk group
not a problem of concrete resources
resources are made available to large communities as well as to smaller communities
no community programming for female sex offenders -- even inside institution little or no programming for this group
some areas not having adequate resources to deliver a program within the community
have resources, but not necessarily in the area that we need them, i.e., psychiatric treatment centre for women - resources are not a good match, i.e., what is available and what is needed
Atlantic - do not have adequate resources - no beds
B.C. - high risk offenders (non-lifers) are managed by provincial probation -- problem of large caseloads in the province - CSC only involved with lifers

MENTAL HEALTH

Issues related to FSW and mental health

there is the problem that women are using the mental health system because no one else will deal with them
psychological often takes the place of mental health resources that we do not have - psychology often used in place of non-existent services that are required and should be addressed - psychologists are used as a panacea - we do not always need a psychologist - counseling is applied for lack of resources - psychologists are used to cover the gap - not always most effective
there is the traditional problem that women are seen as acting irrationally when they step outside socially acceptable behaviour - FSW are considered to be not only bad citizens, but also bad mothers and bad wives -- not same for men, they are just bad citizens, therefore they need counseling -- do not overpathologize
maybe we exaggerate the psychological needs of FSW, i.e., marginalized women necessarily must have something wrong
problem of constructing lists of problems (as done in mental health methods), which later get used in the constructing of conditions of release
most programs/services are overloaded and will not take offenders
not issue based on research
90% of FSW on release are in psychological counselling but are not mentally ill - dealing with past abuse should not be a condition of release

Resources available in the community for FSW

not always matched to the need - sometimes a catch-all
resources are simply not available at all in some communities
there are provincial resources, i.e., case at Burnaby institutional social worker followed difficult case into the community -- perhaps harder to make on a federal level, but important nonetheless
do not have the required resources
there are no resources in the community or the prison setting for dealing with severe mental illness

Required resources/suggestions

use of elder services in place of psychology - need for something like this for FSW in general
psychological counselling should not be mandated in the context of release conditions when unnecessary
need for appropriate response to mental health problems, i.e., ensuring staff with a strong mental health background are available to support women in need
someone in crisis should not be treated and supported by correctional staff using correctional methodology
there is a danger in assigning a mentally ill label to women in crisis, or transferring them to mental health facilities during crisis time
possible CSC will have to eventually fill the lack of resources because FSW are not getting access to community mental health facilities -- CSC may have to resource service needs
need to greater use support groups more and target them for the people who really need them
psychological referral should be used if it is a required to address a criminogenic need - there is a need to reassess the reason for referral to ensure this
staff psychologist are required and should be used
make sure we are clear about what we need from the agency, i.e., social work involvement vs. treatment
we should be looking at what other services could be accessed in the community to meet criminogenic needs
need to design a dynamic correctional plan that is tailored to the individual needs with focus on the criminogenic needs

How can community mental health resources be best accessed for FSW?

maintain contracts with psychologists to provide service
make contract money available
facilitate pre-release contact with clinicians
develop a marketing strategy to facilitate this and educate clinicians, who may be reluctant to work with FSW
to facilitate transition from institution to community procedures have to be in place so that contacts could be made with clinicians
need to develop mental health resources on a case-by-case basis
need money to develop resources

How can we ensure the link between mental illness and risk is well understood and taken into account by supervising officers?

supervising officers need to be able to recognize the illness that they are dealing with, and maintain a supervision strategy in keeping with what is required to manage the case
parole officers are already aware that the focus for these cases is mental health

HALFWAY HOUSES

Is there a role for halfway houses for FSW?

