Women Offender Programs and Issues

Cross Gender Monitoring Project

b) Quantitative Information

Number of interviews

A total of 258 interviews were conducted during both sets of site visits for this report. Of these 258, 127 were with inmates, 117 were with staff and 14 with "others", such as members of Citizen Advisory Committees, members of Program Committees, such as at Edmonton Institution For Women and BC Correctional Centre for Women, and community agencies such as Elizabeth Fry Societies. We interviewed approximately 40% of FSW in the institutions we visited. The "others" were included with staff as the same Interview Schedule was used for both staff and others and responses were not significantly different. There were 14 "other" interviewed. Wording for the FSW Interview Schedules was modified from the main Interview Schedule.

Of the 131 staff and others interviewed, 42 or 32% were with males. Within this category there was a broad breakdown including Community Advisory Committee members, chaplains, teachers and Primary Workers. Staff members interviewed generally represented a broad cross section of individuals working in FSW facilities.

Note about the Burnaby Correctional Centre for Women

A total of 29 interviews were conducted at the Centre. As this provincial institution operates according to its own policy, rather than CSC's National Protocol, we have therefore removed these respondents from the sample. Their responses about gender preference, i.e. male or female front-line staff, are, however, captured in our findings relating to that topic.

Knowledge of Cross Gender Policy

A question relating to knowledge of the cross gender policy was posed in all 258 interviews: "Are you aware of the cross gender policy?" This was followed up with a question about the strengths and weaknesses of the policy, specifically to ascertain whether the respondent was indeed aware of the policy. The results for FSW and staff responses are found in Table 1. Answers were considered to be "no response" if the question failed to elicit pertinent responses.

Table 1
Knowledge of Cross Gender Staffing Policy

Response	FSW	Staff/Others	Total
Yes	35	75	110
No	46	35	81
No Response	46	21	67
Total	127	131	258

Commentary

Respondents in institutions where there are male front-line workers tended to be slightly more knowledgeable about the policy, although a significant number of FSW in these institutions were not aware of the different elements of the policy. Respondents at the Okimaw Ochi Healing Lodge and Edmonton Institution for Women, where there are no male Primary Workers, tended to be less aware or based their answers on their experience in other institutions.

There were few respondents who had complete knowledge of the National Operating Protocol for Front Line Staffing. Most respondents knew about the requirement to announce before entering, that no strip searching is allowed by male Primary Workers, and that male Primary Workers must be paired with a female when patrolling living units at night. However, it was found that some respondents believe the protocol is silent on whether male and female PW's can split up once they enter a Unit and patrol different part of the Unit simultaneously. This appears to be a common practice in some institutions as is the practice of a Primary Worker, often a male, patrolling alone during the day. In one institution we heard that there have been a few instances where two male PW's patrolled together at night. In addition there is little understanding among staff of the need or rationale for the protocol. This finding raises the issue of the need to include the rationale for the protocol during all trainings for PW's, other staff and others, such as volunteers, working in institutions for FSW.

Perceptions of Different Elements of Cross Gender Activities

As mentioned, research instruments for the second visit of Phase 2 focused on eliciting responses to the different activities of PW's in a cross gender setting. The sample for this set of questions is the smaller sample of 102 respondents: 46 FSW and 56 staff members/others. There are a higher number of staff members than FSW as more staff volunteered to be interviewed.

Strip Searching

The question asked was: "Do you think male PW's should ever be allowed to do strip searches?" The response to this question was a unanimous "no" by all 102 respondents with an emphasis by some that not even emergency situations would justify such an action. The official policy of CSC is that male PW's cannot strip search FSW, even in an emergency. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act also prohibits males conducting strip searches.

Commentary

Little commentary is needed here as all respondents clearly indicated that the strip searching of females by male PW's is not acceptable. However, further information gathering in Phase 3 will verify the extent to which potential emergency situations, in each respective institution, might result in male PW's, Correctional Officers, and/or police officers being called perhaps resulting in males witnessing or conducting strip searches. Options for such situations will also be identified.

Urinalysis

To the question: "Do you think that male PW's should be involved in obtaining samples for urinalysis?" responses were a near unanimous "no" with 101 answering "no" and only one staff member who answered "yes". The Regulations of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, in Section 66 (1) (a), require that the collector be of the same gender.

Commentary

The taking of urine samples is an area of cross gender monitoring, as typically inmates are watched to ensure that they do not tamper with the sample while, or after, it is collected. This does not appear to be an area of concern to date but will be monitored in Phase 3 as well.

