Workplace Review

Edmonton Remand Centre (ERC)

TLS Enterprises
Correctional Services Division, Alberta Justice and Solicitor General

August 2, 2019
Index

1. Introduction......................................................................................................... 1

2. The Process of the Workplace Review ............................................................. 1

3. Overview of History ............................................................................................ 4

3.1. Increased Staffing

3.2. Direct Supervision
3.3. Where ERC is now?
3.4. Process versus content

4. Overview of Analysis and Recommendations ................................................. 8

5. Respectful Workplace ....................................................................................... 8

5.1. Is it a Respectful Workplace?

5.2. Conflict Resolution
5.3. Harassment

5.3.1 Sexual Harassment

5.3.2 Racial Harassment

5.4. Gender differences

5.4.1 Sexualized Environment

5.4.2 Pornography
5.4.3 Limited Career advancement for women

6. Human Resources ............................................................................................ 22

6.1. Recruitment
6.2. Promotion
6.3. Retention
6.4. Acting Assignments
6.5. Sick leave
6.6. Overtime
6.7. Wage employees
6.8. CPO Training

i
7. Professionalism ................................................................................................ 33

7.1. Valuing staff input

7.2. Work Ethic
7.3. Personal Relationships
7.4. Rumours and Gossip
7.5. Social Media
7.6. Image of ERC
7.7. Would you recommend ERC?

8. Leadership and Accountability ....................................................................... 43

8.1. Training – Leadership

8.2. Accountability
8.3. Acting in Management
8.4. Visibility/Positive feedback

9. Union Management Relationship .................................................................... 49

10. Working relationships ...................................................................................... 49

10.1. Staff and Management Work Dynamic

10.2. Staff and Staff Work Dynamic
10.3. Building Teams versus “warm bodies”
10.4 Social activities
10.5 Supports to Staff

11. Building Trust ........................................................................................ 58

12. Conclusion ............................................................................................. 60

13. Recommendations ................................................................................. 61

ii
 Workplace Review: Edmonton Remand Centre (ERC)

July 3, 2019

1. Introduction

In 2013, the Edmonton Remand Centre (ERC) transformed in two ways: one, it went
from approximately 300 staff to the present complement of 806. At the same time, it
went from static security to direct supervision, which was a significant departure from
the way people worked and the expectations placed on staff.

Change in any organization is difficult but for ERC and the individual staff members, the
change was substantial. Much of the dissatisfaction in 2019 is a result of the extent of
the change and the way the change was managed.

Looking at the organization as it operates today, the problems are multi-faceted and are
not an easy fix. It will take time, effort, and some financial resources to make it the
healthy and respectful workplace it could be. This report will outline the areas in need of
repair, along with recommendations to fix them.

One factor was obvious in most of the 114 interviews – staff want change and they want
to participate in making ERC a healthy workplace. They want to be seen as
professionals, doing the best job possible, and they want to have input and feel that
their input is valuable. Given an overwhelming desire for change, improvements are
both necessary and possible.

2. The Process of the Workplace Review

In December 2018, TLS Enterprises of Winnipeg was contracted by Kim Sanderson, the
Assistant Deputy Minister of Alberta Correctional Services Division, to conduct a
workplace review of ERC.

According to the contract, the goal of the workplace review process was to provide
recommendations to create a positive work environment for staff at the ERC. The
purpose was to identify barriers/challenges that contribute to the operational and
performance concerns and develop recommendations to address them.

1
As a first step in the process, TLS Enterprises developed a communication strategy to
ensure that staff and management understood the objectives of the assessment. Staff
was told that there would be interviews and the interviews would be confidential. An
email was sent to all staff by the Assistant Deputy Minister and a follow-up email by
TLS Enterprises. Subsequent to that, a series of information sessions were held with
staff to provide further information and to answer their questions.

A series of interviews were organized. The intention was to have a number of staff
chosen at random from all levels and groups, a number of interview slots available for
people who requested an interview and interviews with key personnel, including
selected managers, union representatives, and people who had left ERC.

Chart A – Random vs Self-Select

Because the random participants were chosen from all levels and groups, their views
are more representative of the staff as a whole. People who self-selected were more
likely to have a concern they wanted to address so their responses to questions
differed. However, many of the remarks quoted in the report were similar between both
random and self-select.

Some groups (Program Services, Sentence Administration, and Administrative

Services) were put together under “Administration” because there were too few
interviews and if done separately, might identify the individuals interviewed.

2
Key personnel were interviewed to understand the systems and to inform the data but
their views are not represented in the charts in the report.

Chart B: Interviews by Gender

Number of People Interviewed

39%
61%

Male Female

Chart C: Interviews by Length of Service

Years of Service
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
less than 2 yr 2-8yr over 8 yr

Male Female

The majority of interviews were in-person, with five off-site and the rest on-site at ERC.
Some people were unavailable, were not located in Edmonton, or did not
self-select in time, so 17 individuals were interviewed by telephone.

Chart D: Total Number of Interviews

Random 44
SS 61
Key 9
TOTAL 114

Of the 114 interviewed, nine were key personnel or people who had left ERC.

3
A set of pre-determined questions was used as a guideline in the interviews. Not all
people were asked all of the questions, as the intention was to let the interviewees
bring up their own concerns if those were not covered by the questions. The intention
was not to have this as a formal statistical survey but as a way to understand staff
concerns and get their input into possible change.

The areas covered by the questions were:

 Work Environment
 Staffing Processes
 Working Relationships (staff/staff, staff/management, union/management)
 Harassment
 Respectful Workplace
 Conflict Management
 Leadership Style
 Social Media
 Resources to do the job
 Communication

Following the interviews, TLS researched existing policies, procedures and actions,
which had been undertaken to improve the workplace. As well, the evolution in ERC
from the old centre to the new one was examined through written documents and
interviews with staff involved in the transition.

Based on the interviews and the research, gaps in information were identified,
necessitating follow-up questions with some interviewees and some key personnel.

A final report was completed on May 31, 2019.