yes, there is a role for halfway houses.
there is the belief that transition to the community is difficult and halfway houses is important for that respect
vital to get women out and connected with supportive community resources
are necessary
they are a pivotal point between institution and community
without a semi-independent model, the halfway house is a bonus -- gives a structure, a place for things to revolve around at a release
are necessary because they serve as a buffer zone where the offender can learn to use other resources
there will also be increased requirements due to bill C-45
sending women to facilities with men is not effective, only in a few cases -- disastrous for men and women -- affects rehabilitation and programming, etc. - companion factor comes into play
problem of women not being able to settle in halfway houses because there are no resources due to the small numbers of FSW on release - problem to justify CRF due to small numbers
problem of lifers - most rated low need/low risk -- long time on day parole -- need to explore more options for gradual release -- problem of long release period
Aboriginal women need more halfway house accommodation because the reality is they are not returning to the reserves, but to urban situations
transitional issue for women who are in halfway houses but have children in a separate apartment
CSC need to recognize diversity of groupings within Aboriginal communities because this is a major factor in establishing halfway houses
Non-Aboriginal women seem to be more and more alienated - no anchors to the community. Need to recognize this when dealing with the women
because resources are plentiful for FSW in Ontario , women tend to apply to be released to the larger communities here, but that is not where FSW want to stay
withdrawal of provincial halfway houses has required a re-thinking of how we provide community programs ( Ontario ) due to recent withdrawal of halfway houses for women
CRF Standards are in place to address implications related to using halfway houses for higher risk FSW.
We affirm that these elements such as selection, training, staffing and operational management are an important component of a CRF service

Available Halfway House resources

B.C. - one halfway house
Newfoundland - no halfway houses exclusively for women
model - St. Leonard 's in Halifax , women's facility attached to men's, but has a separate entrance -- more resources in terms of staff
there are no halfway houses for women. A few beds are available in male facilities ( Atlantic )
YMCA ( Atlantic ) may accept FSW as they are already special provincial cases
"Hope Mission" (Prairies) is a women's CRF, which also accommodates children
looking for alternative beds in existing facilities to respond to the need (Prairies)
John Howard Society supervises women (Prairies)
leaning towards utilizing centralized halfway houses which are affordable and seeking alternative community based residences to meet the limited requirements in smaller areas ( Ontario )
currently more emphasis on programs than on bricks and mortar ( Ontario )
virtually no access to any community group home situations

Suggestions regarding Halfway Houses

it may be useful to establish halfway houses with a similar semi-independent living emphasis or perhaps ones that are less restrictive than the traditional houses
we need to explore options to halfway houses where we cannot provide the resources to establish the traditional means, i.e., private family homes
halfway houses need to be more creative and flexible in our definition and design of transitional living
need to create the best plan for the individual woman
need a variety of options for women
second stage housing -- going beyond transition homes -- model that could be used to assist reintegration of women into the community
need to be resource centre as well as a place where a woman can live as well -- ideal for larger centres, i.e., Toronto
for smaller communities need contract for lodging that is not only for offenders
sending Aboriginal women to their home communities, when they see this desirable and identifying Elders to work with them, or by designing small living units that allow for supervision and support
those with high needs/risks - solutions include - double staffing, creation of innovative program plans
perhaps would be better for women to be working with halfway houses staff during the day and go "home" to sleep at night, well also recognizing this may not be an option for women without other accommodation
women living on their own in apartments with a unit providing counselling and programming
combining semi-independent living with Electronic Monitoring
group homes similar to the ones for mentally handicapped people could be an option. There is one in London, Ontario which is very successful, but the group environment does not work for everyone.
use of private homes - may be ideal for high risk/high need. In B.C. Helen Joe is reported to be working with the Salto nation and other groups to investigate the possibility of private home placements on reserves
give assistance to the regions to seek out and investigate private home placements - programming would have to be available in the community -parole criteria would have to be met
B.C. has looked at a community initiative -- apartments which CSC would pay for with Electronic Monitoring or daily contact -- not followed through -- considered for remote communities. This concept was used for a male offender -- went to the halfway house for dinner and contact was made at midnight
B.C. also considering to a single facility for young female offenders and adult offender groups -- separated, but common staff - gives sufficient numbers to warrant the staff
women in urban centres contact with regional Elders may be most effective in identifying possible strategies
Aboriginal FSW need halfway house accommodation (halfway house is used generically here) with structured programming because a lot of their time is spent in segregation
there is not one option, a lot of imagination must be applied in looking at workable options with adequate supervision
look at second-stage housing - may be a significant way to support FSW success
look to external agencies for help
have small one to two women units
not always necessary to have a full blown program of residency - the halfway house could serve as a day center where the offender could access programs and support - could also be used for earlier release such as work releases programs and personal development TAs.
range of options, range of resources should follow the women
- i.e., second stage housing - transitions, satellite apartment
- i.e., directed residency cases could cause a request for additional monies by specific cases
not to be looking at coed as an option
need for resources to search out the alternatives -- collaboration with our partners to do this
need increased communication and strong liaison with decision makers, i.e., National Parole Board
higher quality services will in some cases be more expensive, however, we need to look at the benefits in the long run
is costly to program in community, but more costly to keep FSW in for another year
could have expanded use of volunteer parole officers, i.e., northern Aboriginal communities