Pairing with a Female PW

One of major elements of the National Protocol is that "Men staff must be paired with women staff for all patrols/entries into the houses or any room in a house of living unit after curfew until at least 6 A.M. each day." Therefore, we sought perspectives on this policy. Responses to the question "Should male PW's be paired with a female PW when coming into units at night?" resulted in 73 "yes" answers and 28 "no" answers. Eight (8) FSW chose to respond with the answer " yes but there should be no men entering at night" One (1) answered "don't know". Broken down by staff and FSW, the results are illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2
Pairing of A Male Primary Worker With A Female Primary Worker

Response	FSW	Staff/Others	Total
Yes	37	36	73
No	8	19	27
Don't Know	1	1	2
Total	46	56	102

Commentary

There is a consensus that male PW's should be paired with a female PW at night. The response from some of the FSW that men should not be entering at any time for count will be addressed in the Analysis Section of the report. In one institution we heard that there have been a few instances where two male PW's patrolled together at night. There was a higher proportion of FSW than staff members who responded in the affirmative to this question. We understand that this requirement often results in female PW's having to work more night shifts than male PW's, and that there are at times staffing and shift concerns. Many staff members consider pairing at night to be a desired security measure. This too will be addressed further in this report.

Announcing the Presence of A Male PW in Housing Unit

The question posed was "Do male PW's always announce before entering Units?" The National Protocol states that: "All front-line staff, men and women, will announce their entry into a living unit/house except during the institution's quiet hours." We were particularly interested in this question as it relates to male PW's, thus framed the question in that manner. In the case of Okimaw Ochi Healing Lodge and Edmonton Institution For Women, where there are no male PW's the question was framed as "Should male PW's announce before entering Units?" Seventy-three (73) respondents answered "yes", twenty-four (24) answered "no", four (4) said "not always" and one (1) said "don't know". The breakdown by staff and FSW is demonstrated in Table 3.

Table 3
Do/Should Male Primary Workers Announce Their Presence Before Entering Units?

Response	FSW	Staff/Others	Total
Yes	37	36	73
No	8	16	24
Don't Know/Not Always*	1	4	5
Total	46	56	102

* 'Not Always' was a category submitted specifically by staff.

Commentary

In assessing the answers by location, 6 of the 8 "no" responses from FSW emanated from Edmonton Institution for Women where there are no male PW's. The "no" or "not always" responses from staff were predominantly from institutions where there is a formal or informal no announcing policy due to perceptions of security concerns. A clear majority (73%) of both types of respondents who answered in the affirmative indicates sensitivity to the issue that without announcing, FSW may be caught changing or coming out of the shower without knowing that a male is in the vicinity. However, these findings are slightly contradictory to open-ended comments indicating that there are instances where announcing does not occur although the overall practice is to announce. In interviewing staff members about this issue, it does appear to be a matter of individual practice rather than policy. The fact that a significant minority of FSW are uncomfortable with male PW's entering Units at night will be discussed further in this report.

Institutional Emergency Response Teams (IERT)

Respondents were asked: "Do you think male PW's (or male police officers) should be members of this institution's Emergency Response Team?" Unfortunately, this question was added after Interview Schedules had been pre-tested in one institution and halfway through interviews in a second institution thus the sample size is 73. Of these 73 responses, 63 answered "no" and 10 answered "yes". Of the 10 respondents who answered "yes", 7 were staff members.

Commentary

It is not surprising that responses are overwhelmingly against male members of IERT's given the incidents at the Prison for Women in 1994 and the subsequent Arbour Report. There appears to be a high level of sensitivity to why males would not be appropriate for this activity in female institutions. However, we did not ask the same question regarding Cell Extraction Teams and will include this area of inquiry in Phase 3.

No Knowledge of Presence of Male PW's

We included the questions "Have you ever been found changing or coming out of the shower because you didn't know that a male was present in the Unit? in the FSW Interview Schedule and the adjusted question "Have you ever been aware of a situation where an inmate was found changing or coming out of the shower because she didn't know that a male was present in the Unit?" for staff members. Twenty-five (25) answered in the affirmative, fifty-eight answered "no" and there were 19 "no responses". Broken down by type of respondent, 17 FSW indicated that this happened while 6 staff members also responded in the affirmative.

Commentary

This is a troubling finding and relates to the practice in some institutions of male PW's not announcing their presence as well as conducting informal counts. Although the 6 staff members who answered "yes" did not make comments reflecting that there had been no announcement in the situations they reported, all responses from FSW indicated that they did not know a male was present in the Unit. When one removes the 20 respondents from EIFW and Okimaw Ochi Healing Lodge, where there are no male Primary Workers, and indeed no complaints regarding female PW's not announcing, the prevalence is high. In other words 17 of the 26 FSW interviewed in institutions where there are male PW's reported being confronted, without notice, by male Primary Workers. It may also be that FSW do not hear announcements if they are in their rooms with their stereos or their televisions on. We will probe this issue further in Phase 3.

Sexual Harassment Policy

The question "do you think there needs to be a specific policy regarding sexual harassment?" was posed in the first visit of Phase 2 to a sample of 127. Prior to posing this question, we asked respondents to define sexual harassment, which led to a discussion to ensure that they understood the term. One hundred and eighteen respondents (118) answered "yes", 7 answered that there are presently sufficient regulations, and 2 said "no" including one whom responded that the Union of Solicitor General Employees (USGE) has such a policy. The nine who answered no or that there are sufficient regulations were staff members.

