Women Offender Programs and Issues

Nova Institution for Women

Appendix I: Inspection team

Anne Owers Michael Loughlin Fay Deadman Paul Fenning Louise Falshaw Gabrielle Lee Elizabeth Tysoe Julia Fossi HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Team Leader Inspector Inspector Inspector Inspector Inspector Researcher

Appendix II: Prison population profile

Incarcerated	%	Community	%	Total
412	46.9%	467	53.1%	879

Source: OMS, as of August 21, 2005

Incarcerated includes: Women offenders, in federal institutions, and those on temporary absence.

Population Profile	Incarcerated	% of the total women offender population
Nova	57	14.1%
Joliette	73	18.1%
GVI	98	24.3%
OOHL	23	5.7%
RPC (Prai)	10	2.5%
EIFW	97	24.0%
FVI	46	11.4%
National total	404	100%

Source: OMS, as of August 21, 2005

→	There are also 8 women offenders located in other correctional facilities who are not included in this profile: 6 at Isabel McNeil House, one woman at the Territorial Women Correctional Centre and one woman at the Surrey Pre-Trial Service Centre.
→	Legend:
	•	Nova:	Nova Institution for Women (Atlantic Region)
	•	Joliette:	Joliette Institution (Quebec Region)
	•	GVIW:	Grand Valley Institution for Women (Ontario Region)
	•	OOHL:	Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge (Prairie Region)
	•	RPC ( Prai.):	Regional Psychiatric Centre (Prairie Region) *
	•	EIFW:	Edmonton Institution for Women (Prairie Region)
	•	FVI:	Fraser Valley Institution for Women (Pacific Region)

* RPC is an 11 bed mental health unit located in a male mental health facility.

WOMEN OFFENDER PROFILE FOR NOVA AND GVIW

Population Profile	Incarcerated	% of the total women offender population
Nova	57	14.1%
GVI	98	24.3%

Source: OMS, as of August 21, 2005

ETHNIC ORIGIN

Ethnic Origin	Aboriginal	%	Black	%	Asiatic	%	Caucasian	%	Other	%	Total
Nova	10	17.5%	6	10.5%	0	0.0%	38	66.7%	3	5.3%	57
Joliette	2	2.7%	5	6.8%	0	0.0%	66	90.4%	0	0.0%	73
GVI	11	11.2%	22	22.4%	3	3.1%	62	63.3%	0	0.0%	98
OOHL	22	95.7%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	1	4.3%	0	0.0%	23
RPC (Prai)	7	70.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	1	10.0%	2	20.0%	10
EIFW	53	54.6%	0	0.0%	3	3.1%	36	37.1%	5	5.2%	97
FVI	16	34.8%	0	0.0%	2	4.3%	28	60.9%	0	0.0%	46
National total	121	30.0%	33	8.2%	8	2.0%	232	57.4%	10	2.5%	404

Source: OMS, as of August 21, 2005

ETHNIC ORIGIN (Nova and GVIW)

Ethnic Origin	Aboriginal	%	Black	%	Asiatic	%	Caucasian	%	Other	%	Total
Nova	10	17.5%	6	10.5%	0	0.0%	38	66.7%	3	5.3%	57
GVI	11	11.2%	22	22.4%	3	3.1%	62	63.3%	0	0.0%	98

Source: OMS, as of August 21, 2005

SECURITY LEVEL

Institutions	Maximum	%	Medium	%	Midium	%	Not available	%	Total	% Total
Nova	10	17.5%	17	29.8%	17	29.8%	13	22.8%	57	14.1%
Joliette	10	13.7%	33	45.2%	30	41.1%	0	0.0%	73	18.1%
GVI	8	8.2%	15	15.3%	63	64.3%	12	12.2%	98	24.3%
OOHL	0	0.0%	13	56.5%	6	26.1%	4	17.4%	23	5.7%
RPC (Prai)	1	10.0%	7	70%	0	0.0%	2	20.0%	10	2.5%
EIFW	10	10.3%	49	50.5%	27	27.8%	11	11.3%	97	24.0%
FVI	0	0.0%	27	58.7%	14	30.4%	5	10.9%	46	11.4%
National total	39	9.7%	161	39.9%	157	38.9%	47	11.6%	404	100.0%

Source: OMS, as of August 21, 2005

→

Not available: Correctional planning process, including the intake assessment to be completed within 70 or 90 days calendar days of an offender's admission into federal custody following sentencing (depending upon the length of sentence), therefore the security classification is determine within 90 days of their admissions.

