Legislation and Policies

Special Report

Protecting Their Rights A Systemic Review of Human Rights in Correctional Services for Federally Sentenced Women

Chapter 5

Human Rights and Safe and Humane Custody and Supervision for Federally Sentenced Women

Incarceration poses hardships and risks for women that are different from those faced by men, and men and women respond differently to custody and supervision. Incarceration has many collateral costs for women; they are more likely than men to lose their children or be abandoned by a spouse. And social stigma and shame may impede their reintegration to a greater extent than the reintegration of men.⁸⁰ Prison can also create risks for some women or increase risks they already face — the risk of self-harm, of contracting communicable diseases (particularly for intravenous drug users) or of deteriorating mental health. While men offenders are not immune to these risks, the risk of self-harm and other issues relating to mental health is especially high for women.

5.1. Health

The health needs of federally sentenced women and their access to necessary and appropriate health services must be looked at in the context of how women’s health issues differ from men’s: “... (w)omen experience more sickness, more disability and more psychological distress (than men).”⁸¹ Health inequality can be particularly serious for Aboriginal women who have higher rates of suicide and substance abuse. These patterns are mirrored in the lives of women incarcerated in federal correctional facilities.

Because they are in custody, federally sentenced women are not generally eligible for health services provided under provincial health insurance plans. Instead, under sections 86 and 87 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Correctional Service of Canada has a duty to provide essential health care services to inmates in accordance with professionally accepted standards. What health care services are “essential” has been interpreted very broadly in the human rights context.⁸²

Although many women told us that they were satisfied with Correctional Service of Canada’s health care services, the level of services appears to be uneven across the different facilities. In some facilities there were complaints about concerns such as pain management being ignored by staff, or having to wait for long periods before being referred by Correctional Service of Canada staff to a doctor or dentist. Two women told us about having to wait to see a doctor and ending up in hospital with problems that might have been avoided with earlier medical intervention. Other women had no choice but to endure dental pain after being told that a root canal is not considered essential dental care.

Almost all of the complaints reflected the sense that women did not feel that they were being listened to or taken seriously: “They don’t listen to what you have to say and they assume that you are trying to scam.”

What these experiences point to is the ongoing need to ensure that federally sentenced women have prompt access to doctors and dentists for essential health and dental care, and that the screening function performed by Correctional Service of Canada staff not inhibit this process.

All inmates face serious health risks resulting from the transmission of communicable diseases, including HIV and hepatitis C.⁸³ However, in Canada, women and Aboriginal persons have been identified as vulnerable populations for contracting HIV and hepatitis C. Women who work in the sex trade, or have unprotected sex with intravenous drug users are particularly at risk. Sixty-five per cent of HIV transmission to Aboriginal women in the general population results from intravenous drug use.⁸⁴ Based on this, it is not surprising that the rate of HIV infection among federally sentenced women is higher than that of their male counterparts, and higher than that of women in the general population. Infection rates among offenders serving federal sentences may be even higher than reported because not all of them have been tested. There are no data available on the rates of HIV and hepatitis C infection among Aboriginal women offenders. Nor is risk factor information such as intravenous drug use by offenders collected. However, it is reasonable to assume that trends and risk profiles among federally sentenced women are similar to those in the general population.

This means that federally sentenced women who are both Aboriginal and intravenous drug users have an increased risk of transmission of HIV and other blood-borne diseases, particularly hepatitis C than do other offenders. Existing HIV education and prevention programs are not targeted to the special needs of Aboriginal women and this may be one reason why harm-reduction strategies available in prison tend not to benefit Aboriginal women as much as they could. Aboriginal women inmates say that access to relevant community-based programs and the involvement of more knowledgeable Elders might better meet their needs. ⁸⁵

Illegal drug use is a challenging issue in the prison environment. Substance abuse is a criminogenic factor for both men and women and this is the starting point for Correctional Services’ zero tolerance policy. Nevertheless, widespread drug use in prisons indicates that this policy has been unenforceable. At the same time, many of the risks of drug use are amplified in the prison environment as shown by several Canadian studies that point to the risk of transmission of HIV and hepatitis C from the sharing of needles among inmates.⁸⁶ In light of this, Correctional Service of Canada has implemented some harm-reduction measures such as providing bleach for cleaning needles. However, prisoner advocacy groups and others point out that bleach is “suboptimal at best in preventing disease transmission”⁸⁷, and lobby for the introduction of further harm reduction measures in prison, including needle exchange.