Halfway-back options

we need to look at actual offences, not technical violations when assessing success
more emphasis on halfway-back programs to avoid a return to prison
useful to provide a halfway-back option rather than prison -- institutions should be the last resort
the high revocation rate is an indicator of lack of halfway back resources
Sumas Centre (B.C.) could be used for that, but leads to question of mixing women and men
do not have resources for women as we do for men, not doing everything to keep the women outside
halfway-back option can be used
halfway-back option to be encouraged
"Hope Mission" (Prairies) -- CRF -- can be used as a halfway-back option, also accommodates for children
Nova Scotia has plans for making a community facility that would take parolees who are suspended, where case management would include short term supervision and reassessment and be geared to getting the parolee back out again quickly

Electronic Monitoring issues

problem with Electronic Monitoring -- only allows for knowledge of where parolee is
Electronic Monitoring may be useful in individual cases, be cautious about widening the use

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT

Pre-requisites to enhance FSW employability

provide an opportunity to upgrade education to a basic level
provide training and the opportunity to acquire skills
foster positive attitude towards work
address problems that may be barriers to employment i.e. substance abuse and ensure support mechanism are in place i.e. in terms of relapse
programs designed to build basic work skills are in place - do program evaluations to see if the programs are effective
a good understanding of labour market and job trends is useful, so that counseling towards realistic employment objectives can be done
job skills in response to what women are asking for
focus should be on placement, not just training and skill development and full time work
the development/use of resources is an effort combining institutional, community and support groups
relevant programming made available - sometimes this begins in the institution
programming needs to fit self identified needs of individual women - be useful in the job market and make use of non-traditional options
appropriate leisure activities should be sought for those where employment is not an option
employers need to be educated and encouraged to provide initial job opportunities
be realistic and take into account the high unemployment figures -- so parolees are not seen to have failed because they have been unable to find employment
emphasis on basic living/work skills i.e., getting to work on time, work ethic, assume responsibilities, intolerance of deviation from conditions of work -- need for institutions to develop and reinforce these behaviours
skills for finding a job
presentation skills - i.e., clothes, interview questions
dependency problems at all levels -- need program to change cycle of dependency and give confidence to be able to take care of themselves
self esteem and independence

Employment resources

The national Community Corrections Council has decided to do a complete review of the current situation regarding employment in the community
E. Fry in Edmonton has program for job seekers -- presentation skills, management of workplace situation
program also in Halifax on community integration -- five-day program in the halfway house

Caregiving responsibilities as employment

employment has always been considered a criminogenic factor. In many cases caregiving could be considered a suitable alternative. It indicates stability, improved self-esteem, etc.
work release should include caregiving situations
if a woman needs to look after her children, this should be supported by the community corrections system unless its clearly a criminogenic need
need to include care-giving role in release plan
could be suitable alternative
should be considered employment if it is congruent with the correctional plan
Mother-child program should be seen as a program in CRFs and paid for accordingly
Legal and policy issues need to be examined.
is this an appropriate place to ask these questions i.e., these are individual choices and should not be mandated by release conditions
needs to come under the correctional plan -- up to a point is possible she will use to not take responsibility; need to exercise caution.
make sure this does not become an excuse for avoiding others, finding a job
need realistic understanding fostered in FSW about demands of parenting