3. Overview of History

3.1. Increased Staffing for the new building

Many of the issues brought up in the interviews originated with the transition from the
old remand centre to the new one in 2013. In the transition, the staff increased from
approximately 300 to 806, and a major recruiting process was undertaken. 1 Many

1 Since April 1, 2013, ERC has hired 499 Correctional Peace Officer 1s (permanent and wage hires).

4
interviewees expressed the view that, in the goal to hire for the new centre, the
standards for new hires was minimal and some people hired were not sufficiently
qualified.

They believe that new hires who were not working out were kept on because the centre
needed “warm bodies.” Some believe there are staff members who do not have
adequate communication skills, who were interviewed on the telephone and may have
been helped by a friend to pass the interview. Interviewees indicated that in many ways,
this reduced their own sense of professionalism to see people hired into positions, when
they did not meet the standards of professionalism.

There is a perception among those who were interviewed that existing staff were
promoted to management positions, without much management experience or
leadership training. Some were given limited training but most did not think the training
was sufficiently related to the work of the remand centre to be useful.

Interviewees feel that this has resulted in having managers with limited leadership skills,
who do not know how to deal with issues as they arise, particularly related to conflict or
harassment. To date, the perception is that the general response to complaints is either
to ignore them, to talk the person out of filing a complaint or to move one of the parties
to another area. None of these is a lasting solution.

3.2. Direct Supervision

In the transition to the new building, there was also a major change from static security
to direct supervision. There were two units at the old remand centre working with direct
supervision, to start the change process. Some staff were sent to the United States to
see direct supervision in action; not all staff bought into the concept. In the initial days of
ERC, the lack of understanding resulted in considerable opposition to the concept, citing
issues of safety for staff.

Based on the remarks in the interviews, the opposition has diminished, perhaps
because of new staff and a greater acceptance by long-term staff. However, there is still
a sense that, in direct supervision, the inmates are treated better than staff. Some staff
feel there are more facilities for inmates and that inmates are given more of a voice than
staff, particularly in Use of Force incidents.

What has not been well communicated is the fact that direct supervision requires far
more professionalism and a different skill set than static security. The latter only needs
people to watch monitors, with limited interaction with inmates behind glass. Direct
supervision is far more complex and requires staff who can interact effectively with
inmates.

5
While most definitions of direct supervision emphasize the benefits to inmates, there is
an enormous benefit to staff who learn specialized and transferrable skills in order to
manage direct supervision successfully. The following definition from the U.S. National
Institute of Corrections defines direct supervision as:

Direct supervision combines two key elements—the physical design of a jail and
an inmate management strategy—to significantly reduce the problem inmate
behavior commonly seen in jails. Direct supervision jails focus on actively
managing inmate behavior to produce a jail that is safe and secure for inmates,
staff, and visitors.

Staff interact continuously with inmates in the housing units, actively supervising
them to identify problems in their early stages. They use basic management
techniques to prevent negative behavior and encourage positive behavior. Staff
assume control of the jail and establish a professional supervisory relationship
with inmates. There are no barriers separating staff and inmates in the housing
units.

The physical design of the jail supports the management of inmate behavior by
reducing physical barriers that impede staff/inmate interaction, by ensuring there
are clear sightlines into all areas of the housing units, and by incorporating
design elements, fixtures, and furnishings that promote positive inmate
behavior.2

This need for skills is important and should to be emphasized to provide a profile of
ERC staff as skilled professionals.

3.3. Where ERC is now?

In the process of the workplace assessment, it became obvious that the dissatisfaction
at ERC in 2019 is not a single problem but a variety of factors, and consequently,
difficult to fix with one or two solutions. Targeting individual problems and fixing them
one at a time will not address the fundamental cause of frustrations.

Both staff and management are under stress trying to deal with a multitude of
issues that go unresolved. How can ERC create an effective overall
organization where people feel valued and respected – an organization that is
secure, stable, and able to deal with emerging issues?

2 National Institute of Corrections U.S. https://nicic.gov/direct-supervision-jails

6
3.4. Process versus content

When solving problems, it is important to keep the overall goal in sight. What
people want (content) is, of course, important. But how do they want to get
there (process)?

Sometimes, in an effort to change things, leaders/organizations can forget that

the “How do we get there?” can be as important as - sometimes even more
important as “Where do we want to go?” Process is critical in empowering
employees and making them feel that their voices matter.

In moving towards a better workplace, it will be important at ERC to pause and

consider how to create a process that is inclusive and considers the ideas of
people at all levels. For example, an organization can decide that a certain
type of training is key for all employees, but if decisions about what that
training looks like, how it is delivered, who delivers its, when is it offered are all
decided by management, then the success of the entire initiative will be
jeopardized. People need to have a say in the decisions that affect them.

It was evident from the interviews, whether staff, management or union, that
everyone wants an organization:

 That has well-trained, dedicated staff

 That has effective leaders who model respectful behaviour and value
input from staff
 That has staff who feel valued and respected
 That has honest, transparent communication
 That has a fair and equitable staffing and promotions process
 Where staff are professional and treated as such
 Where there is no harassment, bullying, racism, or gender
discrimination
As the process of change continues at ERC, inclusion of all employees to the
greatest extent possible will help ensure that these goals are achieved, and
that trust and relationship building will be promoted through more inclusive
approaches to managing change at ERC.

7
4. Overview of Analysis and Recommendations

Although it is important to look at change as a comprehensive organizational

process, the following are the pieces of the whole that must be attended to,
while always maintaining a view of what kind of organization is needed.

 Respectful Workplace
 Human Resources
 Leadership and Accountability
 Professionalism
 Working Relationships
 Trust

Issues such as communication and resources to do the job are woven within
these topic areas.

5. Respectful Workplace

5.1. Is it a Respectful Workplace?

Interviewees were asked a general question about the workplace: On a scale of 1 to 10,
1 being the worst and 10 being the best, how would you rate ERC as a healthy and
collegial workplace?

Chart E – Healthy workplace

Overall Rating of ERC as a Healthy Workplace
30

25

20

15

10

0
CPO1 CPO2 CPO3 CSW Admin Management

Worst 0-3 Mid Range 4-6 Best7-20

Best 7-10

8
It is apparent from the chart and comments in the interviews that CPO1s were glad to
have the job and reluctant to be critical. Management was happy with the work
environment.

