About the process
Implementation of the measures was coordinated by the local intervention support groups (ISG) in the three pilot correctional facilities. These groups were at the heart of the intervention implementation process.
Some of the prioritized interventions involved only a small change in how the work was organized on a daily basis (e.g. holding a short team meeting at the start of a work shift) that could make all the difference, while others required a more major change in the workplace’s operations, such as reviewing, and if necessary revising, the new-recruit orientation process or staff training process. The degree to which these interventions succeeded was not related to the scope of the changes made, but rather to how well they met the workplace needs and attained the targets identified in step 2.
During implementation, some of the retained measures required a consultation process involving all the correctional officers. One such example was the humanitarian cause that the detention facilities decided to support for the purpose of improving the general appreciation and recognition of their role. The officers were thus asked to vote online in order to determine the humanitarian cause that the majority wished to support. Moreover, the interventions chosen had to take into account the conditions required for implementing preventive measures, including the contextual and historic factors associated with workplace violence in the correctional facilities. In a preliminary step, for example, we learned that attempts to introduce a policy to counter violence in correctional facilities had in some cases only served to increase prejudices against the person who had filed a complaint.
In other words, some of the victims risked greater harassment by denouncing violence because they were seen as breaking an “internal” or “unspoken” code that systematically condemned whistleblowing by co-workers. All these factors had to be taken into consideration throughout the development of the process and during implementation of the measures retained; otherwise, the proposed interventions would have run up against a number of obstacles.
AT THE LOCAL LEVEL:
Here is a summary of the three main categories of measures implemented in one or another of the pilot facilities.
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
AT THE PROVINCIAL LEVEL:
Certaines des mesures identifiées dans les trois établissements « pilotes » devaient être mises en place sur une base provinciale car elles impliquaient des changements touchant l’ensemble des ASC et des établissements correctionnels. Des projets provinciaux ont ainsi été réalisés par le coordination group (CG) : association with a humanitarian cause, le Club des Petits Déjeuners; improvement of the initial training process for new correctional officers; and distribution of correctional officer badges to all officers. These three projects were also designed to act on the main work constraints.
Monitoring of the measures implemented and the overall process was done locally by each of the intervention support group (ISGs) and provincially by the coordination group (CG).
Some of the key informants were interviewed about the implementation process in the facilities. The information compiled by means of these consultations and the monitoring forms developed within the ISGs et du CG led to identification of the .factors facilitating and hindering the process.