Women Offender Programs and Issues

The Cross Gender Monitoring Project
3rd and Final Annual Report

b) Interview Findings

From October 1, 1999 to December 17, 1999, Team members interviewed a total of:

• 109 Federally Sentenced Women,
• 90 staff, contract workers, volunteers and management at various institutions housing FSW across the country, including 28 men, and
• one member of a Citizens' Advisory Committee

The vast majority of these interviews were conducted one-on-one. However, in twelve instances, the interview involved more than one FSW, and in six instances, the interview involved more than one staff member, always at the request of the interviewees. Cases of "group interviews" were coded as the number of interviewees who were present, with differences in responses as noted; for example, an interview with two respondents together was counted as two interviews, with appropriate differences in opinion included in the coding. Obviously, group interviews are not an ideal way to tease out individual nuances, but team members were obliged to respect the wishes of interviewees who, in many instances, were uncomfortable with being interviewed alone. The flexibility to conduct group interviews did, however, enhance our ability to include more respondents in our interviews.

The numbers of persons interviewed at each institution or unit is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Numbers of FSW and Staff/Others interviewed at each Institution or Unit
Institution/Unit	FSW	Staff/ Other
Burnaby Correctional Centre	12	10
Edmonton Institution for Women	15	15
Saskatchewan Penitentiary	13	11
RPC Prairies	6	8
Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge	15	15
Prison for Women	3	6
Grand Valley	22	12
Joliette	13	5
Springhill	2	1
Nova	8	8
Total	109	90

The interview schedules administered to the two groups are reproduced in Appendix A. The results of these interviews, as reported below, are, in some instances, reported in a different order from the way they were asked in interviews but does not affect the context of the responses.

Male Workers in Selected Roles

The key questions posed of the interviewees concerned support for or opposition to the presence of male staff, contract workers or volunteers in the institution or on the unit, and in what functions.

Figure A displays the percentages of persons interviewed who agreed with the use of male staff in various roles and functions in the institution. Percentages are calculated on the basis of the number of interviewees who gave a clear response; unclear responses or non-responses (both of which were few) are not included in the percentage calculations.

Male and female staff members showed similar views on the use of male workers in various roles, with the following exceptions. Female staff were more supportive than were men of the use of male staff paired with female staffers in the living units; they were also more supportive of allowing men to be alone with FS, in both observable and unobservable situations. By contrast, the female staff respondents, were more supportive than were their female counterparts of allowing men to be present at night in the living units.

Responses to these questions were compared for FSW on the one hand, and staff, contract workers, volunteers and management on the other. Interestingly, the responses of the two groups are very similar. In only two instances is the difference in responses wider than ten percent between the two groups, who for the sake of brevity will be referred to hereafter as "FSW" and "staff". Moreover, there is no pattern of one group consistently expressing higher support than the other for the use of male staff in various functions.

Strip searches and urine sampling. Predictably, support for the use of male staff is lowest in roles and functions which are most intrusive of the FSW's privacy - conducting or supervising strip searches or urine sampling, which is supported by one-tenth or fewer of all respondents. The Correctional and Conditional Release Act prohibits staff of the opposite sex from conducting strip searches.

Frisk searches and camera cell duty by male staff receive somewhat more support, but still from a distinct minority of both groups - 15 to 27%, depending on the function and the group.

Alone during the day in living areas. Allowing a male staff member or contract worker to be alone (i.e., not "paired" with a female staff member) in living areas during the day carries the potential for intrusions on privacy (or worse), and accordingly receives only slightly more support - from about a third of the FSW and a quarter of staff. The higher support for this role from FSW than from staff may reflect staff's sense of vulnerability to allegations if they are placed in a position where they may be left alone with a FSW.

Planned Institutional Emergency Response Team (IERT) functions. For other functions, support from both groups approaches or exceeds the fifty percent mark. About half the respondents in each group support the use of male staff in planned IERT functions such as cell extractions. For FSW, 11 out of 53 responses which supported the use of male staff as part of a planned IERT function offered qualifiers on their response. Eight suggested men should participate "as back-up only"; one said "as long as there is no physical contact", one said "except where there is nudity involved", and one said "as long as the right male staff are chosen".

Paired night duty in living areas; alone and unobservable with FSW. Somewhat less than half the FSW, and somewhat more than half the staff, supported the use of male staff in living areas at night (when paired with a female officer), and in situations where a male staff member, contract worker or volunteer could be left alone with one or more FSW in an area where they could not be seen or heard. Three FSW responses which were supportive of men in living areas at night (when paired with a female staff member) offered qualifiers on the response: two said "but not in the bathrooms" and one said "if it is an emergency". Concerning having men alone with FSW in areas where they could not be heard or seen, two FSW responses carried the qualifier: "depending on the man" and one said "until a complaint is received".