Chart E above indicates that there is greater dissatisfaction among CPO2s and CSWs,
with Administration a close third. The results for the CSWs is significant, given the fewer
numbers interviewed than CPO2s. While their comments are similar to other staff, some
noted that there is unresolved animosity between CSWs and CPOs.

Some of the CPO3s go against what a correctional services worker recommends

because they refer to a services worker as a "con lover."

(What’s wrong is) The management, the moral rift between a corrections worker
and a CPO2 because a corrections worker gets paid more and they use to be
CPO2's.

Overcoming the misunderstanding between groups would be beneficial to ERC as a

whole. Recommendations in this report include cross-communication to avoid building
silos, where staff are in opposing groups, not appreciating the roles of others.

Chart F – Overall Rating

Overall Rating of ERC as a Healthy Workplace

30

20

10

0
Worst 0-3 Mid Range 4-6 Best 7-10

Random Self Select

Chart F indicates the difference in responses from the people chosen at random versus
those who self-selected. It is not unusual for the responses from those who self-select
to be more negative than those chosen randomly, as people who request an interview
often have a concern to raise.

The majority of interviewees, even those who rated ERC mid-range at best, were
critical, with comments similar to the following:

9
 Lots of negativity, yelling shouting…bad words. Not from inmates,
sometimes from officers. So not a perfect, respectful environment.

No accountability for anyone…manager, supervisors, staff…if someone does

something wrong, lazy, it gets swept under the rug or glossed over unless it is the
issue of the month (address it hard for a month and then let the flavour of the
month issue slide). Two fold – one is the union and how hard it is to punish officers
when someone screws up, union then threatens grievances, lawsuits,
management backs-off because they do not want the hassle. There is no
backbone or consistency in enforcing things.

In general, it is a very stressful environment. Direct supervision puts a lot of stress

on the staff that is not helped by the situations we encounter with management,
since they do not come from direct supervision background then it is hard for them
to supervise us. So management issues and then just generally lots of health and
stress issues with the job

Negativity – sense that staff are really unhappy and it affects everybody when
there is poor morale – it can make every day more negative. And politics – there is
this sense of unfairness re: promotions and new positions, it all seems to go to a
certain group of people. Boys club here.

Some things that are really good – the hours, like the shift work, but not really ran
in a professional way. You see people if they are friends with managers, they get
to work in better spots. There are guys who get to work in different locations.
Some staff refuse to work where I work and somehow that’s okay, and yet I have
been there for years.

In the last place I worked if you had issues, it would be dealt with. Here you do not
know who to talk to and who to trust. There are rumours of a Boy’s Club. If you
complain, the CPO3 will send you right back. I thought I would only have to deal
with inmates. I have less of a problem with them than with co-workers.

Interviewees were also asked what were the best aspects of working at ERC. Most said
stability, the pay, and overtime. A number also mentioned their co-workers and
friendships as positive factors.

People made comments similar to the following:

Corrections is a relatively interesting field, good work, get paid pretty well, we
have a gym but not the best cause we had to buy all the equipment ourselves.

10
 Really good people who work here, even though it is a negative place they make
it more bearable…also the overtime, the option to work OT and a lot of people
benefit from it and it can be a big perk to working here…it’s a good government
job (good benefits, time off).

Challenging, interesting.

Pension, opportunity to advance to specialized units, the building.

The work; working with the inmates and many good co-workers.

ERC has a way to go to increase the positives and decrease the negatives around
respect in the workplace. But how can an organization change to be more respectful?

5.2. Conflict Resolution

It was evident from the information

An article by Paul Meshanko called What is gathered from the interviews that the
a Respectful Workplace and How Do you promotion of informal, effective conflict
Create One? says: resolution as a response to issues within
the workplace is lacking. It is a tool/skill
It starts with leadership. Leaders in
that most interviewees recognized as
respectful organizations encourage
employees to intentionally engage those something that could be helpful to them,
who are different; to institutionalize the on many levels, whether it is in their work
curiosity to explore differences and to with inmates or with co-workers, or even in
refrain from damaging, judgmental and their personal lives.
exclusive behaviors. Fostering respect is
not a program or project. It is a way of life What was also evident from the interviews
that must be clearly defined, with employees is that many people are
communicated and modeled from the top unsure what processes there are to
down. resolve conflict - even those who are
responsible for handling these types of
http://legacycultures.com/respect-its- issues (managers and supervisors).
that-simple/
There appeared to be little or no
knowledge of how to properly
triage/assess conflict in the workplace, and where to direct people for support in
resolving conflict. Generally, responses related to conflict focussed on people simply
complaining to others (gossip), or being told by those in leadership roles that they were
the problem if they raised issues. This was often communicated explicitly by treating the
person as an annoyance or implicitly by ignoring the person or by a lack of response.
While there is a process for resolving issues on paper at the ERC, the issues stem
primarily from those processes not being well communicated and properly supported.

11
Very few individuals interviewed stated that they had any conflict resolution training, or
that they were aware of any resources available to help them resolve conflict.

Chart G – Conflict Training

People who felt they had received

Conflict Resolution Training
25

20

15

10

0
CPO1 CPO2 CPO3 CSW Admin Management

No Yes

Some interviewees spoke of issues they had tried to raise but issues either remained
unresolved or in some cases, staff were portrayed as the problem for simply raising a
concern. This ties into the “rat” mentality at ERC, where the idea of addressing conflict
or naming someone’s poor behaviour is characterized as “ratting” out a fellow
employee. In some cases, the person experiencing poor behaviour from colleagues
became re-victimized when they were ostracized for attempting to shine a light on
issues that need addressing within the workplace. Employee behaviour sometimes goes
unchecked simply because no one wants to be labelled a “rat.”

It is important for ERC to train a majority of employees in conflict resolution. The training
needs to be designed in a way that makes the information relevant to the nature of the
role of correctional officers and their unique work environment.

5.3. Harassment

The following charts indicate that half of the people interviewed (men and women)
believe they had been harassed or bullied in the last five years. This included sexual,
racial and personal harassment, and bullying.

