CAEFS' Response to the Discussion Draft Circulated by the Correctional Service of Canada Regarding the New Maximum Security Units in the Regional Women's Prisons (a.k.a. Intensive Intervention in a Secure Environment)
In addition to the detailed comments that follow, we also reiterate our pre-existing position of opposition to any and all prison expansion, our particular opposition to the development of these units and those that currently exist in the men's prisons, as well as our positions regarding the treatment of women classified as maximum security prisoners. Moreover, we encourage you to review CAEFS' position paper on this issue, which we published in March 1998. We particularly wish to emphasize the following points from that paper:
- CAEFS believes that all imprisoned federally sentenced women should be accommodated in their home regions in the regional women's prisons or at the OkimawOhci Healing Lodge;
- CAEFS opposed and opposes the construction of Maximum Security Units in women's prisons;
- CAEFS believes that the current CSC classification system is gender-biased, discriminates against minorities and people with disabilities and results in the over-classification of women (particularly Aboriginal women and women with mental health issues) as maximum security.
- CAEFS believes that women whose behaviour makes in difficult for them to integrate with the rest of the prison population could be managed within designated regular accommodation houses at the regional prisons with the addition of intensive dynamic security and especially enhanced and substantial interaction with properly trained staff.
- CAEFS believes that the rigid separation between maximum and non-maximum security women that currently exists and is forecast by CSC is inconsistent with the CSC Mission Statement, Core Values and strategies, especially in relation to the goal of successful reintegration into the community.
- CAEFS believes that meaningful programming, and especially the provision of meaningful employment, education and vocational training opportunities, is crucial to enhance the likelihood of community integration for all federally sentenced women.
CAEFS is extremely disappointed with the direction represented by the draft Operational Plan. In our view it represents significant retreat from the principles of Creating Choices and the recommendations of the Arbour Commission.
We believe that responses to problems and incidents in the women's prisons that are primarily security-based (such as the creation of Maximum Security Units) are not only destined for failure but are more likely to increase, than decrease, the incidence of violence and harm. We are gravely concerned that the very existence of these units will create a demand for yet greater levels of static security, which will in turn result in even further increases in the use of force and systemic oppression and repression - all of which will be to the further detriment of everyone who lives and works in the women's prisons. The spill over of these approaches will also further negatively impact on the broader community and will undoubtedly heighten public safety concerns.
Closure of Segregated Maximum Security Units in Men's Prisons
Although the establishment of Secure Units is linked to the closure of the segregated maximum security units in men's prisons, CAEFS remains concerned that there are some indications that some of these units may remain operational alongside the regional units. This would effectively increase the number of maximum security beds for women. We hope that this is not the intention of the CSC and seek your earliest possible assurance and confirmation of the closure dates for each of the units in the men's prisons.
Principles and Legislative Framework
Despite the title of this section of your plan, we are of the view that this section (pages 3 to 7) does not, in fact, contain a statement of principles to guide the operation of Secure Units. Moreover, we suggest that references to the relevant legislation should be included in a separate section entitled Legislative Framework.
In addition, we respectfully suggest that sections 31-37 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act( CCRA) (i.e. Those provisions dealing with Administrative Segregation) should be not only acknowledged, but included, as part of the legislative framework for the unit since women who are accommodated in the Secure Units will be administratively segregated in that they will be, "kept from associating with the general inmate population" (CCRA s. 31). In addition, we suggest that time limits and accountability mechanisms also be included in this section in order to guide staff.
As you point out at page 37 of the draft document, the CSC Task Force on Segregation discussed the reality that segregation is "a status, not necessarily a location". It is our view that the maximum security units that are being created in the regional prisons for women will create a segregated status for all federally sentenced women classified as maximum security prisoners who are held in such units. As such, CAEFS expects that the due process entitlements and other legal safeguards associated with the status of segregation will be applied to all women classified as maximum security prisoners, who will consequently be imprisoned in these segregated maximum security units in the regional women's prisons.
Roles, Goals, Evaluation and Performance Criteria
CAEFS is extremely concerned that the absence of clearly enunciated Principles and Goals will make evaluation of the success, or otherwise, of the Maximum Security regimes impossible. Surely the key questions for any evaluation must be whether the units have achieved what they set out to achieve (their goals) and operated in accordance with the principles upon which they were established? In this regard, we note that Part 6 of the Plan provides for "evaluation" of each Secure Unit on the basis of a group of questions that appear unrelated to any principles or objectives. We submit that such an "evaluation" process is fundamentally flawed.
