CAEFS' Response to the Correctional Service of Canada's Proposed Mental Health Strategy for Women Prisoners (2002 draft version)

In addition to reiterating our previous submissions with respect to earlier versions of the mental health strategy, we offer the following comments on the content of the updated Strategy.

We suggest that the following two principles should guide the development of mental health services for women by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC).

1. Mental health services are best delivered in a community setting.

It is our view that women with mental health problems do not belong in prisons and that the treatment, support and assistance they need should be provided to them in the community, rather than in prison. Accordingly, while it is recognized that CSC cannot control who enters their federal prisons in the first place, any strategy must start with a clear recognition and acknowledgment of the manner in which the prison environment as a whole, particularly staff interactions and prisoner isolation, creates and exacerbates women's mental health concerns.

2. Health services should be delivered by community-based professionals service providers.

CAEFS believes that any treatment, support and assistance that women prisoners need should be provided by public and community-based health service providers, whose primary focus is the health of the women prisoners. Despite the best intentions of CSC staff, their primary focus is security, not health. The focus of the CSC's work with women is the imprisonment and community supervision of women sentenced to terms of imprisonment of two years or more. It has been our observation that the CSC is not well situated to assume the core business of delivering mental health services.

Given that the 2002 draft is considered an "update" of the 1997 Strategy, we wish to receive clarification from you with respect to the following.

• We question whether the validity of this approach is verified by external, peer-reviewed research and evaluations?
• Has the strategy been successful in achieving its objectives?
• Considering the last five years of its implementation, what changes does CSC believe should be made to the strategy ? What should be retained? What should be refined? What should be discarded? What should be added?

The 1997 strategy included a timeframe of three years for full implementation. Given this time frame, there should, in our opinion, have been an evaluation of the Strategy conducted by now. This should have included external evaluation. No such evaluation has been provided to CAEFS.