12
Chart I – Women Harassed

Females Bullied/Harassed in the

Last 5 Years

No
46%
54% Yes

Chart J – Men Harassed

Men Bullied/Harassed in the Last 5

Years

No
46%
54% Yes

Evidently, both men and women feel they have been harassed or bullied. A number of
interviewees remarked on CPO1s being harassed as a kind of hazing, and felt that new
people should be supported and encouraged, not harassed. Other related comments
were:

Personally, I have been harassed by managers. When I confront them, as I have,

I think it has hurt my career a lot. And I have seen them do that with others,
bounce them around the building so they remain detached, do not make
friends…seen that a lot.

If you try to start the (complaint) process they will ask you “Do you like your
overtime?”

13
 Had a supervisor whack people with files. This person yells at people across the
floor. There have been ongoing complaints with this person for the past five
years.

I was bringing up an issue with a manager that no one gets reprimanded and
said things get sluffed off. The manager looked at me and gave me the finger.

Our culture its difficult to go tell on a boss, difficult to get resolution…everyone is

a friend of someone else. It is like going to tell on your brother in the family, your
sister, and your mom and dad are gonna know and it makes it hard. It would not
be taken seriously…that guy does not want one of his friends to be disciplined,
cause he hired him or he is his friend. I am fearful to go with a complaint, cause I
know what the response will be…“Why are you coming to me with this,” anger
resentment from them. Makes me feel not respected cause I have no where to
go for recourse.

(As a manager) if an employee comes to me with a complaint, I do not have the

tools to resolve the conflict.

Interviewees were asked who they would go to if they were harassed. Most said they
would try to deal with it themselves, but were not hopeful that it would resolve the
matter. Some said they would go to their manager, and then the union, but they were
not confident it would be dealt with by either, or taken seriously. They said:

I would tell them (the harasser) off. Just deal with it myself; I wouldn’t make a
complaint because management wouldn’t do anything.

A number of people expressed the view that complaining about being harassed is
hopeless. Either a person is discouraged from complaining or doesn’t complain because
there is no point. Most said either A, B, C or D:

A. Management will not deal with it.

B. I was discouraged by management or union, and advised not to complain.

C. I didn't pursue.

D. I do not want to rock the boat.

Staff members were unsure what to do if the manager or supervisor discouraged them
from complaining. Staff needs training on what they can do if they are blocked from
complaining and feel that it is hopeless.

14
When asked if they had training in dealing with harassment, a number said they had
only the online course in Respectful Workplace but didn’t find it very helpful. One
interviewee said that he, and others, got the training up on the computer, did something
else, went back to it from time to time to press “Next,” and then got a “completed” at the
end. He said he didn’t read a word.

Online training for any topic that involves interaction between people is not useful.
Effective training requires discussion and application relevant to a corrections
environment. It did not appear that in-person group training has been done in this area
in recent years.
The policy on sexual and workplace harassment is clear on the responsibility of
managers to deal with harassment. It states:
All Correctional Services Division managers and supervisors are to take
appropriate corrective action to stop observed/reported harassment or
signs of a harassing environment (i.e., inappropriate pictures, posters,
jokes, insults, language), whether a complaint is made or not.
NOTE: Failure to take appropriate corrective action may result in
disciplinary measures.

In spite of this, only 19 per cent of interviewees felt that the harassment or bullying had
been dealt with satisfactorily. Many who believed it was resolved said it was because
they had dealt with it themselves.

Chart K – Was it Resolved?

Was the Harassment Resolved?

19%

81%

No Yes

Because change will take time and the lack of resolution is so ingrained in the culture,
ERC needs a temporary measure to improve the existing situation. There needs to be a

15
specific person identified that staff can go to in confidence and find out what they should
do, and also help them through the process if they ask for help. It has to be someone
they can trust, someone independent from ERC.

There was also an interest by interviewees in taking personal responsibility to make a

change. When asked the question “Would you take any action if you witnessed a co-
worker being harassed or bullied (based on race, gender, sex, disability, general
bullying, abuse of authority)?” – a strong majority said they would intervene.

Chart L – Take Action?

Percentage of Witnesses who will take action

No
5%

Yes
95%

No Yes

This is very hopeful – one of the ways to prevent harassment or bullying is for everyone
to take responsibility for stopping it, whether you are a manager or a co-worker.
Perhaps some of the interviewees may not, in fact, take action, in a real-life scenario,
but if a majority did, it would move towards normalizing the idea that mistreatment of
your co-workers is not funny, and it is not a way to engender trust or “toughen” people
up. Instead, it is a recipe for breeding mistrust, for isolating others and creating division
amongst employees.

5.3.1 Sexual Harassment

While Adult Centre Operations Branch (ACOB) has a clear policy about harassment of
any kind and most interviewees were aware of it, most also believe it is not enforced.

When asked, “Are you familiar with the ERC Sexual Harassment and Harassment
Policy?” The responses were as shown in the following chart.

16
Chart H: Harassment Policy
Overall Familiarity with
Sexual Harrassment Policy

13

70

Y N

While the policy is relatively well known, the corrections subculture trumps the official
policy and officers feel pressure not to “lodge complaints” against other officers if they
are being treated unfairly, discriminated against, harassed, or even assaulted.

Male officers have pushed me up against the wall and whispered inappropriate
things in my ear. When you are working out in the gym, guys will make
comments. If you say anything you are a bitch or uptight. You have to sit there
and take it. Upper managers told me I would be committing career suicide if I
wanted it addressed. I can’t imagine myself staying here.

There is sexual harassment at the ERC but no one speaks up.

I worked in (another institution) and I would rate that a seven. ERC has been
referred to as a "Beast of its own and super aggressive." I have seen women
coming to work here and leave crying because they were made fun of. New staff
gets ostracized.

I have had sexual harassment. I dealt with it personally. I had a guy who was
slapping my bum. Don’t do it again, I said. He didn’t do it again. It was a CPO, I
told him in front of others.

Staff are reluctant to complain, are dissuaded from complaining, or believe there is no
point in complaining because action is not taken.

