Betty MacDonald

Executive Director, Coverdale Center

I guess I stand here to tell you that community corrections is the only effective means of intervention for female offenders. And the reason for that is that community corrections is the only form of intervention so far that is reflective of her experience, her crime. If you take corrections outside of the individual experience and environment, you are doing nothing and having no impact. The challenge is to assist individuals, corrections and communities to understand their role in criminal behaviour, to take responsibility, and be held accountable for those social problems that contribute to criminal activity. Community corrections makes both the offender and the community active participants in rehabilitation, reconciliation and restitution.

Research has shown that anti-social or criminal behaviour can be linked to experiences of violence. Female offenders, generally are undereducated, unemployed, physical and/or sexual abuse survivors, addicted to alcohol and/or drugs, single parents, dependant, and probably involved in an abusive relationship. Their life circumstances, along with feelings of guilt, fear, alienation and confusion combine to produce a group of women with extraordinarily low self esteem. As much as we recognize that self esteem building must be built upon violent behaviours, we also recognize that low self esteem reduces a woman's ability to cope, increases self destructive behaviour and can contribute to violence against others. Low self esteem reduces a person's ability to plan for the future, to take responsibility for her actions, and to believe that she can make meaningful choices that will her to live with respect and dignity.

Conversely, increased self esteem augments the ability to accept and express responsibility for her actions, those taken as well as future choices. Accepting and expressing responsibility for oneself promotes strength, creating a constructive cycle of empowerment. In order to have a sense of control over their lives, women need meaningful choices, options, programs and support that permit them to realistically pursue actions and goals that make sense to them.

Effective community corrections for women is based on a number of principles: individual choice, programs that are premised on the participants experience and environment, building self esteem through programs which help women deal with other needs providing a continuum of care, inter-agency coordination of programs and services working together to create a healthy environment that promotes personal healing and growth and recognition that an institution does not rehabilitate the offender. A woman makes choices to create a more responsible, self-sufficient future and rehabilitates herself if the resources are there. Alternatives to incarceration must be based on quality assessments. The period of incarceration must be incorporated into a community integration approach with assessments and programming implemented which focus on the return to individual experience and environment. Post incarceration support and program resources must be emphasized and available or it doesn't work.

The Coverdale Center in Saint John traditionally attempted to provide that service. We intervened with women at the court level of the Saint John Regional Corrections Centre and in the community, the whole focus being to develop an individualized action plan that reflects her needs, her desires. When you do that and she is able to pursue her goals, you also achieve the ultimate goal of protecting society.

Basically, community corrections looks at the whole person. It is the parental or responsible approach to changing unacceptable behaviours of members in our society. As parents we attempt to provide direction, discipline and love in a manner that reflects our financial means and is respectful of the individuals needs and desires. As a responsible society and community, we must provide options and opportunities for change that are within our means but still relevant to the individual. Taking an individual out of their reality in enforced programming is akin to providing the best hockey equipment, getting up in the morning and dragging them to a hockey game while you have big visions of another Gretzky in your head, when all the child wanted was music lessons. They are either going to drop out or they will comply. is compliance success? Maybe, who knows. But what is the cost? An opportunity for viable and significant intervention has become a reality of you doing all the work and the child feeling mediocre and less than. We are setting people up as failures if the programs do not reflect their needs.

We use the terms rehabilitate and reintegrate when discussing female offenders, but the reality is integrate and habilitate because it has never been done before. We don't put our children on time out with the view of them never re-entering the family, nor should we incarcerate our community members with a view of them never returning to the community. The goal is acceptable behaviour and as a community we must provide guidance, and options, and care that will invoke long term change that is reflective of the individual's experience. Fragmented programming, incarceration and enforced programs may meet our needs but will not invoke any long term change.

Community corrections is cost effective, individualizes treatment and it is holistic in meeting the needs of women offenders and society. These individuals will re-enter our community. We can offer those programs and options that create productive members or we can punish and harm. Community corrections represents an after the initial anger approach. Producing responsible, productive citizens is not an easy task for parents and the task does not become easier when we are talking about damaged adults. The need is essentially the same however. As a community the choices are ours to make. Will we take a holistic community corrections approach or punish and harm? What would you do with your child? Thank you.

‹‹ RETURN TO CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS

© 2007 Atlantic Human Rights Centre, St. Thomas University