Support to assist FSW to enter job market

the community should be accessed to the greatest extent
support use of volunteers, contact services, community employers, establish community projects where required and if not there then should develop projects to encourage this - parole officers providing practical and moral support

Use of volunteers in the institution

there must be a clear definition of the expectations of volunteers, not be an off load of necessary work, description of their duties should be very clear
volunteers can assist in virtually every area that we work in
Burnaby - use volunteers, such as ex-offenders under condition that they are 3-5 years drugs/alcohol free, useful for lifers and people longtime on parole
could give more support for high risk offenders
expand use of volunteers
concrete practical support i.e. financial assistance, needs to be maintained in order to allow valuable volunteer work to happen
E. Fry in Halifax is looking at developing a program of identifying specific volunteers to maintain contact with released offenders on a one-to-one basis - mentoring - also looking at cost recovery for volunteers i.e., in transportation costs to get to institution
volunteers in institution should be involved more in programming and recreation to help build links
yes, but very time consuming to maintain volunteer programs. Resources are therefore required to provide volunteer coordinators
yes - need for increased utilization of volunteers in the community -- encourages community buy in, facilitates easier re-integration of parolee
perhaps may be more available to women as they are perceived as less dangerous
should not be a focus of case management efforts
not everyone needs to be in the volunteer program -- maybe only valuable for some FSW
need to compare offence history to the volunteer activity; may not work with high need/high risk

FSW as volunteers -- advantages

good way into job reality, but be careful not to apply the same treatment to every FSW
volunteer work is a valuable experience for FSW
facilitates the reintegration of the individual, helps develop social contacts, friends and support
helps to provide positive life experiences
volunteer work that is appropriate, meaningful and non-exploitive can offer a training opportunity and a chance to make contacts and prove oneself
buy-in for the community and promotes higher community involvement

FSW as volunteers -- disadvantages

not earning income
possibility of developing dependencies that are difficult to overcome
need to monitor
difficulty of placing as volunteers, therefore needs to be done an individual basis
difficult to motivate women into volunteering because they are focused on their own concerns
hard to find something interesting and meaningful for FSW -- perhaps look at leisure groups of interest to build position

Programming issues for FSW

need individualized programming as opposed to group programs (because group programs are not yielding desired results)
advise caution in terms of over programming, especially for low risk FSW
look to external groups for core program services -- can access services in community to meet criminogenic needs
programs are not long enough for high risk, repeating a short program is not particularly beneficial

Meeting Needs/Supporting Success

SUBSTANCE ABUSE

Issues regarding additional condition for FSW with substance abuse

conditions limit flexibility in managing case
if not a problem, no criminogenic need should not be imposed
must have condition for urinalysis
additional conditions should only be used to address criminogenic factors
only used in extreme cases
used in exceptional cases
need to clarify NPB policy on this -- seems some members apply independently
discretion should remain with the Parole Supervision to suspend or impose alternate strategies
already covered by policy -- NPB and CSC need reminder, so need to check on overuse
special conditions only if it is related to the crime
abstinence condition should not be imposed
both case preparation person and Parole Board need to be checked up on this over use
policy already allows discretion in terms of suspension - no such thing as automatic suspension

Is a halfway back option feasible?

there is a need to clarify the policy of the NPB on this issue. Engage in discussions with board members: to impose conditions independently

Ensuring ongoing relapse prevention in the community

Aboriginal treatment readiness program links to relapse prevention . How useful are time-limited programs unless they have follow-up?
Healing and identification issues must be dealt with before a woman is receptive to programming.
may need concentration on holistic healing rather than addictions alone
alcoholism is a symptom of serious problems in their lives -- must have an ongoing treatment for underlying problems i.e., emotional/abuse issues

Training issues

parole supervisors should know and understand what the triggers are for women. Also cultural triggers should be understood
supervisors must be informed about stage in program for effective follow-up
need to individualize and customize the programs
- relapse prevention programs should be customized
- Aboriginal programs should have input from Aboriginals and be delivered by Aboriginals if possible