Commentary

At this time there is no explicit policy that prohibits the sexual harassment of inmates by staff. However, there are two CSC policy documents entitled: "Standards of Professional Conduct" and "Code of Discipline" which address general staff to staff and staff to inmate contact. Although the "Code of Discipline" does include a one sentence entry that employees must not maltreat, humiliate, harass or be abusive to an inmate, the topic of sexual harassment is not highlighted. Our findings indicate that there is a strong consensus among all interviewed, inmates and staff alike, that there is a need for an explicit sexual harassment policy. Some suggested that such a policy should be clearly posted in each institution. It was also found that these policies should apply not only to staff but to contract staff and volunteers entering the institution. Comments also indicated that there is little understanding about what constitutes sexual harassment. Suggestions indicated that the area of sexual harassment should also be included in all training, both the rationale for it and an outline of potential clear consequences for violating such a policy. Volunteers and other external resources should also be thoroughly briefed.

Gender of Staff

Questions relating to gender were included in all Interview Schedules with the entire sample. We asked several general questions in our first series of site visits in Phase 2 to elicit and double check the views of respondents concerning male PW's. For example, one included the question, "Does it make any difference that there are (or are not) male staff in this institution? If so, what difference?" Another later Interview Schedule, used for the second series of site visits, posed the question, "Should men be allowed to work in female institutions and in what jobs?" Interview Schedules for the second round of site visits broke down the elements of the National Protocol and teased out the views of the respondents in light of the complexity and specificity of the various policy issues. These questions were open ended and were coded for gender considerations for data analysis. A number of other questions inevitably elicited further comments about cross gender staffing which were also considered when coding responses. The responses regarding gender are among the more important relating to cross gender staffing. As mentioned previously, we also included the sample from Burnaby Correctional Centre for Women, as gender is an important issue also with FSW living in a provincial institution. The sample is therefore 258: 127 FSW and 131 staff members.

A petition, mentioned earlier, submitted to us by a group of inmates in one institution, and signed by the entire inmate population, unequivocally supported men as Primary Workers. The number of signatures to this petition are not included in the total tally of responses as we preferred to ask follow-up questions to determine whether certain functions would be excluded from this blanket statement. It is mentioned here to indicate the degree of support some inmates feel for male Primary Workers.

Of the 258 responses, 80 respondents indicated that they prefer not to have males in Primary Worker positions, 167 indicated their preference for male Primary Workers assuming adequate screening and training, 4 indicated that the choice of working with a male or female Primary Worker should be left up to individual FSW's, 4 respondents indicated "yes but not at night" and 3 had no response. The heading of the following Table does not indicate how questions were framed but rather summarizes the findings. The breakdown of responses is as follows:

Table 4
Should Male PW's Work in FSW's Facilities?

Response	FSW	Staff/Others	Total
Yes	82	87	169
No	41	39	80
Should Have Choice	4	5	9
Total	127	131	258

Commentary

It should be noted however, that the majority of respondents who responded "no" to the question were the majority of respondents at BCCW and the Okimaw Ochi Healing Lodge. There is likely a range of explanations for these responses. In terms of the OOHL, it could be that, as there have been no male PW's at the Healing Lodge since its inception because no qualified male candidates have applied, and as there is a higher incidence of sexual and physical abuse among Aboriginal women, respondents indicated that it is better not to encounter male Primary Workers while on their healing journeys.

However, in the case of BCCW, we can speculate that since there were no male Correctional Officers at the previous facility for women in Oakalla, respondents have become accustomed to the idea, and perhaps comfort of, no male front line staff. Also the 1978 Proudfoot Report⁸ certainly raised sensitivities about cross gender staffing and specifically addressed issues relating to male guards in women's prisons. The opposite is the case however at the all female PW staffed Edmonton Institution for Women where a slim minority indicated a preference for all female PW's. It should be noted that this is the only institution where the controversial practice of pat-downs several times a day was standard procedure. Those who prefer to have male PW's indicated their need for the normalizing influence of a male presence among PW's, the need to have positive role models and the need to be able to interact with men prior to their re-integration in the community. It should however be emphasized that all respondents indicating a preference for male PW's also expressed the need for effective screening and specialized training. We will offer a more complete explanation in our Phase 3 Report and will collate responses by gender.

In addition, a significant minority of FSW indicated discomfort with male PW's entering their Units at night. Their discomfort was not with an individual per se, but rather with the idea that men would be in their houses at night. Some expressed a state of fear or even trauma that interrupts or prevents them from sleeping at night just knowing there is a male in the vicinity. Many, if not most, of these women are survivors of sexual abuse, often by male family members. Many see the need to heal first before being expected to deal with the fear and sleeplessness resulting from a policy allowing males into their living quarters, particularly when they are sleeping. This issue will be addressed in the Analysis Section.

Comments made by female inmates during this part of the interview clearly indicated that the majority wanted access to screened and trained male Primary Workers performing support and counselling functions, as well as, release planning. Concerns and suggested restrictions on male PW's related almost exclusively to their security functions. This will also be addressed further in the Analysis Section.

8 Proudfoot, P. (1978) Report of the British Columbia Royal Commission on the Incarceration of Female Offenders. Victoria: Ministry of the Attorney General.