SECURITY LEVEL (NOVA AND GVIW)

Institutions	Maximum	%	Medium	%	Midium	%	Not available	%	Total	% Total
Nova	10	17.5%	17	29.8%	17	29.8%	13	22.8%	57	14.1%
GVI	8	8.2%	15	15.3%	63	64.3%	12	12.2%	98	24.3%

Source: OMS, as of August 21, 2005

AGE PROFILE

Institutions	<=20	%	21-30	%	31-40	%	41-50	%	51+	%	Total
Nova	5	9%	27	47%	14	25%	9	16%	2	4%	57
Joliette	2	3%	13	18%	26	36%	22	30%	10	14%	73
GVI	0	0%	22	22%	39	40%	27	28%	10	10%	98
OOHL	1	4%	9	39%	12	52%	1	4%	0	0%	23
RPC (Prai)	1	10%	6	60%	1	10%	2	20%	0	0%	10
EIFW	5	5%	36	37%	36	37%	18	19%	2	2%	97
FVI	2	4%	16	35%	15	33%	11	24%	2	4%	46
National total	16	4%	129	32%	143	25%	90	22%	26	6%	404

Source: OMS, as of August 21, 2005

AGE PROFILE (NOVA AND GVIW)

Institutions	<=20	%	21-30	%	31-40	%	41-50	%	51+	%	Total
Nova	5	9%	27	47%	14	25%	9	16%	2	4%	57
GVI	0	0%	22	22%	39	40%	27	28%	10	10%	98

Source: OMS, as of August 21, 2005

OFFENCES PROFILE

	Violent Offences						Non-Violent Offences
Institutions	Murder 1	%	Murder 2	%	Sched I	%	Sched II	%	Non Scheduled	%	Total
Nova	0	0%	7	12%	28	49%	4	7%	18	32%	57
Joliette	9	12%	7	10%	37	51%	13	18%	7	10%	73
GVI	1	1%	12	12%	43	44%	33	34%	9	9%	98
OOHL	0	0%	0	0%	16	70%	4	17%	3	13%	23
RPC (Prai)	0	0%	4	40%	5	50%	0	0%	1	10%	10
EIFW	5	5%	9	9%	51	53%	17	18%	15	15%	97
FVI	1	2%	8	17%	29	63%	3	7%	5	11%	46
National total	16	4%	47	12%	209	52%	74	18%	58	14%	404

Source: OMS, as of August 21, 2005

OFFENCES PROFILE (NOVA AND GVIW)

	Violent Offences						Non-Violent Offences
Institutions	Murder 1	%	Murder 2	%	Sched I	%	Sched II	%	Non Scheduled	%	Total
Nova	0	0%	7	12%	28	49%	4	7%	18	32%	57
GVI	1	1%	12	12%	43	44%	33	34%	9	9%	98

Source: OMS, as of August 21, 2005

LENGTH OF SENTENCE

Institutions	Life	%	Uder 4	%	4 to 5	%	6 to 10	%	11 and more	%	Total
Nova	7	12%	40	70%	7	12%	2	4%	1	2%	57
Joliette	17	23%	34	47%	13	18%	9	12%	0	0%	73
GVI	13	13%	50	51%	18	18%	15	15%	2	2%	98
OOHL	0	0%	14	61%	5	22%	4	17%	0	0%	23
RPC (Prai)	4	40%	3	30%	2	20%	0	0%	1	10%	10
EIFW	14	14%	57	59%	12	12%	11	11%	3	3%	97
FVI	9	20%	21	46%	7	15%	6	13%	3	7%	46
National total	64	16%	219	54%	64	16%	47	12%	10	2%	404

Source: OMS, as of August 21, 2005

LENGTH OF SENTENCE (NOVA AND GVIW)

Institutions	Life	%	Uder 4	%	4 to 5	%	6 to 10	%	11 and more	%	Total
Nova	7	12%	40	70%	7	12%	2	4%	1	2%	57
GVI	13	13%	50	51%	18	18%	15	15%	2	2%	98

Source: OMS, as of August 21, 2005

→	Nova Institution for Women has 82% of its population serving a sentence for less than 6 years.
→	Grand Valley Institution for Women has 69%.