17
5.3.2. Racial Harassment

There were only a limited number of interviewees from different racial or cultural
backgrounds. Consequently, there will not be direct quotes from them to avoid them
being identified. Their comments indicated that they had experienced racial remarks but
also felt they could not complain. Most said they were happy to have the job and did not
want to “rock the boat.”

5.4. Gender differences

Although it is beginning to change, corrections has been a career choice predominantly

for men. The practice of imprisoning people has evolved over the years. It has gone
from mere punishment and confinement to more of a focus on rehabilitation. The theory
is that with programs and treatment, those who have committed crimes will return to
society and become become productive citizens.

With this focus, new career possibilities have opened up for women, who traditionally
bring different skills to the workplace - skills such as empathy, communication, and
intuition. Over the past few decades, more and more women have been entering the
field of corrections.

ERC has also changed. The method of working with inmates went from static security to
direct supervision. Correctional officers have more face to face contact with inmates,
and safety depends not primarily on physical force but on communication, relationship
building, and clear boundaries. The aim has been to provide a healthier environment for
both inmates and officers.

ERC houses both male and female inmates. The female unit is covered only by female
corrections officers. The male units have both male and female officers in charge.

While direct supervision has great potential for integrating more women into the
correctional workforce and for making use of skills that both men and women can learn,
it seems that ERC has not made the complete cultural shift necessary for a healthy
implementation of direct supervision - not all correctional peace officers are supportive
of the new direction.

Traditional penal culture is an “alpha male culture” where power is equated with
physical force and inmates know who has the power. While some of the interviewees
thought that culture was changing, many identified the culture as “alpha male” and not a
place where women could thrive.

In workplaces that have previously been male dominated, and particularly those that
have had a top down, patriarchal management style, attitudes are often slow to change.

18
Women do not always feel that they fit in, unless they act more forcefully than their male
colleagues do. Many women felt that they were not always treated as an integral part of
the “team.”

Some staff, both male and female, observed women being treated differently than their
male counterparts. There have been incidents where they felt that a woman’s opinion
was not taken seriously and was joked about. They said it was an “Old Boys Club,” with
plenty of swearing and “locker room talk.”

One woman said she left ERC because of the work environment. She said:

Well, I was a victim of the “Old Boys Network,” being female and outspoken. The
network was in the old jail too, but some different players. Carried over to the
new jail. Left a legacy….It was like a battered woman syndrome, I kept trying and
getting shot down.

Although a small sample, other women interviewees who had left ERC shared this
viewpoint.

Understanding that men and women at work have different ways of functioning is
important to note. While the male culture is dominant, it may not be easy for men to
recognize the inherent differences in values and communication styles, but for women,
many feel like square pegs in round holes. They do not always know why their values
and ways of working are not appreciated, and some, feeling uncomfortable, leave their
jobs for a more inclusive environment.

The lack of understanding can lead to harassment or discrimination. It is important to

understand that sexual harassment is not about sex; it is about gender and power.
Harassment or discrimination can be based on a person's gender and can be either
overt or subtle. Interviewees talked about remarks inferring that women were not
intelligent and described hearing language and jokes of a sexual nature. They described
the difficulty women face in working in a predominantly male work culture, where
women’s values and ways of working are not always taken seriously.

5.4.1 Sexualized Environment

In interviews conducted by TLS, interviewees, both male and female, repeatedly said
that ERC is like high school, and that the atmosphere was unprofessional, in part due to
the lack of restriction on intimate relationships in the workplace. Two relevant comments
were:

There are a lot of relationships between employees that cause drama.

Management doesn’t discourage the gossip or the relationships.

19
 If you are a woman it is way harder to start here, more pressure to prove
yourself, also you are like fresh meat so you get hit on by a bunch of people and
that can be stressful.

Some thought this was okay. After all, many of them are young, single, and looking for a
partner who might understand their work experience. As one person stated, “Where
else do you find a partner who really understands what you do?”

The extent to which this dating scene dynamic has become a part of the work
environment is alarming. It creates havoc for co-workers and supervisors, and makes it
an uncomfortable environment for many single women. The professionalism in the
workplace is also diminished by lack of integrity shown by some. Comments were:

Young single women are being hit on by supervisors and fellow officers. It’s like a
high school. Someone dates you and then you break-up and move on to
someone else. Supervisors and managers fraternizing and hitting on
subordinates. They just move you to another unit if you break up.

My first week, as a female, there was unwanted attention on you. I worked in an

area where it was me and all men joking that I was attractive and it made me
uncomfortable.

It’s a shock at first the way the male officers talk. You have to have a tough skin
not to be offended. I’ve learned not to say anything. I’ve seen male officers
looking at inmates on Facebook, and officers flirting with inmates.

Women are not always the victims. Interviewees indicated that some women encourage
“flirting” and this lack of integrity affects the overall professionalism of women in
corrections.

5.4.2 Pornography

The stress in this environment is accentuated by the presence of pornography. In fact,

during the guided tour of the institution, TLS interviewers noted a photograph of a
scantily clad woman on the desktop of the computer in Central Control.

Some interviewees commented on the pornography, saying:

I have seen a lot of porn on the computers when we give tours.

A fellow officer…was being harassed about his religion. This one guy was pulling up
porn on the internet and forcing it on him. I complained and nothing happened. The
harasser is now a CPO3. They did nothing because he is one of the party boys.
That’s the way the system works.

20
The presence of pornography in the workplace is in fact sexual harassment and adds to
a disrespectful work environment for women and men.

5.4.3. Limited Career advancement for women

According to the chart provided by ERC, 15 per cent of the workforce at ERC is female.
However, the percentages of women working in roles such as correctional service
worker or administration are much higher. There are no women in Senior Management.

With almost half of the available workforce being female, 15 per cent seems significantly
low. It may be true that many women will not have considered corrections as a career
option. This could be overcome with an effective recruitment strategy that actively
dispels stereotypes and encourages women to apply. Having more women will help
develop the workplace into a more respectful environment for all women.