Community input and support

we should build on the new program by having a women's centre program in the community
we should develop links with available community programs i.e. AA, NA, Women in Recovery
programs should be contracted with the community, not delivered by institutional staff
women need to be connected with home community resources that will be made aware of the program model and be prepared to continue or provide relapse prevention within the same model
have program links with programs in community
look at multi-lateral model - CSC supervision, whole community supervision, volunteer supervision
try pledges to Elders
extending substance abuse programs - mixed opinion about this - use detox centres already in place

Aboriginal teachings as model to relapse prevention

specific programs not consistent with holistic approach - Healing Lodge best model -- issues around healing not unique to Aboriginals
Aboriginal teachings lead to lifestyle free of substance abuse - use of these teachings provides direction
Aboriginal offenders who remain apart from Aboriginal teachings often complete substance abuse programs several times to aid cause in release, but they result in minimal effect
continuation of following traditional native spirituality is in essence a relapse prevention strategy

Issues regarding available Substance Abuse Programs

some holistically based programs will not accept offenders
not always available to women
programs are disappearing due to cutbacks
programs need to be longer and/or need a recovery setting for continuum
women may not be interested in committing themselves to long programs, i.e., going from one closed setting (prison) to another (alcohol program). Grant House in Toronto is an example of this.
consider the use of Unescorted Temporary Absence
return to prison should be last resort, but recognize that substance abuse in linked to recidivism
special conditions do not necessarily help to manage this issue -- NPB needs to be aware of this
already too many conditions
there is a real problem with confusion of roles for staff and trust issues for women

Suspension Issues and Suggestions

look at what happens when mother released -- child is in prison location
careful impact of suspensions -- stability for child is important -- try to avoid returning mother to prison
in first six months -- have resources for emergency child care support services

COMMUNITY ADVOCACY NETWORK

Should CSC pilot this model?

try it in a situation which lends itself to this
extremely case specific
must be flexible
should pilot some version of it because we need to consider alternative models
need for the experiments to take place
have to heal the people and work with women in the facility, then come to a decision as to whether to have a forgiving feast
need fine tuning before even a pilot -- general feeling the concept is good. Want a process of preparing program for pilot that includes at least Church Council, CSC, Aboriginal community, FSW and Elizabeth Fry.
need good cross section of case types in pilot i.e., do not use easy cases, which would probably already be successful
yes, do a pilot, but as initial start with a case which seems open to the approach

Issues regarding this model

need motivation on part of community/victim/offender
are there going to victims who are not prepared for programs?
are victims critical to the process?
going to take a while to be able to work with the community -- depends on the crime itself . In Aboriginal communities it takes a year to recover from the loss of a loved one -- cannot get it right away
must look carefully after the first round to see if all the players are feeling good about process
who is driving the case?
who has ownership?
who makes decisions?
who should participate?
program should not have an effect on parole decisions, CSC decision. Needs to be done independently, though may get institutionalized
CSC's role needs to be clarified
offenders do not trust system or other individuals, therefore, must heighten human connections and compassion
need some resourcing for facilitating, training, organizing, seeking interested parties and significant others
everyone in involved may need some support

Advantages to this model

victim is empowered
family role to play -- normally they do not have much decision
offender felt she had last power of victim in control
what happens after Warrant Expiry Date? - all conditions are at an end -- must try to resolve problems without support -- if this model were initiated earlier there would be continuing support
useful in small communities
can greatly assist the acceptance/re-integration of an offender when returned to the community
a lot of effort to set it up but if it is effective, significant benefit in CSC savings and risk reduction
brings victim into reconciliation process
increases chance of getting back in the community, but at arms length from CSC
CSC supervision greatly reduced -- community supervised
model could deal with regional variations

Disadvantages to this model

time consuming -- it will take a long time
model somewhat idealistic
could take victims years before they would be ready to face offender -- have to be very careful in this area
very delicate process

How would the process be initiated?

hope that community members would come forward
probably not CSC, but CSC would have to promote it from within, perhaps through chaplains
belief that cases will emerge relatively spontaneously from members of the community - i.e., want the problems resolved
ultimately offered as an option for any offender who is interested
should be initiated by community in cooperation with CSC
should be community driven

Would FSW participate on a voluntary basis?

yes, should be voluntary
would they participate on volunteer basis - would depend on who asks

Where should the responsibility be located as to coordinating the establishment of a circle?