Sole TA escort. In addition, about half the staff support the use of male staff as the sole escort for a temporary absence, whereas two-thirds of the FSW support it. Information from interviews indicates that the difference in the pattern of responses between the two groups is probably attributable to two factors. First, FSW may fear that if men are no longer allowed to act as TA escorts, their access to TAs may be diminished. Second, as with the question related to "unpaired" male staff being present in living areas, staff may feel particularly vulnerable to allegations of impropriety when acting as a sole escort.

A number of responses concerning male TA escorts carried a qualifier. Six FSW responses suggested that the woman should be given the option of refusing to have a male escort if she is not comfortable with it, and four staff responses suggested that the staff member should not be compelled to act as an escort if he is uncomfortable with it. One additional FSW suggested that her support for the practice is dependent on the male staff member in question.

Paired in living areas during the day. About two-thirds of each group support the presence of male staff in living areas during the day when they are paired with a female officer. Three-quarters of the FSW and four-fifths of staff support the use of male staff, contract workers or volunteers in situations where they may be left alone with one or more FSW, but would be within the sight or hearing of other persons. Two FSW responses in support of this practice carried a qualifier: one said only "if the FSW agrees to it", and one said "only if there is more than one FSW present".

Primary Workers and direct contact. Concerning the use of men as Primary Workers, 78% of FSW and 78% of staff support the practice. Finally, an identical 82% of FSW and 83% of staff support the use of male staff in situations of various kinds where they would have direct contact with FSW. These situations would include a variety of roles, such as health care, counselling and instruction/educational roles.

Perceptions About Male Staff Presence

Various open-ended comments were solicited regarding the effect which FSW and staff felt the presence of male staff had on the institution or unit. These are summarized in Table 2. Fewer comments were received from staff than from FSW,

but again, as with the views expressed about allowing male staff to perform various roles in the institution, the responses are fairly similar. More positive rationales for the presence of male staff are offered, proportionally, by staff than by FSW, but the types of rationales mentioned are similar for both groups. Perhaps the most striking area of dissimilarity is in the mention of the effect of male staff on FSW privacy - prisoners

seem considerably more sensitive to this issue than are staff. In addition, staff seem to be more convinced than are FSW that the presence of male staff helps provide positive male role models for FSW to observe.

National Operational Protocol

As the Arbour Commission recommended explicit protocols for male front-line staffing, CSC introduced the National Operational Protocol for Front-Line Staffing in the CSC Women's Institutions and Maximum Security Units. This policy was designed to clarify various operational practices which govern corrections for women, including the kinds of functions which may and may not be performed by male staff, and under what conditions. The Protocol requires that staff, inmates and volunteers be informed of the Protocol and provided with a copy.

Staff Familiarity with Protocol. Given that the Protocol was only finalized in August 1998, it was not surprising that few staff members were familiar with the Protocol or its content during site visits conducted prior to our Second Annual Report.

At the time of our latest site visits, the Protocol was well established, except perhaps at Burnaby, since it is a provincially-run institution. Our first question was "Are you familiar with the National Operations Protocol for CSC women's institutions and maximum security units?"

Of the 85 staff who answered the question, 35 said they were familiar with the Protocol, 21 said they were "somewhat" or "not really" familiar with it, and 29 said they were not familiar with it. Self-described familiarity was lowest at Burnaby Correctional Centre and the Healing Lodge.

We then asked the 56 staff who said they were at least partially familiar with the Protocol what were the "main operational practices which are covered in the Protocol." Interviewers did not prompt respondents other than to continue saying "Anything else?" until no further responses were elicited.

Including the staff who admitted they were not at all familiar with the Protocol, a total of 63 staff, or 74% of those who responded to this part of the interview , were unable to describe a single provision in the Protocol. One staffer was able to name four provisions, two were able to name three or five, respectively, and 17 were able to name between six and ten.

Table 3. # of Protocol Provisions Recalled by Staff
# of Provisions Recalled	# of Staff Members
None	63
Three	2
Four	1
Five	2
Six - Ten	17
Total	85

Male staff were, proportionally, more familiar with the Protocol than were female staff; a higher proportion of male staff were able to name one or more provisions than were female staff.

We then asked the 56 staff who said they were at least partially familiar with the Protocol what were the "main operational practices which are covered in the Protocol." Interviewers did not prompt respondents other than to continue saying "Anything else?" until no further responses were elicited.