Both men and women also felt that promotions have been unfair. Numerous people
reported that in order to get promoted at ERC, you had to be on the Tactical Team (TAC
team), play hockey, or drink with the boys. It appears that the TAC team route is not an
option for women because men on the TAC team do not choose women as members
and according to the interviewees, the TAC team members have the final say on who is
chosen to join. If there is any truth in that, it puts women at an even greater
disadvantage since women are not part of any of those groups.3

Interviewees said:

Moving up is set in place by the boy's club. In the boys' club if you want to play
hockey, drink, camp, go to Phoenix this will help you move up.

There have not been any females on the TAC team since we opened here.
(There were at the Old Remand Centre.) Women do apply for it. There is access
to the TAC room from the female locker room so they were intended to be part of
it. It just has to do with preference of the team. Over the year there have been
quality female applicants that I’d rather work with than some of the males they’ve
chosen. There’s an alpha male attitude here. Some males think women can’t do
it. For it to be fair, it should be taken away from the TAC team being able to
select who they prefer. The TAC team is the pinnacle of corrections. It is a
deeper brotherhood.

It is a male dominated workforce where women who supervise are seen as

bitches. There is generally no respect for women here, generally little respect
amongst staff.

3 There is one woman on the Tactical Team but she is from the youth centre, not ERC.

21
This informal system for promotions works against women. There is also a perception of
some that the route to promotion for women is through their relationships with men in
power:

They promote very few women. The ones they promote are married or in a
relationship with men in power.

I will never get promoted because I am not in the Boy’s Club. I follow the book. I
do not sleep with them or date any of them. It is irrelevant how good you are at
your job or how effective you are.

According to interviewees, when women do get promoted, it is still the perception that
they are not really qualified but are there because of their relationships with men.

It is a popularity contest and who your friends are…not how hard of a worker you
are. And bad for women. They say, “oh it’s because of her husband, or because
of this” not just because they deserve it.

While none of these examples has been individually investigated for this report, the
limited number of women in senior management positions is indicative of a system that
has obstacles for women.

6. Human Resources

6.1. Recruitment

As mentioned previously, some of the concerns about recruitment arise from the
transition phase to the new building in 2013, when ERC grew from approximately 300
staff to 806 staff. Comments from staff who experienced the transition were similar to
the following:

On the changeover from the old centre to here: Within two weeks of moving here
we didn’t have enough staff. I had to do overtime for four and a half months on
Max pod. We had a lot of brand new staff who had no idea what they were doing.
I did double shifts in the building for four days. We weren’t supposed to fill-up
with inmates for several years but somehow, we got full pretty fast. We were on
forced overtime. It still happens every once in a while.

Hiring in this place to begin with was done very poorly and now we are stuck with
people who do not have good communication skills.

There is still concern about telephone interviews and the extent of hiring outside of the
province, which occurred in the transition. Telephone interviews are no longer done and

22
active recruitment outside the province does not happen. Competitions for new
positions are now primarily posted on the Government of Alberta website.

The history of needing people to fill positions quickly, which started in 2013, has
affected present day recruitment. Interviewees believe that the organization is prepared
to accept anyone, use only the minimum standards for recruitment, and management is
not interested in releasing anyone after orientation or during the probationary period
because of the focus on more numbers.

The Government of Alberta’s Minimum Recruitment Standards or MRS (the standards

that must be adhered to when screening resumes for all job groups) states that to be
considered for a CPO1 position, an applicant must have a High School Diploma and at
least two years of related work experience, or equivalent. The equivalency means that
an applicant could have Grade 11 education and three years of related experience or
Grade 10 and four years of experience. Applicants must also have a valid driver’s
license and be physically and medically fit.

The issue of minimum recruitment standards for correctional peace officers has been
brought up at a staff forum (a staff “town hall” initiated by the centre director) and the
director has agreed to enhance the requirements. There needs to be recognition that
the skills for the direct supervision model are different than static security. There is a
requirement for specific skills in empathy, understanding, communication and conflict
resolution, which needs to be reflected in the selection criteria for new staff.

In terms of releasing people after orientation training, interviewees believed that few
people were refused after the orientation training, 4 which is a maximum of seven days.
New CPOs sign the training checklist upon completion of the orientation that itemizes
the information studied in class and the documents issued. That completes the
program. Recent statistics show that only 16 per cent of recruits in the orientation either
leave or are not accepted. This seems very low, considering the fact that these numbers
include voluntary withdrawals. A more rigorous vetting is required to disqualify
unsuitable people and ensure only the best are hired.

In terms of releasing new recruits during the probationary period, beyond the
orientation, this is rarely done. According to information from ERC, since March 2017,
there has been only one recruit released during the one-year probationary period. As
one interviewee said:

4 Orientation is a maximum of 7 days consisting of four days unpaid classroom instruction and
three paid days of on the job training (shadow shifts). Reference is the Adult Center Operations
Branch Policies and Procedures.

23
 It’s almost impossible to terminate somebody. They do not want to let people go
even if they fail training. One guy was failed by three Field Training Officers
(FTO’s) and they just sent him to night shift. After that, his probation was up.

New people are assigned a FTO. It appears that the training program is not well
defined, nor is it monitored to ensure the FTO’s are following through. If the FTO
training were to be enhanced with clear expectations on performance, regular
monitoring by an FTO working closely with the recruit, and regular evaluations against
expectations, people who were not meeting expectations could be released sooner,
saving time and money.

6.2. Promotion

Charts M – Fair Staffing

Fair Staffing Processes by Group

16

14

12

10

0
CPO1 CPO2 CPO3 CSW Admin Management

Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent

It is evident in the chart that CPO2s and CSWs have the most concerns about staffing,
while management primarily rated the process as good, but not excellent.

24
Chart N – Transparency

Is There Tansparency in Competitions?

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
CPO1 CPO2 CPO3 CSW Admin Management

No Yes

It is also interesting to note that a majority of staff, except administration, said that
transparency is lacking when it comes to competitions.

Of all the issues discussed in the interviews, favouritism in promotions was the most
talked about. Interviewees had strong views about favouritism in promotions, acting
assignments and overtime allocation.