Although the utility of needle exchange as a harm reduction measure is supported by Canada’s Drug Strategy as a way to slow the spread of HIV that “in no way (leads) to an increase in drug use”⁸⁸, needle exchange in prison is troubling to many. For some, the idea of providing the equipment necessary to engage in illegal activity within correctional institutions is fundamentally at odds with a mandate to prohibit and reform criminal behaviour. The Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada recently recognized the Services’s obligation to make harm reduction measures available that are in keeping with community health standards.⁸⁹ However, concerned that a needle exchange program might compromise its zero-tolerance policy, increase drug use and threaten institutional safety,⁹⁰ the Correctional Service of Canada has not to date taken steps to implement a pilot needle exchange program.

5.1.1. A Human Rights Analysis

The high rate of drug use and HIV infection means that the lack of clean needles in prisons has an adverse impact on drug dependent inmates. Although sharing dirty needles poses risks for any inmate, the impact on women is greater because of the higher rate of drug use and HIV infection in this population. This impact may be particularly acute for federally sentenced Aboriginal women.

The human rights analysis starts from the fact that Parliament chose to include protection against discrimination on the basis of substance dependence in the Canadian Human Rights Act.⁹¹ Harm reduction measures are a benefit available to drug dependent persons outside prison. Denying harm reduction measures that are consistent with accepted community health standards to incarcerated drug dependent inmates exposes them to increased risk.⁹²

Discouraging drug use among inmates and enhancing institutional safety are laudable goals. These goals are undeniably legitimate and important in the correctional context given the relationship between drug use and criminal activity. However, it is not clear that limiting the availability of harm reduction measures that are consistent with community health standards discourages drug use among drug dependent inmates or contributes to the safety of staff, inmates or the public.

Drug use in federal prisons continues to be widespread and that means that inmates use dirty needles. Studies have shown that the availability of needle exchange does not lead to an increase in drug use,⁹³ nor does a lack of clean needles discourage drug use in prison, even first-time use.⁹⁴ Zero tolerance is currently unenforceable, and this fact is being tacitly acknowledged by the Correctional Service when it provides bleach for needle cleaning or creates drug-free ranges and houses.

It is unlikely that Correctional Service’s current practice of limiting the availability of harm reduction measures can be justified on the basis of undue hardship arising from safety, increasing as it does the risk of infection to inmates and, probably, to the public as well. The Federal/Provincial/Territorial Committee on Population Health has noted the risk to public safety that arises from the high rates of HIV amongst the prison population:

Large numbers of prisoners flow back and forth between the prison systems and the community. The presence of injection drug use in prisons and the behaviour of prisoners make it likely that blood-borne pathogens such as HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C will spread within that setting and to communities as well. Given the increased risk to communities from released prisoners who may have become infected with HIV, hepatitis C and other diseases while incarcerated, the prevention and treatment of harmful consequences arising from injection drug use in prisons represent important public health issues for all citizens.⁹⁵

A consideration of risk to public safety is currently absent from the Service’s policy limiting the availability of harm reduction measures. Best practices for human rights compliance require a thorough consideration of all risks to safety arising from the introduction of additional harm reduction measures. This is necessary in order to ensure a complete and balanced analysis of undue hardship.

Although some correctional staff working in institutions have opposed needle exchange citing a concern of increased risk of needle sticks, studies of needle exchange programs in prisons elsewhere do not support this apprehension.⁹⁶ It is not clear that a needle exchange would increase risk and, in fact, pilot projects elsewhere show that a clean needle exchange program may make it easier to control the number of needles in an institution.

Given the benefit of harm reduction measures for drug dependent inmates, it is time to explore the introduction of additional measures that are consistent with community health standards.⁹⁷ We agree with the recent report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator that there is a need for the implementation of further harm-reduction measures that include needle exchange. ⁹⁸

5.1.2. Mental Health

The mental health issues faced by some federally sentenced women are considerable and tend to be different than those of their male counterparts. Many women are survivors of prior abuse, and the present effects of that abuse may impact on their mental health. More federally sentenced women than men have received a diagnosis of mental illness (schizophrenia, depression, etc.), and the Correctional Service of Canada’s 2002 Mental Health Strategy for Women Offenders (hereinafter, the Mental Health Strategy) notes that women in federal correctional institutions have a higher rate of self-mutilation and attempted suicide than their male counterparts.⁹⁹ It is estimated that almost half of all women prisoners have attempted suicide at some point in their lives.¹⁰⁰