The following mentions were made of the ten main policies covered in the Protocol:

• all front-line staff announce entry into living unit other than in quiet hours - 17 mentions
• inmate in the bathroom at time of count to be given time to cover herself - 14 mentions
• male staff to stay paired with female staff for living unit entries from curfew to 6 am - 16 mentions
• male contract/maintenance workers to be escorted by a woman while in living area - 16 mentions
• male staff not permitted to monitor women in camera cells - 17 mentions
• frisk searches to be conducted only by female staff - 18 mentions
• strip searches to be conducted, witnessed andtaped by female staff - 17 mentions
• emergency first response may be by a man, but women must be deployed ASAP - 17 mentions
• planned emergency response must be by a women-only team (with variants) - 19 mentions
• male staff must not be alone with FSW except in observable area - 12 mentions

Interviewers then asked staff what they believed to be the rationale behind the Protocol, and rated their responses in terms of their understanding of the issues. Of those 60 staff who responded in a way which could be rated, 49 showed a good understanding of the issues, 12 showed a fair understanding, and 4 showed a poor understanding of the issues, 12 showed a fair understanding, and 4 showed a poor understanding..

Next, we asked staff whether they felt there were any areas of inconsistency between the Protocol and other CSC policies or procedures. Of those 52 staff who responded, 33 said yes, and 19 said no. We then asked what these areas were. Table 4 displays the 20 specific responses received (some staff gave a general comment about inconsistency).

Most of the comments centre around employment equity concerns and security procedures, such as the efficacy of emergency response or rounds on the living unit. In addition, a number of staff feel the policy needs clarification around the escorting of male contract workers and volunteers.

Table 4. Staff comments about Inconsistencies between Protocol and Other CSC Policies or Procedures
Comment	Number of Respondents
Protocol violates employment equity	4
Protocol forbids duties imposed by CCRA	4
Protocol is unclear regarding escorts for male contract workers	3
Protocol impairs emergency response, announcing eliminates element of surprise	3
Protocol is simplistic	1
Protocol is holistic, CSC policies are not	1
Protocol is difficult to follow	1
Conflicts are with job description	1
Protocol conflicts with security procedures	1
Protocol turns a blind eye to FSW sexual encounters	1
No Response	63

Next, interviewers asked whether the respondent disagreed with any of the Protocol provisions. Of the 52 staff who responded, 31 said no, 19 said yes, and two were not sure. The specific areas of disagreement were queried, and these are displayed in Table 5.

Table 5. Areas of Staff Disagreement with Protocol (multiple responses possible)
Protocol Area	Number of Respondents
Necessity of escorting male contract workers	5
Men and women not permitted to do the same work (discrimination)	4
"Protocol contains lots of grey areas"	4
TA escort policy is too vague/permissive	3
Protocol approach to staffing in living areas	2
Pairing of male staff member with a female staff member	1
Protocol does not permit male nurses	1
Protocol restricts access to overtime	1
Restriction on being alone with FSW unless in sight/sound of others	1
No Response	75

It would appear that some of these areas of disagreement and "inconsistency" reveal a fundamental disagreement with the underlying basis for CSC's approach to cross-gender staffing, i.e. the need to build in safeguards to address the vulnerabilities of FSW in relation to their abuse histories.

Finally, we asked whether respondents felt that at present, there is sufficient scope within CSC for appropriate disciplinary action to be taken in the case of a staff member being found to have violated the Operational Protocol? (In the case of respondents who were not very familiar with the Protocol, interviewers asked instead: "... found to have violated a FSW's important privacy rights, such as not announcing entry onto a living area, not giving a woman time to cover herself, or leaving a woman in an unobservable area with a male staff member or contract worker?")

Of the 67 staff who replied, 46 said they felt there was sufficient scope for appropriate disciplinary action, 18 said they were not sure or did not know, and three said there was not. Those who said there was not or who were unsure were asked what they felt might be lacking. One said the process took too long, one said it was too hard to prove allegations, and eight commented on non-enforcement issues - either saying management was at fault, or the union, or simply complaining in a general way about lack of enforcement of the rules.

FSW Familiarity with Protocol. We asked similar questions about the Protocol of the FSW we interviewed. First, we asked if they had ever heard of the Protocol. In case they knew of the policies but not under the term "Protocol", we described the general thrust of the document, and asked if it sounded familiar. Of the 104 responses we received, 31 had heard of the Protocol and 73 had not or were not sure.

We rated the FSWs' understanding of "what the Protocol is all about". Of the 31 who had heard of it, 12 had a good understanding and 19 had a fair understanding. Twelve said they had seen a copy of it. Eight had asked for a copy, and of these, seven said they had been given a copy.

Violations of the Protocol

We asked staff and FSW if they were aware of any violations of the Protocol or other serious incidents which had occurred in the previous year and a half - i.e., since our last round of visits and structured interviews.