When asked what the three best and three worst things about ERC: Worst –
outright manipulation of management. – Both management manipulating things
and others manipulating them. The problems intensified (with management of)
the new centre and who has been hired to start there and who they hired. The
people chosen they did not have the ability to be in the position they are in. They
lack leadership, lack management style and skill, they lack education…lack
pretty much anything someone assumes a manager should have. They were
hired purely on who would be the yes men for (management).

The other problem is the boys club. This group goes golfing with managers and
some are on special projects. Those getting promotions are not right. If you get
promoted you should have to do an exam. The secondment program for the
CPO3’s has a process, but the mark you get is irrelevant.

I’ll never get a promotion because I do not hang out and fraternize with the
bosses. I don’t associate with them. You have to be one of their friends to get
promoted.

You do not get promoted unless you are on the TAC team or playing hockey. I
am losing my motivation. I was encouraged to apply for the TAC team but then I

25
 was turned down…I was told in the DDO’s office “You know in this building it’s
who you know and how popular you are that makes the difference,” So that
means I have to go out drinking – that is not my work ethic. My motivation died
right there.

Based on my perspective, if you want to do your work and go home - good. If you
want to advance/move-up - not so good. Moving up is set in place by the boys’
club. In the boys' club if you want to play hockey, drink, camp, go to Phoenix this
will help you move-up.

This is the perception. But is it the truth? It is difficult to assess the truth of the
statements without a thorough examination of past promotions, comparing the
successful applicants against the unsuccessful applicants. According to ERC, the
human resources person sits on competitions to ensure objectivity. The only evidence is
individual stories of interviewees who participated in a competition and did not get the
promotion. But were there other factors? It is not possible to know.

The perception of favouritism; however, must be taken into consideration. People who
perceive favouritism do not feel they can advance at ERC and become discouraged.
The extent of this perception was enormous, with over half of the interviewees believing
that there is favouritism. In understanding people’s perceptions, it is possible to develop
strategies to overcome negative perceptions and develop a positive workplace, where
everyone feels valued. It cannot be ignored.5

ERC needs to take measures

to overcome the negative In an article on Leadership and Perception, consultant
perception of promotions. Mike Myatt writes:

Going forward, staff members
need to see that steps have
been taken to ensure
fairness, both in positions
higher than CPO3 and in
CPO3 competitions. For the
former (higher than CPO3),
the director has to sit on
senior competitions, for at
least two years. For the latter
(CPO3 positions), there
needs to be a respected
The bottom line is great leaders take the time to
understand the various constituencies and spheres of
influence they come in contact with. “My way or the
highway” thinking, and/or positional dictatorships
rarely create the culture and performance
demonstrated by winning organizations. Whether you
agree or disagree is not the point – the point is
understanding the perceptions of others affords you a
source of intelligence, a learning opportunity, and the
ability to keep lines of communication open.

5 Quote from Leadership and Perception by Mike Myatt http://hub.n2growth.com/?s=perception

26
member of upper management or a respected member of the corrections community,
outside of ERC.

Whether perception or reality, having objective people on the hiring boards will work
towards restoring faith in the process.

There were concerns raised not only about the hiring boards, but also about how
people found out about promotions and whether the whole process was transparent.
Opportunities must be posted in a central place and circulated to staff, far enough in
advance so that people who are not on shift, are able to have the information. And, of
course, staff members need to look at and read their emails (some people missed
competitions because they did look!).

6.3. Retention

Voluntarily Leave Transfer out

2016 62 25
2017 53 10
2018 39 18

Retention numbers are improving. It would be useful to track who is leaving and why. Is
it first year employees or longer term employees who are leaving? Are more women,
proportionally, than men leaving, or visible minority staff?

Some organizations do exit interviews to find out why, but employees are often not
anxious to be critical or “burn any bridges” so the information is not always helpful, but
is still worth considering.

In doing interviews for this workplace assessment, it was particularly noticeable that the
women who had left ERC did so because they considered ERC to be an unsupportive
environment, where women were unable to get promotions or acting positions.

While recruiting new people is important, retaining existing ones is even more so, as
these are individuals with whom ERC has invested time and training.

How do you retain employees? You make it the best possible workplace where,
expectations are clear, people are held accountable and input is sought. It should also
be a place where they can see that they can develop and learn new skills and can have
a career path within ERC.

27
One of the ways is to give employees regular feedback and to talk about training needs
and career paths through the performance appraisal system. At ERC the system does
not appear to be working effectively. People said:

In general, management does not say you are doing good. If doing bad you will
hear about it. As to the appraisal, I write my own and the manager signs it.

I have not had a work assessment in over five years.

I do not get assessments.

It is supposed to be annually but I have only talked with my ADD twice in the past
six and half years.

My last assessment on file was in 2009.

New staff had comments similar to this one:

I am happy with my career progression and opportunities. They judge me based on

my work performance, so I’m so happy with this.

It is apparent that there are gaps in following through on performance evaluations. They
are not consistently done. Having a person writing their own evaluation is not helpful.
Most people are anxious to have constructive feedback so they can learn and grow.
They want to know what the opportunities for advancement are and what they need to
do to be considered. Performance evaluations can be a dynamic tool in developing
people and it needs to be taken seriously.

A meaningful evaluation process provides feedback to the employee and is an

opportunity to discuss how the employer can better support the employee. It also
provides an opportunity to more formally acknowledge the work being done, another
area where people raised some concerns. This can lead to better retention and
employee engagement.

6.4. Acting Assignments

(Note: There are concerns that there are too many acting assignments and people in
acting management positions are reluctant to hold subordinates accountable or enforce
the rules, but that will be discussed under management.)

Interviewees were asked about the fairness of acting assignments. While the responses
were generally similar to those in promotions (friends helping friends), a number were
hopeful that change was happening. Comments such as:

28
 As to recruitment upwards, (the director) has been trying to put in a system (CPO3
acting), which is fairer.

Generally, administrative staff saw the system as transparent with comments like:

Mostly, it is transparent, as far as our office goes. For administration, they seem
fairly open re: what you are going to be doing and what your work environment is. As
a new staff member, the postings are on the board and easy to find, and also emails
from management re: opportunities and acting.

There are positive developments but for most, the issues of favouritism and a lack of
transparency in the acting selection process are still problematic.