The gender-specific nature of some mental health issues and their associated behaviours require a gender-responsive approach. Among other things, this is what the Mental Health Strategy is intended to deliver. The Mental Health Strategy promises a coordinated continuum of care based on five key principles: wellness, access, women-centered, client participation and least restrictive means. ¹⁰¹

The high incidence of self-mutilation and previous suicide attempts among women inmates can be indicators of problems that are intensified for some women in the correctional environment. Maximum security women who harm themselves and some medium and minimum security women incarcerated in the Structured Living Environment receive Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT). This form of therapy targets the development of skills to identify and change behavioural, emotional and thinking patterns associated with significant problems in daily living. However, research has shown that for some women, self-abusive behaviour is a way of surviving the emotional pain and distress which is rooted in traumatic childhood and adult experiences of abuse and violence.¹⁰² This is one of the reasons why prisoners’ rights advocates and others have questioned the appropriateness of the therapy in cases where women are harming themselves primarily as a means of coping with the distress caused by incarceration.¹⁰³ Instead they advocate more effective interventions such as peer support, training that continues into the community, harm reduction measures and non-judgmental counselling.¹⁰⁴

Psychological counselling is one way of addressing mental health issues. According to federally sentenced women, individual counselling has proven helpful in dealing with the effects of past physical and sexual abuse.¹⁰⁵

The Correctional Service of Canada has acknowledged the importance of access to counselling in its Mental Health Strategy, noting that “[p]sychological and individual counselling services should be available on a voluntary basis to deal with personal issues”, although the Strategy appears to focus on the use of DBT not counseling for “intensive” intervention.¹⁰⁶ But effective counselling requires a relationship of trust and a guarantee of confidentiality, features often absent in the prison setting, where many federally sentenced women fear that whatever they say may end up recorded in their file.¹⁰⁷

Although the Correctional Service’s Mental Health Strategy recognizes the importance of counselling at least for intermediate care, women inmates at two institutions told the Commission that their access to the psychologist was restricted to eight to ten sessions per year. This was confirmed by a Correctional Service official at one of the institutions. Some women said the restriction was particularly difficult for them because they did not have enough outlets to deal with issues concerning prior sexual abuse and that this interfered with their ability to benefit from other programs. Some Correctional Service officials also said that many women are not ready for programming until they have begun to deal with the effects of past abuse. At the same time, we recognize that some experts in this field suggest that the development of coping skills should precede intensive counselling for past trauma and victimization. However, it remains important to provide support to women who articulate and demonstrate the need to deal with the present effects of past trauma and victimization. Failing to do so may create or contribute to the barriers federally sentenced women face to successful reintegration.

What we were told about the lack of sufficient individual counselling for federally sentenced women reveals a significant flaw in the successful implementation of the Mental Health Strategy. It does not appear to provide for a means of ensuring compliance with the services it prescribes. The same concern was raised by the Board of Investigation in its report on the tragic suicide of an Aboriginal woman at the Women’s Unit of Saskatchewan Penitentiary on February 5, 2000. “[T]here does not appear to be any action plan to either adopt or ensure compliance of the mental health strategy...” the Board said.¹⁰⁸ Nor was the Commission able to determine whether resource indicators, which determine the per capita ratio of psychologists to women inmates for various facilities, are adhered to in the regions. Wardens have some discretion to decide how resources will be allocated, and there are facilities that have too few psychologists based on the per capita ratio.

No matter how good a strategy may be on paper in responding to the needs of federally sentenced women, it is unlikely that the Correctional Service of Canada will be able to protect human rights without enough resources applied appropriately in carrying out the strategy. This will require resources and the proper allocation and monitoring of those resources. Although the Mental Health Strategy was first introduced in 1997 and revised in 2002, it has not yet been fully implemented due to challenges that include fiscal limitations and difficulties in recruiting qualified staff. Both of these barriers must be addressed by the Correctional Service and the Government of Canada.

The Strategy also identifies gaps in mental health interventions, including the need for research into the assessment and management of federally sentenced offenders with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD). The Solicitor General has expressed deep concern about the role of FASD in criminal behaviour and recidivism, and the Correctional Service has already begun work in this area in order to identify what intervention is required.¹⁰⁹ The Commission encourages the Service to give priority to this research so that assessment, management and programming strategies can be operationalized as soon as possible.