For FSW, we began by asking if they personally had had any of these things happen to them. The number of mentions of various incidents is displayed in Table 6.

Of course, some of the occurrences mentioned may have been multiple mentions of a single incident, as with several women seeing a male staff member come on the living unit without announcing. Thus, the figures for these types of reports do not necessarily reflect the number of separate instances of such an event occurring. However, an examination of the distribution of the mentions of various types of incidents show that they are fairly evenly distributed across the various facilities which house FSW in Canada, which indicates that there were a number of incidents across the system during this time period.

Table 6. FSW Mentions of Incidents which had Happened to Them in the Previous Year and Half
Type of Incident	Number of FSW
Seen male staff coming on living unit without announcing (other than in quiet hours)	43
Were you ever seen changing or coming out of the shower because a male staff member didn't give you time to cover yourself	25
Seen a male staff member alone in the living unit after curfew (without a female staff member present)	18
Seen a male contract/maintenance worker alone in the living unit (without a female staff member being present)	24
Been observed by a male staff member while in a camera cell	5
Been frisked by a male staff member	3
Been strip searched by male staff or had a male staff member witness or tape your being strip-searched	2
Been in an emergency situation which was handled by a male staff member without calling in female staff	6
Been in an Emergency Response Team situation where there was a male staff member as part of the Team	20
Been in an area with a male staff, contract worker or volunteer where you could not be observed or heard by female staff	23
Had any staff member, contract worker or volunteer make a remark or comment about sex that made you uncomfortable	8
Been touched in a sexual way by any staff member, contract worker or volunteer	6
Had any staff member, contract worker or volunteer approach you or hint to you that they would be interested in some kind of sexual contact with you	3
Had any sexual contact with any staff member, contract worker or volunteer - with your "consent" or because you had a reason to	2

In addition, in interpreting these figures, it should be noted that some types of incidents are more likely to come to the attention of FSW than are others (as one woman put it, "How would I know if a man were observing me in a camera cell?"), or for various other reasons are less likely to be reported by FSW in such an interview. Others, such as being frisked by a male staff member or being the recipient of a sexually suggestive comment are more likely to be reported in our interviews.

We posed the same question to staff, i.e. whether they "had been aware of" such an incident taking place over the past year and a half "in an institution where you were working". Again, therefore, multiple mentions could be reflective of a single incident, but again, there is a fairly even distribution of reports over the various institutions where we posed the question. It should be borne in mind that some types of incidents are far less likely to become general knowledge than are others, or for various other reasons, to be reported in such an interview by staff. The responses are shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Staff Mentions of Incidents in the Previous Year and a Half
Type of Incident	Number of Staff
Front-line staff not announcing entry onto living unit other than in quiet hours	26
Inmate in the bathroom at time of count not given time to cover herself	13
Male staff not paired with female staff for living unit entries from curfew to 6 AM	14
Male contract/maintenance workers not escorted by a woman while in living area	27
Male staff permitted to monitor women in camera cells	5
Frisk searches conducted by male staff	6
Strip searches conducted, witnessed or taped by male staff	5
Emergency first response made by a man, but women not deployed ASAP	10
Planned emergency response conducted by a team including male staff	22
Male staff, contract worker or volunteer alone with FSW in non-observable area	33
Staff, contract worker or volunteer making inappropriate references to sex to a FSW	10
Inappropriate sexual contact between a staff member, contract worker or volunteer and a FSW	12

We asked staff and FSW whether "CSC policy prohibits" any of the incidents described. Of the 79 FSW who answered the question clearly, 73 said CSC policy prohibits all such incidents, three said it prohibits some of them and three said no. Of the 67 staff who responded, 59 said it prohibited all of them, three said it prohibited some of them, three said no, and two said, "Well, apparently not!" or words to that effect.

Disciplinary Action

We asked staff and inmates about any disciplinary action taken in the incidents which they were aware of. With FSW, we first asked whether the incident(s) had been reported, including both incidents which had happened to them personally during the past year and a half, and those which had happened to other FSW. Of the 29 replies by FSW, 15 said at least one incident they were aware of had been reported, 11 said it had not, and three said they were unsure.

Next, we asked staff and inmates for their views of the disciplinary action taken in the incidents they were aware of. For FSW, 19 disciplinary actions taken in separate incidents were discussed (i.e., including possible reports of more than one incident per interview). In seven such instances, the FSW felt that the disciplinary action taken was appropriate; in six instances, the FSW said that no action had been taken, and in four instances, the FSW felt that the action taken had been too lenient.

Staff discussed 31 disciplinary actions taken in separate incidents. In 23 instances, the staff member considered the action taken to be appropriate; in two instances, no action was taken; in two instances, the staff member considered the action taken was too harsh; in two instances, the staff member considered the action taken was too lenient; and in two incidents, the staff member could not or would not say.