If questionnaires for staff and prisoners are to form part of the evaluation process, it is our view that such a process should be only a part of an external to CSC evaluation of the effectiveness or otherwise of the regime against performance criteria derived from a clear set of principles and objectives.
Shared Spaces and Separation Issues
We note that the plan envisages that some women resident in the secure units may be able to access services with the general prison population. Given the design of the units and the thrust of the Operational Plan, however, unless there is extremely conscientious and insistent leadership on this issue, such "sharing" of facilities could end up being extremely rare.
It seems to us inevitable that as soon as there is any incident of friction between the maximum security and general population women (which we believe is unavoidable given the degree of partition that the plan establishes), maximum-security women will be almost completely restricted to the Secure Units. We cannot see any safeguards against this scenario in the document. Experience both in Canada and other jurisdictions indicate that this is the result in any high security regime.
We submit that in addition to the requisite one hour of recreational time, the plan should include a guaranteed minimum time out of the Secure Unit in order to permit all maximum-security women to access programs and facilities in the general population areas of the woman's prisons.
Who are the Women Classified as Maximum Security Prisoners?
Risk and Need
CAEFS believes that the current classification system and tools used by CSC are inappropriate for women and those they discriminate against women, especially indigent and racialized women, as well as those with mental and cognitive disabilities. Similarly, we disagree with the analysis in the draft plan, which results in a grouping together of "risk" and "need" as factors influencing security classification.
CSC's research on "risk and need" is based on circular logic that renders its findings extremely unhelpful. Basically, the research revealed that there were "consistent, reliable between-group differences" in six of seven "need domains" of maximum, medium and minimum-security women. We cannot understand why any significance whatsoever is attached to this finding considering that these "need domains" provided much of the basis for their classification on initial assessment. Certainly we reject the conclusion expressed on page 10 of the draft plan, that:
These findings suggest heterogeneity of female offender populations by security designation and imply that the assignment of security/custody levels is commensurate with risk and need.
Populations and Priorities
We note that different priorities are identified for three different categories of women classified as maximum security: General, Special Needs and Lifers. We are concerned that women with mental and cognitive disabilities (categorized as "special needs") seem to once again be subject to a regime that singles them out for the most restrictive and segregated forms of custody;
As we have articulated in previous discussions and correspondence, we unequivocally reject the CSC policy implemented last year, whereby prisoners convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison are automatically classified as maximum security prisoners for two years. For women, this means that they will segregated in the secure units for the first two years of their sentences, irrespective of the results of any actual risk analysis. This policy is unlawful and we will continue to assist efforts to challenge it.
Setting the Environment
We also remain concerned about the excessive emphasis upon "security", especially static security, in the introductory remarks to this section, and indeed throughout the draft plan. CAEFS is of the view that their needs to be a clear recognition that a security-based response to women's behaviour too often results in an inhumane response and consequent exacerbation of what are characterized as "behavioural problems". Paradoxically, this entire approach tends to increase, rather than decrease, any real or perceived risk of harm to both prisoners and staff.
We acknowledge that some of these issues are canvassed in the later section on Intensive Intervention, however we believe that the design of the units, together with the explicit condoning of the use of force, deprivation, physical and emotional punishment, strip searches and solitary confinement, throughout the remainder of the document is inconsistent with creating a safe and humane "quality care environment". Moreover, the term "security", as used in the document, implies static or repressive measures and therefore should not be considered as interchangeable with the term "safety".
Staffing
We submit that it is vital that at all times women prisoners should have easy access to peer support, as well as community-based advocates and feminist therapists and support workers.
Management Model: The Inter-Disciplinary Team
Given the model you have chosen to implement, we suggest that CSC's "inter-disciplinary team[s]" should include non-CSC personnel, especially the psychiatrists and/or other doctors that are working with the women, Elders, therapists, program and service providers and advocates, et cetera.
Operational Routine - Confinement to Cell
We note that the "sample daily operational routine" at pages 26 to27 indicates that women who choose not to participate in programs or employment will be restricted to their cells during the day, except for meals. This provision amounts to inhumane punishment and solitary confinement and is far from the "least restrictive measure" (s. 4 (d) of the CCRA) that might be employed by CSC. Furthermore, we consider that in addition to this being a direct violation of the law, it completely contradicts and therefore negates any commitment to the empowerment of women to make their own choices as articulated in Creating Choices.