WOMEN OFFENDER ADMISSIONS

Institutions	Fiscal year	Warrants of Committal	%	Revocations	%	Other Admissions	%	Total
Nova	02/03	21	52.5%	19	47.5%	0	0%	40
	03/04	30	57.7%	21	40.4%	1	2%	52
	04/05	15	50.0%	15	50.0%	0	0%	30
	05/06 to date	19	70.4%	8	29.6%	0	0%	27
Nova Total		85	57.0%	63	42.3%	1	1%	149
Joliette	02/03	27	60.0%	13	28.9%	5	11%	45
	03/04	36	75.0%	9	18.8%	3	6%	48
	04/05	36	59.0%	20	32.8%	5	8%	61
	05/06 to date	14	50.0%	13	46.4%	1	4%	28
Joliette Total		113	62.1%	55	30.2%	14	8%	182
GVI	02/03	70	69.3%	29	28.7%	2	2%	101
	03/04	74	77.1%	16	16.7%	6	6%	96
	04/05	75	64.7%	34	29.3%	7	6%	116
	05/06 to date	24	54.5%	17	38.6%	3	7%	44
GVI Total		243	68.1%	96	26.9%	18	5%	357
OOHL	02/03	0	0.0%	7	100.0%	0	0%	7
	03/04	0	0.0%	5	83.3%	1	17%	6
	04/05	0	0.0%	6	100.0%	0	0%	6
	05/06 to date	0	0.0%	3	75.0%	1	25%	4
OOHL Total		0	0.0%	21	91.3%	2	9%	23
RPC (Prai.)	02/03	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	1	100%	1
	03/04	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	1	100%	1
	04/05	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	1	100%	1
	05/06 to date	0	0.0%	1	100.0%	0	0%	1
RPC (Prai.) Total		0	0.0%	1	25.0%	3	75%	4
EIFW	02/03	53	55.8%	42	44.2%	0	0%	95
	03/04	70	53.8%	59	45.4%	1	1%	130
	04/05	81	58.3%	58	41.7%	0	0%	139
	05/06 to date	32	69.6%	14	30.4%	0	0%	46
EIFW Total		236	57.6%	173	42.2%	1	0%	410
FVI	02/03	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
	03/04	n/a	n/a	1	100%	n/a	n/a	n/a
	04/05	23	69.7%	9	27.3%	1	3%	33
	05/06 to date	9	75.0%	3	25.0%	0	n/a	12
FVI Total		32	69.6%	13	28.3%	1	2%	46
National Total		709	60.5%	422	36.0%	40	3%	1171

Source: OMS, as of August 21, 2005 (Data from April 1, 2002 to August 21, 2005)

WOMEN OFFENDER ADMISSIONS NOVA AND GVIW

Institutions	Fiscal year	Warrants of Committal	%	Revocations	%	Other Admissions	%	Total
Nova	02/03	21	52.5%	19	47.5%	0	0%	40
	03/04	30	57.7%	21	40.4%	1	2%	52
	04/05	15	50.0%	15	50.0%	0	0%	30
	05/06 to date	19	70.4%	8	29.6%	0	0%	27
Nova Total		85	57.0%	63	42.3%	1	1%	149
GVI	02/03	70	69.3%	29	28.7%	2	2%	101
	03/04	74	77.1%	16	16.7%	6	6%	96
	04/05	75	64.7%	34	29.3%	7	6%	116
	05/06 to date	24	54.5%	17	38.6%	3	7%	44
GVI Total		243	68.1%	96	26.9%	18	5%	357

Source: OMS, as of August 21, 2005 (Data from April 1, 2002 to August 21, 2005)

Appendix III: Summary of inmate interviews and questionnaires

	Inmate survey methodology
	A voluntary, confidential and anonymous survey of the total inmate population was carried out for this inspection. The results of this survey formed part of the evidence-base for the inspection.

	Choosing the sample size
	At the time of the survey on the 15th August 2005, the inmate population at Nova was 57. The baseline sample size was 57. Overall, this represented 100% of the inmate population. Completion of the questionnaire was voluntary. No respondents refused to complete a questionnaire. Interviews were carried out with any respondents with literacy difficulties. In total, no respondents were interviewed.

	Methodology
	Every attempt was made to distribute the questionnaires to each respondent on an individual basis. This gave researchers an opportunity to explain the independence of the Inspectorate and the purpose of the questionnaire, as well as to answer questions. All completed questionnaires were confidential - only members of the Inspectorate saw them. In order to ensure confidentiality, respondents were asked to do one of the following: •  to have their questionnaire ready to hand back to a member of the research team at a specified time; •  to seal the questionnaire in the envelope provided and hand it to a member of staff, if they were agreeable; or •  to seal the questionnaire in the envelope provided and leave it in their room for collection. Respondents were not asked to put their names on their questionnaire.

	Response rates
	In total, 53 respondents completed and returned their questionnaires. This represented 93% of the prison population. The response rate was therefore also 93%. In total, one questionnaire was returned blank and three questionnaires were not returned.

	Comparisons
	The following document details the results from the survey. All missing responses are excluded from the analysis. All data from each establishment has been weighted, in order to mimic a consistent percentage sampled in each establishment. The results from this survey are compared to the results of the GVIW survey as well as the benchmark figures for all prisoners surveyed in women's prisons in the UK. This benchmark is based on all responses from prisoner surveys carried out in 12 women's prisons since April 2003. In all the above documents, statistically significant differences are highlighted. Statistical significance merely indicates whether there is a real difference between the figures, i.e. the difference is not due to chance alone. Results that are significantly better are indicated by green shading, results that are significantly worse are indicated by a black background and where there is no significant difference, there is no shading.