Staff Training

Staff were asked about the kinds of training they had undergone and the type of training they would like to receive. First, staff were asked about the Women-Centred Training Program, the module designed for staff who would be assuming duties at the new FSW facilities when they were initially introduced. Some of the staff would have received the first version of this module, a 10-day intensive session, while others would have received the later, more scaled-down 5-day version of this module.

Table 8 shows the results of the question posed about the Women-Centred Training Program.

Table 8. "Have you taken the 10-Day Women-Centred Training Module?"
Facility	Yes*	No, but 5-day Version	No	Total
Burnaby	2	2	5	9
Edmonton	4	4	3	11
Saskatchewan Penitentiary	7	4	0	11
RPC Prairies	1	1	3	5
Healing Lodge	6	0	9	15
Prison for Women	1	3	2	6
Grand Valley	6	5	0	11
Joliette	2	1	2	5
Springhill	0	0	1	1
Nova	3	4	1	8
Total	32	24	26	82

*Or the original training package for Healing Lodge staff.

A total of 82 staff answered the question. While the most common response, from 32 staff, was that they had taken the original, 10-day training program (or the original Healing Lodge training package), and 24 others had taken the shorter, 5-day version, a total of 26 staff had not taken either.

The 56 staff who said they had received the 5- or 10-day module were next asked to indicate how long ago they had taken this training. Only 34 were able to say how long ago this training had occurred. Nine said they had taken it a year previously or less; four had taken it more than a year and up to two years previously; three had taken it more than two years and up to three years previously; four said that they recalled having taken it more than three years and up to four years previously; 10 said that they recalled having taken it more than four years and up to five years previously; and four said they had taken it more than five years previously.

The 56 staff who said they had received the 5- or 10-day module were next asked to tell interviewers about the content of the training. Interviewers recorded the number of separate elements specific to this training which were mentioned by respondents - things like power dynamics between the sexes and cycles of abuse. The most frequent response was none - 18 respondents were unable to describe any specific element of the women-centred training they had received. Nine were able to recall one element, four recalled two, 15 recalled three, and 15 recalled four or more.

Next, the 56 staff who indicated they had received the Women-Centred Training Module were asked whether they felt this training program had adequately prepared them for working with FSW. A total of 54 staff answered the question. Only 15 said that the training had adequately prepared them for working with FSW; 21 said it had not; and 18 said it had prepared them only for the basics of the job.

Staff were also asked about additional training they had received, apart from the Women-Centred Module. Whether delivered by CSC or not, had they had additional training specific to women offenders or corrections for women? Interviewers then asked what respondents said about the content of this training and rated the content for women-centred elements - was the content specific to women offenders, or to corrections/management issues generally? A total of 16 staff members indicated they had had additional training since the initial module; of these, 13 were rated as being specifically relevant to corrections for women, and 3 were not.

Finally, staff were asked about the substantive areas in which they would like more training. A multitude of suggestions were received, and these are displayed in Table 9. The areas mentioned cover virtually every aspect of corrections for women, including security issues, counselling, programming, release planning and women's issues generally.

Of the 24 staff members who indicated they had not taken any version of the Women-Centred Training Program, 7 were men and 17 were women.

Table 9. Further Training Needs Identified by Staff
Training Area	Number of Staff
Suicide and self-mutilation	17
Conflict resolution	16
Mentally disordered FSW	14
Women's issues	13
FAS/FAE	9
Interpersonal/counselling skills	9
Bereavement, separation from children	9
Personality disorders/borderline personality	8
Sexual abuse	8
Assessment/case management	8
"Everything"	7
Security issues/skills	6
Attention deficit disorder	6
Addictions	5
Sexual harassment	4
Special needs/high-need FSW	4
Management/administrative skills	4
Release planning/reintegration	3
Education programs for FSW	3
"How to do job better"	3
Group interventions/circles/peer support	3
Vocational programs for FSW	2
Same-sex relationships	2
"Nothing can prepare you for this"	2
Other training needs	6
Total suggestions offered	171
No additional needs indicated	29

The three most frequently mentioned areas for further training are suicide and self-mutilation, conflict resolution, and mental disorder. It is also rather disturbing to note that the fourth most frequent area, mentioned by 13 staff members, was "women's issues" - a rather significant gap, considering the clientele involved - and another eight mentioned "sexual abuse" specifically.

In addition, 12 staff respondents gave answers like "everything", "how to do my job better", or "nothing can prepare you for this", which suggest that some staff feel significant gaps in their ability to perform to a standard they consider acceptable.