5.2. Supervision and Inmate Management

Women respond differently than men to supervision and conditions of incarceration. In some instances, women respond differently because of unmet needs, for example, needs stemming from earlier trauma. In other cases, women respond differently because they relate to others differently than men. The way women inmates relate to others prompted some correctional staff to describe them as needy and difficult to work with. More and better education and training of correctional staff would contribute to countering this perception. It must also be noted that not all correctional staff who spoke to us shared this view of working with federally sentenced women.

The Commission is concerned that a number of Correctional Service practices relating to the supervision and management of inmates may unjustifiably discriminate against women. However, this report addresses only two such practices, namely the use of male guards and segregation.

5.2.1. Issues Concerning Male Guards

Interviews with federally sentenced women suggest that harassment by male guards is not widespread. And some of the incidents reported involved outside contractors brought in to repair facilities, rather than corrections staff. However, in the Commission’s view, even isolated incidents warrant attention. Harassment is particularly devastating for women with histories of abuse. As noted in Chapter 1, more than 80% of federally sentenced women have such histories, and more than half are survivors of sexual abuse. This is why it is particularly disturbing that one woman reported that a guard had offered her leave passes in exchange for sex, and another woman told us that she was observed by male guards when showering and dressing.

Although the Correctional Service of Canada has implemented some safeguards to mitigate the potential risk of abuse and reduce the vulnerability of female inmates, incidents of harassment by male guards continue and inmates do not believe that the current grievance system will help them. One measure implemented by the Service is a protocol for front-line male staff working at women’s facilities.¹¹⁰ Among other rules, the protocol bars male workers from access to women’s living quarters when they are most likely to be showering and dressing, and night rounds are to be done by two guards, only one of whom can be male. However, a Cross-Gender Monitor appointed by the Correctional Service in 1998 to monitor implementation of the protocol found extensive violations of the protocol. And despite the interest of many female inmates in having male guards, her final report recommended that men not be employed as front-line primary care workers.¹¹¹

During our interviews, many women inmates confirmed that the protocol was not always followed. Fearful of reprisal, many of them did not complain about inappropriate behaviour by guards. However, many women, even some of the women who had complaints about violations of the protocol, wanted the male guards to be there, citing as beneficial the opportunity to see men in a positive role, to improve how they relate with them, along with an acceptance of the necessity of dealing with men on release. This information is consistent with the results of a survey conducted by the Cross-Gender Monitor in which 82% of federally sentenced women and 78% of staff supported the use of male guards.

Consistent with the Correctional Service’s gender-neutral staffing policy, there are currently men employed in front-line positions in all the regional facilities for women. This policy is supported by the union. The Correctional Service of Canada has also implemented policies and practices that seek to ensure that qualified staff are hired and trained, but advocacy groups argue that the selection criteria are ignored when male staff transfer to the women’s facilities and that the number of training days has been cut. Some prisoners’ rights advocates, including the Elizabeth Fry Societies, strongly argue that men should not be permitted to guard women.

5.2.1.1. A Human Rights Analysis

The deployment of male guards in front-line positions adversely affects some federally sentenced women because women inmates are more likely than men inmates to be survivors of sexual abuse.

 In some circumstances, courts have recognized that the psychological effects of some forms of intervention, including strip searches, may be traumatic for individuals who have been subjected to abuse and this effect can be particularly acute for women.¹¹² These considerations raise questions about whether the Correctional Service’s gender-neutral staffing policy strikes the proper balance between the right of male guards not to be discriminated against in employment and the right of federally sentenced women not to be discriminated against in correctional services relating to custody.

We start by considering why the gender-neutral staffing policy was adopted and its purpose. In 1989, following the decision of the Public Service Commission Appeal Board¹¹³ that ruled that there was no bona fide occupational requirement for a correctional supervisor to be female, the Correctional Service decided to allow men to work in the facilities for women. It is important to note the decision of the Appeal Board was based on the fact that the duties of the position in question did not include searching women or being present when women were being searched. Based on this, it appears that the Service adopted the gender-neutral staffing policy for non-discriminatory reasons rationally related to an aspect of its operations, the safe and humane supervision of female offenders. We must also note that the gender neutral staffing policy contributes to a benefit identified by most of the federally sentenced women we interviewed, the positive contribution of male staff to women’s rehabilitation. While leaving open the possibility that this positive aspect may prove to be outweighed by the policy’s discriminatory impact, its value signals the importance of looking for alternatives short of excluding men from employment at the regional facilities.