Elizabeth Fry possibly in some cases - could be seen as biased
spiritual advisors/Elders/clergy
there are existing in each region interfaith groups who might facilitate these initiatives (although are not prepared to do so at this time)
appropriate composition of circle is dependent on individual case

MAINTAINING HOME COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS

How can connections be fostered with communities of FSW (those communities not near institution)?

Liaison person

person could be delegated to be familiar with an area
community advisor - one job is secure volunteer support for initiatives . Form citizen advisor groups, schools etc. Basis for providing volunteers to support
contact between woman and community where release will take place through an intermediary -- facilitate visits
liaison workers have an important role in establishing and maintaining connections with home communities. Good example is the Native Liaison Workers who see this as one their plenary functions
if have a liaison person, be careful about who it is, who selects this liaison person and to whom they are reporting etc.
the liaison person may be contracted from community -- good way for CSC to use community

CSC's role

needs to be more proactive in public education about conditional release, need for supervision, more educated appreciation of value of conditional release
build links with provincial social services systems
lifers - ensure communications with case management and communities

Use of volunteers

possibly volunteer in community or group interested in supporting re-entry could be identified
Burnaby -- Community worker concept -- volunteer facilitates contact family, community. Come in very early in sentence.

Elizabeth Fry involvement

have individual connected (not employee of institution), but facilitating woman's connection with community and re-integration needs
have E. Fry seek out other agencies and make links with other services
we should consult with offenders to get their input as to what they think is required in order to facilitate contact with their home communities
the programs and services of the various agencies should be made known, access to these agencies encouraged and made easy
community cultural liaisons should be established i.e. Asian
brochures and videos outlining programs can be used
key function of case worker is to be creative in encouraging these connections with the home community
connecting women with home community, making sure resources are in the community (already or developed), preparing the community for inmates return, having liaison person facilitate this process, by making links with Aboriginal agencies, Elizabeth Fry and other service providers
vital that cultural context is understood and respected
use all the methods currently available - TA, PFV - start at the beginning of the sentence

Role of the Parole Officer in maintaining/fostering connections

play role sooner - participate in development of correctional plan -- begin process earlier
parole officer should be aware sooner of release plans, progress of offender
perhaps a resource person can be found at the post-sentencing community assessment time -- parole officer can make sure the initial link gets made
case preparation information needs to include resources that have been identified, so the parole officer has the necessary information to do community risk management report
in Truro, there was an intention that the person who does pen placement also does follow-up
need to have reasonable caseloads so that a good job can be done
need essential information about what this function involves
consider whenever there is need for special services
parole office maintain contact throughout sentence

EXTERNAL AGENCIES

Supportive/supervisory role of external agencies

appear to prefer supportive role instead
the trend reflects agency mandates and CSC policy
if the workload of parole officers was reasonable, perhaps contracting out is not necessary, however if it is seen as preferable for women to be supervised by outside agency, this should be examined.

Is supervision the most effective way of utilizing external agencies or should CSC supervise and external agencies provide support?

there is a dichotomy between support and requirements for supervision
in every case it must be clear exactly who is responsible for supervisory requirements
need flexibility for different conditions
it is case/agency specific as to whether they should play a supportive or supervisory role
outside agencies need to be considered especially when there is particular expertise (gender issues, culture).
each society is autonomous regarding whether they do supervisory role or not

What about in remote areas?

in either case of the agency being supportive or supervisory in their role, there is the potential for agencies to be more effective in rural areas
need to be creative
use volunteer parole officers, community agencies etc., dynamic methods (i.e., whole community supervision)

Other supervisory issues

no consensus on whether two roles can be combined
whoever did liaison work, there needed to be a trust relationship with FSW

What about accessing the support of Aboriginal communities and individuals for FSAW on release?