Inmate Grievance Procedure

Our interviewing also covered the Inmate Grievance Procedure, for a number of reasons. First, cross-gender staffing presents inevitable challenges for the day-to-day logistics and management of women's prisons, and an effective complaint mechanism is essential for ensuring that smaller problems are handled quickly and effectively so that they do not escalate into larger problems. Many of these problems may relate to cross gender staffing. An effective grievance procedure can be one of the most valuable "early warning systems" which correctional managers have at their disposal. Second, it had been suggested to us that the grievance procedure was being used to route some allegations of serious sexual misconduct by staff, contract workers and volunteers, a route which appeared to be of questionable appropriateness and effectiveness in such situations. Third, it is clear from the literature that an inmate grievance procedure which is less than optimally credible, effective and prompt can become, in itself, a significant source of irritation for both staff and inmates. Therefore, a closer look at this procedure and how it operates in women's prisons seemed necessary in order to identify all of the operational and policy issues relating to cross gender staffing.

We began by asking FSW if they were familiar with "how the IGP works". A total of 97 responses were received; 81% of FSW said they were familiar with how the IGP works. We also asked about familiarity with the informal conflict resolution mechanism - a procedure by which a grievance, which at the initial stage is called a "complaint", is intended to be handled informally by having the inmate speak to the staff member she is complaining about, and try to resolve the matter there. Here, only 87 responses were received, and of those, only 66% of FSW said they were familiar with how this procedure works. This may suggest either that informal resolution is in use less at the women's prisons than at other CSC facilities, or that responses reflect confusion about how this initial step in the IGP is supposed to function.

Next, we asked both staff and FSW to rate, on a five-point scale, the effectiveness of the IGP as a means of "resolving inmate complaints". The responses are displayed in Table 10. They suggest that staff are considerably more satisfied with the IGP's effectiveness than are FSW.

Table 10. Staff and FSW ratings of the Effectiveness of the Inmate Grievance Procedure
Rating	FSW Responses	Staff Responses
1 - Not effective at all	34	7
2 - Not very effective	27	3
3 - Neutral/mixed rating	10	18
4 - Fairly effective	8	34
5 - Very effective	3	13
Total responses	82	75

FSW are overwhelmingly negative in their assessment of the IGP, whereas only 10 out of 75 staff who expressed an opinion gave it a rating below three on a five-point scale. Among FSW, six out of the 11 ratings above three were given at the Healing Lodge.

We also asked FSW to rate the effectiveness of the informal complaint resolution mechanism. Here, the responses formed a different pattern: three-fifths of the women either hated it or loved it. Out of 53 responses received, 16 FSW rated it a "1" and 16 rated it a "5", with the remaining 21 responses virtually equally distributed among the other three ratings.

We next asked an open-ended question of both staff and inmates, soliciting suggestions for improving the IGP. Interestingly, both staff and inmates had a large number of suggestions for improving it - and many of the suggestions were the same. These suggestions are displayed in Table 11.

The most common suggestion from FSW concerned the perceived reaction which staff and management had to receiving a complaint or grievance, which was most often characterized as "going on the defensive" or "cover your ***". Especially when a complaint is lodged concerning the actions or inactions of a specific staff member (as opposed to a policy or procedure), it is human nature, and not uncommon, for the person complained about to take the complaint somewhat personally, feel threatened, or otherwise not react to the matter from an impersonal perspective. Unfortunately, from the IGP standpoint, this can affect the natural progress of the complaint; if the inmate is not satisfied at the complaint stage, she may feel constrained not to pursue the matter, and if she does, the staff member may feel betrayed by the further action taken.

Twelve FSW and nine staff members suggested that a fuller inquiry be made into the basis for the grievance or the cause of the problem. A number of factors may be at work in these responses.

First, the literacy and communication skills of inmates often create barriers at phrasing grievances, particularly in writing, and explaining the full circumstances involved. In fact, a number of suggestions were also offered which could assist inmates in framing their grievances, including through the use of the staff Grievance Coordinator position or the inmate Grievance Clerk position, which is not filled in many CSC institutions. Either through assistance with writing, or by talking to the parties involved, the persons who fill these positions can often help with clarifying the matter of the grievance.

Second, suggestions about making a fuller inquiry into the grievance may reflect a natural tendency to confine the response to the narrowest possible interpretation of the grievance, meaning that a specific grievance may be resolved in one instance, but the underlying problem may persist, or the same approach to the problem may be taken the next time it arises. This can cause inmates to feel that nothing ever comes of the IGP, and staff to feel continually challenged over the same issues.

A total of 21 FSW and 5 staff members also suggested the use of outsiders trained in mediation, or the addition of conflict resolution skills or approaches, to make the process more effective. Since the IGP was originally intended to be based on mediation at various points - through the use of the Coordinator or Clerk, and the use of the staff-inmate Grievance Committee - these ideas are particularly interesting. Significantly, eight FSW and four staff responses also suggest that additional training in the IGP would be needed to make it function better.