The third branch of the test asks whether there are any alternatives to the gender neutral staffing policy. As implied above, the most obvious alternative would be a prohibition against men being employed in front-line positions in facilities for women. This would result in a blanket rule denying men employment as primary workers based on their gender, although they could continue to work in programming, teaching, maintenance, supervision, etc. While such a dramatic measure may eventually prove to be necessary, the Commission believes that the Correctional Service of Canada must vigorously pursue other alternatives before impairing the employment rights of men in such a fashion.

To date, Correctional Service has attempted to minimize the impact of men in front-line positions by implementing a protocol, offering training and improving its staff selection process. We note that the protocol has achieved some success in mitigating the negative effects of the presence of male guards on women inmates at risk, but it could be improved. One woman inmate told us that restricting access by male guards to women inmates’ quarters between 10 pm and 7 am is not working: some women are in their beds before 10 pm and after 7 am. Extending the hours of restricted access from 9:30 pm to 7:30 am may improve the effectiveness of the protocol.

It is also imperative that the Correctional Service follow the protocol in its scheduling practices. During our visits to the regional facilities, male guards expressed concern about being assigned duties that were in clear violation of the protocol, while at the same time feeling powerless to challenge the assignment because of possible discipline or other adverse career consequences. The protocol should be amended to include protection for staff who refuse to perform duties that are assigned in violation of the protocol.

Other avenues intended to support compliance with the protocol need to be improved, including training and education. Although the content of the Women-Centred Training for front-line correctional staff in women’s facilities is very good, we agree with advocacy groups that an abridged form of the training should be offered annually as a refresher, and that taking the training should be a strict requirement for all staff transferring from a male correctional facility. This, coupled with making a clearer link between staff compliance with the protocol and performance expectations,¹¹⁴ would likely contribute to the protocol’s effectiveness.¹¹⁵ We recommend that the protocol be elevated to the status of a formal policy through the issuance of a Commissioner’s Directive or Standard Operating Procedure so that staff compliance with the protocol will become an integral part of performance appraisals.

5.2.2. Segregation

Segregation is an old correctional practice that is currently justified on administrative or disciplinary grounds. The Correctional Service of Canada’s power to segregate inmates on administrative grounds is set out in section 31 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It can only be exercised where there is no other reasonable alternative and where there are reasonable grounds for believing an inmate may jeopardize the safety of the penitentiary or a person, the inmate’s own safety will be jeopardized, or that the continued presence of the inmate in the general population would interfere with the investigation of a criminal or serious disciplinary offence.

There are good reasons to be concerned about the negative impact of administrative segregation on all inmates, but research shows that women are even more deeply affected by separation from the general inmate population than men are.¹¹⁶ Women tend to experience segregation as rejection, abandonment, invisibility and a denial of their existence.¹¹⁷ Segregation does not further women’s rehabilitation and it often jeopardizes a woman’s safety and mental health by exacerbating her distress. The devastation caused by segregation was made poignantly real by a federally sentenced woman who made a submission to the Commission: “This (segregation) has affected me greatly as now I see or perceive myself to (sic) being a monster and rejected.”

There are also indications that Aboriginal federally sentenced women and other racialized women are singled out for segregation more often than other inmates. Data from Correctional Service of Canada show that although Aboriginal women comprised 28% of all incarcerated women in February 2003, they accounted for 35.5% of all involuntary admissions to administrative segregation.¹¹⁸ Correctional Service officials and women inmates alike told us that, based on their observations, Aboriginal women are segregated more frequently and for longer periods. Data made available by the Correctional Service indicate that, as of March 31, 2003, one Aboriginal federally sentenced woman had been in segregation for 587 days.

This is of concern to the Commission because segregation imposes an even greater hardship on some Aboriginal women inmates than it does on non-Aboriginal women inmates as it may sever community ties, disrupt healing opportunities and diminish access to spiritual and cultural resources, practices and programming.¹¹⁹

Other women reported that there is a different standard for white and black women; for example, a white woman received 24 hours in segregation for the same action that resulted in a black woman being segregated for three weeks.

In her report Justice Arbour made a series of recommendations relating to judicial supervision of segregation or review of segregation decisions by an independent adjudicator.¹²⁰ These were echoed by the Correctional Service’s own Task Force on Administrative Segregation¹²¹ and, more recently, by the Office of the Correctional Investigator.¹²² Unfortunately, the Correctional Service has not adopted these recommendations, nor does it appear that reasonable efforts have been made to develop approaches to segregation or alternatives to it that reflect the needs and characteristics of women offenders.