CSC should be encouraged to uphold section 81 of the CCRA, to access the support of aboriginal communities
absolutely! Aboriginal agencies and community members all supportive - essential they be involved in a primary way, supervising parolee and supporting community reintegration
increase use of section 81 using healing centers. Aboriginal communities should be taking over much of the functions of corrections

REINTEGRATING FAMILIES

Implications of implementing the Mother/Child Program in release planning.

Community perspective

from community perspective children have always been a consideration
Children's Aid Society involvement and liaison is very important
we should have a continuum of service in the community. Similar progress in halfway houses for Day Parole cases. Perhaps day care in full releases where the women are participating in programs or working

CSC/institution perspective

needs to be recognized as a major factor -- much more so than men
awareness of community resources available through provincial social services to support parenting, etc.
institutional program will set the stage for much of what happens with women and their children on release, therefore, important to provide good parenting programs as well as ensure children do not become pawns in disciplinary issues and that women are treated as adults and that their credibility as mothers not be compromised.

FSW perspective

realistic understanding of demands of parenting

Release plans

plans must include allowance to maintain child's stability in community if women is suspended -- every effort must be made to keep her in community rather than back to the institution
the first six months after release have to have additional supports, i.e., emergency child care, resource people must be available around the clock (volunteer network) in case of suspension or other emergency
release plans must support the mother's role, including the recognition of the need to support her
must look at what happens when mom is released if child is living in the area
must look at community supports -- make sure chance for children to get to the prison area, provide accommodation and transportation to facilitate children visits . Thérèse Casgrain House does this, but is not resourced for it
question: if FSW is on Full parole or statutory release, should they get social service assistance?

CSC role in facilitating and supporting FSW reunification with children

CSC policy should clearly support and promote the mother/child program in the community
we should be looking to reduce the barriers to entry into this program
CSC has a role in coordinating the release and to participate in the monitoring of the program in a team fashion with the Children's Aid Society and other core agencies -- need a specific format developed to ensure Community Assessment consistency in this area
CSC should promote suitable programs designed to facilitate reunification
educate parole officers regarding the issue -- implicate family in the process

Should the community assessment be used to address this need area?

the Community Assessment is an appropriate vehicle to investigate and confirm the viability of the program

Appendix D

List Of Participants (47)

NATIONAL WORKSHOP TO DEVELOP A COMMUNITY STRATEGY

FOR FEDERALLY SENTENCED WOMEN

MARCH 5-7, 1996, TORONTO

CSC, National Headquarters:

Kelley Blanchette, Carleton University/Correctional Research

Moira Law, Carleton University

Gerry Minard, Community Corrections

Larry Motiuk, Correctional Research

Cara Spencer, Federally Sentenced Women Program

Pierre St-Onge, Community Corrections

Arden Thurber, Correctional Research and Development

Hilda Vanneste, Federally Sentenced Women Program

Pacific:

Debbie Hawboldt, Burnaby Correctional Centre for Women

Judith Lawrence, RHQ, Pacific

Ingrid Leonhard, Vancouver North Parole

Mary Louie, Native Elder

Quebec:

Danielle Brouard, Bureau sectoriel de Québec

Sylvie Brunet-Lusignan, Bureau de district du Montréal-métropolitain

Anne-Marie Chartrand, Établissement Joliette

Ruth Gagnon, La Société Elizabeth Fry

Jean-Marc Guimont, District Est-Ouest

Ontario:

Pat Castillo, Grand Valley Institution for Women

Christine Cloutier, Prison for Women/Grand Valley Institution for Women

Rosemary Cole, Prison for Women

Marie-Andrée Drouin, Grand Valley Institution for Women

Elizabeth Forestell, Elizabeth Fry Society, Ontario

Judy Heidbuurt, Elizabeth Fry Society, Waterloo

Derek Orr, Hamilton Area Parole

Renée Waltman, Central Ontario District

Prairies:

Gord Holloway, Manitoba-NW Ontario District

Don Kynoch, Edmonton District

Joan Lavallee, Planning Circle, Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge

Wendy Lickacz, Edmonton Institution for Women

Irene Morin, Program Advisory Committee, EIFW

Larry Oakes, Healing Lodge

Atlantic:

Charlene Buote, Director, Lavers House

Virginia Clark Druhan, Halifax District Parole

Rhonda Crawford, Elizabeth Fry Society, Halifax

Marie Fennell, Sydney Parole

Anne Marie MacDonald, Nova Institution for Women

Carrie Power, Corner Brook Parole

Giselle Smith, RHQ, Atlantic

National Aboriginal Advisory Committee:

Isabelle Impey, Prairies

Sharon McIvor, Pacific

Lisa Mosher, Ontario

Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies:

Kim Pate

Church Council on Justice and Corrections:

Lorraine Berzins

Native Women's Association of Canada:

Jane Gottfriedson

National Parole Board:

Simonne Ferguson, Ontario

Betsy Rymes, Ottawa

Fraser Simmons, Pacific

Appendix E

Workshop Agenda

NATIONAL WORKSHOP TO DEVELOP A COMMUNITY STRATEGY FOR FEDERALLY SENTENCED WOMEN (FSW)

MARCH 5-7, 1996

TORONTO HILTON HOTEL, GOVERNOR GENERAL ROOM (2nd floor)

145 Richmond St. W., Toronto, Ontario M5H 2L2

Phone: (416) 869-3456, 1-800-445-8667; Fax: (416) 869-3187

TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1996

*0815 hrs*	Registration, Governor General Room
*0900 hrs*	Introductory Remarks Arden Thurber, Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Research & Development, CSC, NHQ Gerry Minard, Corporate Advisor, Community Corrections, CSC, NHQ
	Review of workshop objectives and introduction of participants: Hilda Vanneste, Manager, Federally Sentenced Women Program, CSC, NHQ

*0930 hrs*	FSW Community Typologies: Larry Motiuk, Manager, Correctional Research, CSC, NHQ
*1030 hrs*	Break
*1045 hrs*	FSW Risk Predictors: Kelley Blanchette, Phd Candidate, Carleton University/Correctional Research, CSC, NHQ

*1200 hrs*	Buffet Lunch, Governor General Room
*1300 hrs*	Survey on FSW in the Community: Moira Law, Phd Candidate, Carleton University
*1400 hrs*	Discussion Groups
*1500 hrs*	Break (served in the Governor General Room)

*1515 hrs*	Discussion Groups continued
*1700 hrs*	Adjourn

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1996

*0900 hrs*	Plenary -- Group Summaries from Day 1, Governor General Room
*0945 hrs*	E. Fry community initiatives: Kim Pate, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
*1045 hrs*	Break
*1100 hrs*	Introduction to Healing the Relationship between Federally Sentenced Women and Communities: Lorraine Berzins, Church Council on Justice and Corrections
*1200 hrs*	Lunch

*1300 hrs*	Discussion Groups

*1430 hrs*	Break (served in Governor General Room)

*1445 hrs*	Discussion Groups continued

*1600 hrs*	Plenary -- Group Summaries, Governor General Room

*1700 hrs*	Adjourn

THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1996

*0800 hrs*	Plenary -- Summary of key themes arising from group discussions: Gerry Minard Governor General Room
*0830 hrs*	Regional Discussion Groups
*1030 hrs*	Break
*1045 hrs*	Plenary and concluding remarks: Gerry Minard Governor General Room
*1130 hrs*	Conclusion of workshop

Common menu bar links

Institutional links

Subjects

Working at CSC

Resources

Proactive Disclosure

Proceedings - National Workshop To Develop A Community Strategy For Federally Sentenced Women

Table Of Contents

Summary of Opening Remarks by Arden Thurber Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Research and Development Correctional Service of Canada

Summary of Opening Remarks by Gerry Minard Corporate Advisor, Community Corrections Correctional Service of Canada

Ontario

Quebec

Atlantic

Summary of Opening Remarks by
Arden Thurber
Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Research and Development
Correctional Service of Canada

Summary of Opening Remarks by
Gerry Minard
Corporate Advisor, Community Corrections
Correctional Service of Canada