Next, interviewers asked staff and FSW specifically about the idea of a staff-inmate Grievance Committee. Such a Committee is provided for in the Commissioner's Directive on the IGP, but does not exist at many CSC facilities. A mediation-based concept from the prison grievance literature⁸, this Committee would be an institution- or unit-based "committee of equal numbers of staff and inmates, trained in conflict resolution procedures, set up to try to resolve grievances at the first level" (as our question posed the idea).

Staff and inmate support for or opposition to such a Committee is summarized in Table 12. A total of 94 FSW and 72 staff responded to this question. Sixty-eight percent of staff and sixty-six percent of the FSW supported the idea.

Table 12. FSW and Staff Support for Institutional or Unit Staff-Inmate Grievance Committee (equal numbers, trained in conflict resolution, to resolve grievances at the first level)
Response	FSW Responses	Staff Responses
Yes, support	62	47
Support for certain grievances	0	2
No, oppose	25	23
Don't know/not sure	7	0

Many of the reservations about the use of such a committee concerned the possibility of loss of confidentiality or privacy for the grievant. The prison grievance literature suggests that grievants who have such concerns should be allowed to waive the use of the committee, but that the vast majority of grievances do not raise these issues.

The Investigation of Serious Allegations

Next, interviewers asked specifically about the handling of allegations of sexual misconduct by staff, contract workers or volunteers. First, both staff and FSW were asked specifically whether they believed there are "any circumstances in which there should automatically be an outside investigation of an alleged incident". Of the 80 staff members who responded, 52 said yes; of the 90 FSW who responded, 79 said yes (three were not sure and eight said no).

Those who had said yes were then asked what kinds of circumstances would warrant an automatic outside investigation. Interviewers did not prompt with possible answers. The responses are displayed in Table 13.

Table 13. Circumstances warranting automatic outside investigation (multiple responses possible)
Circumstance	Number of FSW	Number of Staff
Any sexual allegation	26	9
Sexual assault	19	19
Serious physical assault	8	8
"Serious allegations"	4	5
Any touching of any kind	3	0
Use of segregation	2	0
Problems with Health Care	2	0
Continuous verbal abuse	2	0
Threats	2	0
Accusation by one FSW against another	1	0
Any injury, including self-inflicted	1	0
Any "major incident"	1	0
Death of FSW	1	0
Where initial CSC investigation reveals possible bias	0	10
Allegations amounting to criminal conduct	0	6
Where impartiality/objectivity needed	0	5
Allegations against contract workers/volunteers	0	2
Allegations against supervisors/senior staff members	0	2
Drug offences	0	1
Where the result could be a wrongful dismissal	0	1
Total comments offered	72	68
No response	53	42

Allegations of Sexual Harassment and Assault

A total of 84 FSW and 38 staff responded to the question "Should allegations of sexual harassment/assault be handled differently from the current procedure?" Of these, 73 FSW said yes, nine said no and two said they didn't know or were not sure; 21 staff said yes and 17 said no.

An open-ended question was next asked about how such allegations should be handled. Staff offered a total of 17 suggestions, and FSW offered 73 suggestions. These are displayed in Table 14.

Table 14. Suggestions for Improving Handling of Sexual Allegations
Suggestion	Number of FSW	Number of Staff
Use sensitive/trained investigators	6	7
Use outside investigators	43	3
Speed up the process	3	3
Give the process a higher priority/take it more seriously	6	2
Safeguard confidentiality more	5	0
Give complainant immediate counselling	4	0
Give accused counselling/ debriefing	0	1
Protect complainant from repercussions	4	0
Have RHQ handle investigation	0	1
Use impartial investigators	1	0
Total suggestions	72	17
No suggestions made	39	78

The most frequent suggestion from FSW (43 mentions) was to use outside investigators (i.e., from outside CSC) in the first instance. Three staff members made the same suggestion (but see also Table 14, above, for responses to this previously-asked question). Six FSW and seven staff members suggested that investigators be more sensitive or have training specific to sexual allegations. Three FSW and three staff members suggested the process be handled more expeditiously.

Sexual Harassment Policy

Staff were asked whether they believed there should be a policy within CSC or provincial correctional institutions which specifically prohibits the sexual harassment of FSW. A total of 89 staff addressed this issue; 54 believed there should be, another two said only under certain conditions or for misconduct of a certain type, and 33 said no. Those who said no were asked why not; 29 said the prohibition was implied in other existing policies; two said everyone is fully aware of the issue; and one said the real problem is FSW harassing staff sexually.