Strip Searches
CAEFS opposes the strip searching of women prisoners. We will not repeat here our many reasons for this position, except to say that we believe that it undermines any attempt to create a positive environment where mutual respect and trust are possible and it re-traumatizes the many women prisoners who have experienced sexual assault. We especially object to the routine strip searching, according to standing order, that is provided for at page 32, as it violates the Charter protected rights to personal security of women prisoners. This reality notwithstanding, according to existing protections under the CCRA, strip searches are only permitted on a routine basis if the units are recognized as segregated units. Otherwise, strip searches are only permitted where there are reasonable grounds to believe that one is required to obtain contraband or evidence.
Movement
We are concerned about the creation of new degrees or sub-classifications within the maximum security designation and oppose the use of instruments of restraint on women prisoners as they move about within the prisons. The use of restraints on women classified maximum security prisoners will heighten their own emotions and reactions and will likely exacerbate and/or created an unnecessary climate of fear amongst the women prisoners who form the general prison population towards the women segregated in the maximum security units.
Visits and Family Contact
Given the reality that we know that successful community integration is usually directly linked to the nature and degree of community support and that familial contacts are particularly important in this regard, we find it quite surprising that the emphasis in these sections is upon reducing versus strengthening these ties. Moreover, we note that the draft plan contemplates the use of non-contact visits and the denial of private family visits "determined by the woman's individual risk assessment".
Non-contact visits and the denial of private family visits are especially inhumane and inappropriate for women and their children. Moreover, they are counter-productive to any re-integrative or healing goals whatsoever, and we note that no justification for these regressive steps, and no guidelines for deciding which women are to be denied usual family contact, are offered in the document.
Secure Unit Expectations and Rules
In our view the list of rules at pages 39 to 40 create and infantilizing and pedantic and set up expectations for the women only. There are no apparent corresponding expectations or entitlements which the women may, in turn, have of staff. Accordingly, it is highly unlikely that the women will identify with, nor, therefore, value them. As a result, they will be ineffective.
We suggest that new rules, if required, should be developed by the women in order to ease the strains of their daily co-existence, with each other and staff, prison administration, Elders and other community members with whom women might have regular contact. Furthermore, the review and evaluation of any such rules or guidelines should be conducted on a regular basis, in concert with the women themselves.
In addition, any such rules or guidelines should govern the behaviour of both the women prisoners and the staff. For example, both staff and prisoners could be required to show respect for others at all times. The women may need to be patient in waiting for an answer to their question, but staff should also be under an obligation to provide a timely response.
Similarly, prisoners should not be subject to abusive language, threats or violence; and staff should be encouraged top act responsibly and sanctioned when they fail to act appropriately in terms of demeanour or adherence to policy and the law. We also encourage CSC to implement the recommendations of Madam Justice Arbour with respect to the need to implement appropriate monitoring and sanctioning protocols and procedures to govern situations where CSC staff act inappropriately and/or outside the law.
Programs and Intervention Approaches
While we find much in your conclusion on page 48 with which we are in agreement, we question the central position accorded, in the draft plan, to cognitive behaviouralism, and particularly Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT), a treatment regime that we are concerned "individualizes crime and pathologizes prisoners" and may be used to 'invalidate women's legitimate protests and blame them for the failures of the prison system." (Dialectical Behavioural Therapy with Women Prisoners, Pollack and Kendall, 2001) These concerns are only heightened by the reality that the majority of the women classified as maximum security prisoners are Aboriginal women and/or women with mental and cognitive disabilities.
We share many of the concerns of critics of the cognitive behavioural and psycho-social treatment approaches. In addition, we remain sceptical about the accuracy or usefulness of the diagnosis "borderline personality disorder" (BPD), and a number of other psychiatric and psychological labels for women who are experiencing mental health problems, often after years of individual and institutional neglect and abuse.
We note that the draft plan cites a 1993 paper by Marcia Linehan to support the proposition that DBT is effective for individuals diagnosed with BPD (page 49). In our view this information cannot be considered objective considering DBT was developed by Marcia Linehan and that she has a commercial interest in its adoption.