5.3 Facilities

Although the new facilities for women offer many improvements, there is increasing concern about the negative impact of incarcerating women in multi-level facilities in which women at all three security levels are housed. Relatively few men are incarcerated in such facilities; there are only two for men, and 40 of the remaining 43 facilities house only one security level. Two of the three exceptions to this arrangement house minimum and medium security men inmates, and the third facility houses medium and maximum security level men inmates. In contrast, all federally sentenced women, with the exception of those incarcerated at the Healing Lodge, are located in facilities where women with all three security levels share the facility.

During the interviews, some minimum and medium security women expressed fear about sharing facilities with maximum security women, and some Correctional Service officials told the Commission that overall security was likely to be heightened because of the presence of maximum security women in separate locked units. Other minimum and medium security women were more concerned about the probable restriction on their movements, for example, some institutions may institute a pass system to control movement within the facility. Other concerns expressed by inmates included reduced access to the gym, the visiting area, the sweat lodge and health services because of the need to share these services with maximum security inmates. These concerns will tend to exacerbate an already stressful environment and this result may be difficult to rectify because of the lack of room to expand at many of the newly constructed regional facilities for women.

5.3.1. Minimum Security Facilities for Women

As noted in Chapter 2, there is only one minimum security facility for federally sentenced women, the Isabel NcNeill House. But inmates are reluctant to transfer there because of the threat of its closure, and when the Commission visited the facility in August 2002, it was not filled to capacity. Because there is no programming available at the Isabel McNeill House, most women transfer there because of the employment opportunities. Unfortunately, it appeared that most of the jobs available were low-skill positions such as cleaners and cashiers.

The lack of minimum security facilities for federally sentenced women prevents them from being incarcerated in the least restrictive conditions possible as required by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It also means that the Correctional Service of Canada’s policy of not fencing the perimeter of a minimum security institution and of regulating the movement and association of inmates with little or no staff supervision is observed in facilities for men but not in those for women.¹²³ Thus, minimum security women live with physical barriers such as fences, locked gates, razor wire and cameras while their male counterparts tend to be housed in facilities that do not even have chain-link fences.

This situation is unfortunate, particularly given the relatively recent construction of the regional facilities. Consideration should be given to placing the minimum security houses outside of the perimeter fence. This is definitely possible for facilities such as the Fraser River Valley Institute, a former prison for men that is being retrofitted as a multi-level security institution for federally sentenced women.

5.3.2. Women in Maximum Security

Maximum security women are regularly moved out of their units to avail themselves of facilities that are shared among the different inmate populations. How they are moved from the secure unit is determined by a risk assessment conducted by staff using a four-level “movement framework.”¹²⁴ A woman designated level 1 can leave the secure unit in handcuffs, a body belt and/or leg irons with 2 staff escorts. Level 4 does not require the use of restraint equipment and requires only one escort.

In contrast, maximum security men inmates tend to enjoy much more freedom of movement because they are typically housed in single-level facilities. Such inmates do not wear restraints when moving through the institution and are not escorted by staff except in unusual circumstances.

By contrast with men inmates, women who are classified as maximum security tend to earn this designation because of problems with institutional adjustment, rather than because they pose a risk to public safety.¹²⁵ Many maximum security women have been reclassified rather than classified as maximum during the initial offender intake assessment process. Institutional adjustment problems stem from a blend of risk and need, which manifests as increased self-harm, fights with inmates and staff, and damage to property. Research and operational experience at the Correctional Service of Canada indicate that these behaviours can be a response to frustration, boredom, refusal to follow rules, problems with other inmates or a means of gaining control.

Despite the fact that the majority of maximum security women are labelled as having problems with institutional adjustment, the Secure Unit Operational Plan, which governs most aspects of the custody, care and supervision of maximum security women inmates, focuses mostly on how to control security risks, rather than meet needs related to institutional adjustment.¹²⁶ Indeed, the means chosen to control risk (physical segregation, controlled movement, etc.) probably increase women’s problems with institutional adjustment and thus reduce their chances of obtaining a lower security classification. Finding different ways to supervise and manage federally sentenced women might enhance institutional safety, as well as benefiting the women incarcerated in those institutions.
 

Previous Page

Table of Contents

Next Page