The 56 staff who supported a specific sexual harassment policy of some type were asked what behaviours they felt should be prohibited under a sexual harassment policy. Interviewers did not prompt respondents, but merely recorded all the behaviours which were spontaneously mentioned. The following behaviours received specific mention:

• sexual assault - 43 mentions
• sexual contact with a FSW in exchange for consideration - 30 mentions
• "consensual" sexual contact with a FSW - 29 mentions
• any touching of a FSW except in a security situation - 27 mentions
• improper use of search or frisk powers - 25 mentions
• sexually suggestive language or "joking" - 24 mentions
• racial slurs - 1 mention
• "serious abuse of power" - 1 mention

Staff were next asked whether "such a policy should apply to [place prohibitions on] staff or inmates or both". Forty staff said it should place prohibitions on other inmates; 38 said it should place prohibitions on contract workers or volunteers, and 35 said it should apply to staff.

This somewhat surprising lower figure given for staff, rather than the other categories, may be explained by many staff's view that, as public servants, they are already constrained by existing sexual harassment policies, whereas the prohibitions on inmates, contract workers and volunteers are somewhat less clear.

Other Staff Employment Issues

Finally, our structured interviews asked staff about a number of issues which affect their working conditions, benefits and other aspects.

As many Primary Workers had complained during our first and second years about their job descriptions not reflecting the true nature of their work, we included a question this year about that topic. We also wanted to know if any of the reported omissions related to cross gender staffing. We asked CSC staff what changes they would make to the Primary Worker job description in order to bring it into line with the realities of the functions as they carry them out. Their responses are shown in Table 15. Although eight out of a total of 45 comments said that the job description was adequate in its current form, most comments called for changes, primarily to reflect the case management and "institutional" parole officer roles. Other suggestions included the need to reflect relating and counselling skills, the philosophy of the FSW facilities, cultural ceremonies, and specific duties not currently referred to. Two staff members said, however, that they do not deliver programs and reference to this should be removed.

Table 15. Staff suggestions for Changes to Primary Worker Job Description
Suggestion	# of Staff
Reflect case management and institutional parole officer functions	24
Leave as is	8
Differentiate among different levels of PW	4
Current job description is too vague, unspecific	3
Take out reference to program delivery (I do not do this)	2
Reflect counselling, relational skills required	2
Reflect Creating Choices	1
Allow paid recognition for time spent attending cultural ceremonies	1
No additional suggestions made	45

Emergency Response training for Male Staff. An issue previously raised, both by staff and in our previous reports, is that since male staff working in FSW facilities are restricted from working on Emergency Response Teams (a term of art in CSC which refers to planned events, such as cell extractions, by specialized teams), they do not receive training in this function. As a result, their chances for transferring or applying for other jobs may be affected. We asked CSC staff how they thought this concern should be addressed.

Of the CSC staff who addressed the issue, 22 suggested that all staff be given IERT training; 18 suggested that male staff be given this training after transfer out, and that their exclusion from transfer be forbidden on that ground; nine suggested the issue was not really a problem; and one suggested that to ensure fairness, the FSW facility pay for the training before transfer.

Firearms training for Female Staff. The reverse concern pertained to firearms training for female staff members at FSW facilities. Primary Workers are not armed in FSW facilities and are not required to participate in firearms training. We asked the CSC staff how they felt that concern should be addressed. Of those who addressed the issue, 32 said they felt female staff at FSW facilities should receive firearms training in order to prevent any disadvantage in applying for other jobs or transferring, and 24 felt they should not.

Pairing of Staff to do Rounds. A total of 64 CSC staff addressed the question of whether rounds should always be done by two staff together. Of those, 44 said they should, five said they should not, 10 said it depends on the institution or the situation (as where living areas are locked down at night), four said pairing should be done at night but not during the day, and one was not sure.

Night Shifts. Finally, we asked about the burden on female staff members from the restrictions on the use of male staff at night. First, we asked staff what they thought of the issue. A total of 82 staff addressed the issue. Of these,

• 26 said it was a real concern, suggesting there should be more scope for male roles in the facility in order to relieve the night shift burden on women;
• 29 said they felt it was not really a problem, because staff are aware of this before they sign on, because the evening shift is worse than the night shift, because the burden is evenly distributed, or for other reasons;
• 13 said it was a necessary evil;
• 9 suggested that the problem be dealt with through fairer rotations and assignments;
• 7 agreed it was a real problem but did not know what to suggest to solve it; and
• 2 said the problem was at a "dangerous" level.

8 See, e.g., Linda Singer, Inmate Grievance Procedures: Design Features and Experience. Summary of a Seminar held with CSC Staff, August 1990. N.p.