|
The Vantour-McReynolds Report sets out the objectives of
special handling units:
- To provide a safe and secure environment for the
staff and inmates of the institutions from which dangerous inmates are
removed;
- To provide a safe and secure environment for the
staff and inmates in the special handling units;
- To avoid the physical and mental deterioration
that accompany the long periods of dissociation which these inmates
have experienced in administrative segregation in the past;
- To provide inmates with the incentive and opportunity
for earning their return to the main inmate population.44
Objectives 3 and 4 are clearly of cardinal significance
in differentiating the special handling units from solitary confinement
in the SCU at the British Columbia Penitentiary, and the report develops
in some detail the strategy for achieving these objectives.
Realization ...depends upon the inmates’
opportunity for sensory and intellectual stimulation. This can be achieved
through the presence of inter-personal contact between staff and inmates,
through the provision of appropriate programmes designed to reduce periods
of isolation, and through access to activity spaces out- side the cell...
The inmate must have the opportunity to demonstrate acceptable behaviour.
This requires a process in which the inmate can earn privileges and advance
through the SHU to eventual return to a less secure environment.
The provision of incentives is the vehicle
through which acceptable behaviour is encouraged. All positive actions
should lead to increased freedom of movement within the SHU.
The above requires a sequence of phases
through which all inmates can progress from admission to release.
Phase 1 - Assessment
and Orientation
Every inmate admitted into an SHU must be assessed and oriented towards
the nature of the programme and an individual programme plan (WP) developed
for his stay at the SHU. The essence of the IPP is that each inmate can
evaluate his own progress whilst staff measure his development. This normally
lasts thirty days with the initial evaluation deriving from behaviour
displayed during the first two to three weeks. Formal data collection
is obtained from interviews. The individual programme plan is developed
for each inmate. The length of time for assessment and orientation depends
upon the behaviour of the inmate. Inmates refusing to become involved
are interviewed regularly at intervals until the IPP is developed and
the inmate demonstrates a willingness to participate. Uncooperative inmates
remain in isolation with only basic amenities.
Phase 2 - Self-Awareness
During this phase, an inmate is expected to operationalize his IPP. He
should examine his problems with his classification officer, his case
manager, and possibly with other inmates as identified by the case management
team. Contact with staff and other inmates is minimal. The inmate may
receive increased privileges within this phase. In order to progress from
Phase 2 toPhase3 he should identify his problem areas with the assistance
of staff and display a willingness to deal with them.
Phase 3 - Individual
Demonstration
Once progressing into Phase 3 the inmate is given an opportunity to deal
with his problems through dyads, group settings and individual counselling
sessions. Con- tact with other inmates and staff increases, privileges
are considerably extended in response to his cooperation and willingness
to reconcile his behaviour. Following extensive and regular evaluation
sessions between the staff team and the in- mate himself, the inmate’s
case is presented before the Regional Review Commit- tee for return to
his institution. Having achieved this he will enter into Phase 4.
Throughout each programme phase the privileges
and means of assessment must be known to both staff and inmate. Regular
reviews are carried out every 30 days, providing the Regional Review Committee
with data for semi-annual reviews. These enable the inmate to be aware
of his progress. Since progress through each phase depends on the management
team’s perception of inmate behaviour, the inmate must be made aware of
their perception and evaluation.45
The Vantour-McReynolds model envisaged prisoners being
organized in groups of no more than seven people to work with a case-management
team comprising a psychologist, a part-time psychiatrist, a case manager
(a classification officer), corrections officers, and other ad hoc members
as required. Each group of seven would be kept separate from other groups;
to accomplish this separation, the physical facility was to be designed
around interrelating spaces called ‘envelopes,’ defined as ‘a space surrounded
by a secure physical barrier through which total control of access and
egress can be exercised.’46
The report describes program activities, including one-to-one
encounters between the prisoners and staff, group encounters between prisoners
and staff, active recreation, passive recreation, visiting, and academic
or vocational development, and describes the graduated nature of prisoners’
privileges as they move from phase to phase. It is an essential part of
the philosophy of the SHU as set out by Vantour and McReynolds that all
opportunities to participate in programs are a privilege and not a right.
The programs are made available ‘to promote the development of acceptable
behavioural responses.’47 Thus such things
as cards, chess, and checkers ‘are all used for the demonstration of inmate
behaviour.’48 Similarly, ‘the provision
of any academic or vocational training activities in an SHU is strictly
to provide insights into the behaviour of the inmate and to provide an
opportunity for the inmate to demonstrate meaningful behavioural change.’49 Page 2 of 17
|