6.5. Sick leave

According to interviewees, ERC has a high rate of absenteeism. That has ramifications
for many other issues like overtime, acting and scheduling. Unlike vacations, sick leave
is not planned and requires scrambling to fill the position. One person said lots of sick
time means lots of overtime and that is a good thing for staff. However, most found it
disruptive to the workplace.

Comments included:

Some abuse sick time. There are no consequences. It drives up overtime.

People abuse sick leave and GI. They go drinking with staff when they are “sick” and
everyone knows but nothing is done. These are CO3s so they set the tone for other
staff.

People are calling in sick because they are pissed off at management.

We need to clean the night up. Everyone used to have to do two sets of nights; now
they are forced to do four. Lots are calling in sick so they do not have to do nights.
People who have not had to do nights because they know somebody.

There are numerous ways to reduce excessive use of sick leave. First, work towards a
healthy respectful workplace to reduce the stress. Second, build a team work mentality
(described later) where each member of the team counts on their team member to be
there. Third, have supports in place like Peer Support and, if possible, a counsellor for
staff. Fourth, hold those who misuse sick leave accountable.

What does not work is coming down hard on everyone, using the “broad brush”
approach to problems. Instead, identify those who have extensive sick leave. The initial
approach should be to find out if they are experiencing some personal issues. Are they

29
being bullied? Talk to them. Ascertain whether they have any obstacles preventing them
from coming to work regularly. Ask if they have considered counselling or need to take a
leave of absence.

Make sure there are supports in place to help staff overcome any personal or stress
related absences, like Peer Counselling or a trained counsellor available to them
(concern about the present Employee Assistance Program is addressed in another
section).

If there are no issues identified, let them know that future sick leave may require a
doctor’s note, for even one day’s leave. If leave is not justified, it could lead to
disciplinary action.

6.6. Overtime

Sick leave results in more overtime. Perhaps at one time, the plan may have been to
have a cadre of casual staff who could be called in at straight time, rather than overtime
rates, but now, wage employees are interchangeable with permanent employees. Was
that the intention?

A number of interviewees said that overtime has become expected by some and they
count on the extra income. Others would prefer to never have overtime. Without
adequate full-time equivalents (FTEs), ERC is required to use operating dollars for
overtime coverage, rather than regular staffing to cover absences. Until that changes,
overtime will be an expensive fact of life. Filling vacant positions and having enough
FTEs would save money in the long-term.

Many people believe that the assignment of overtime is another area were favouritism
takes over. Staff believe that this is done in favour of friends. It would be worthwhile to
track who is getting the most overtime and if there is in fact, favouritism in the
assignment of overtime.

Overtime is used as leverage by management. If they feel slighted you do not get
overtime. CO3’s get instructions from DDO to move people. Preferred people get
overtime. It is supposed to be based on seniority. Guys who are brand new and do
not know anything are doing overtime. They get double shifts because they are
cheaper to hire. Some people work five double shifts in a row and they are
exhausted.

There were some comments that overtime has been used as a threat. When there is a
complaint, the supervisor encourages the person to drop it rather than resolve it, saying,
“Do you like your overtime?”

30
This latter technique causes resentment from long-term employees. Staff see newer
hires with little or no experience getting overtime while people with more experience get
cut out of overtime (unless you are a “friend”). It also means that a person can be
working frequently with a CPO1 who has not had experience or the Induction Training;
therefore, they have concerns about safety.

6.7. Wage employees

At ERC, 86 CPO1s have their permanent status and 49 CPO1s have wage status. All
wage employees are at the CPO1 level and can compete for permanent CPO1
positions, but not CPO2 positions6. From the information available, it appears that wage
employees were originally considered people who could back-fill positions when sick
leave or overtime could not be managed with permanent employees. However, wage
employees have become a category of staff unto themselves. They are paid with
operational dollars and do not occupy an FTE position, but in most other ways, are like
permanent CPO1s without the benefits.

It is an odd system to have a substantial part of the workforce doing the same job but
without protection and benefits.

There is also inconsistency in how wage employees receive training or secure

permanent jobs. The priority is to train permanent staff first. Consequently, permanent
CPO staff are reluctant to work with untrained wage staff who have not had Use of
Force training, and do not carry pepper spray or handcuffs. This is discouraging to both
the wage staff and permanent staff.

Wage staff also question why, when there is a permanent opening, there cannot be a
competition for wage staff only to apply for permanent CPO1. In some competitions,
they are required to apply from the outside, like anyone off the street.

I am a wage status employee. People get hired off the street indeterminately and for
me I have to compete with people off the street for the same job.

If wage staff do not succeed in the competition, they can still continue to work as a
CPO1. But how are they not qualified for permanent CPO1 positions? How can
“unqualified” people still work there?

6.8. CPO Training

The education criteria for an entry level CPO position is Grade 12. With those
qualifications, they attend Orientation Training. The training is four days unpaid

6As explained by ERC officials, CPO1 is like an underfill of a CPO2, and people move up to CPO2 with
satisfactory performance.

31
classroom training and three days paid on the job training. Following that, 86 per cent
of the trainees are hired as either permanent CPO1 or wage CPO1, depending on the
type of competition.

The longer term Induction Training does not always happen right away. One
interviewee had still not attended the training after eight months on the job. Given the
limited requirements and the brief training, it is understandable that experienced staff
expressed concern about working with an inexperienced person, particularly when
there are only two people on that assignment.

New people are assigned a FTO. It appears that the training program is not well
defined nor is it monitored to ensure the FTOs are following through. Some recruits
rarely, or never, see their FTO. Comments were similar to the following:

They (new staff) can be flipping burgers one day and then they come here with no
training. They do not get partnered with their FTO and then they do not get to see
how they work. You will end up with two staff on a unit who do not know what they
are doing.

Here there is a disconnect between the trainer and the trainee (can be separated
within the workplace…not side by side training). You cannot teach from a distance.
You are not there, to correct issues that come up.

FTOs often do not see the person, do not take it seriously.

I am new and I am supposed to get feedback from an FTO. I email the person
asking how I am doing. I do not hear back and when I did it was from an FTO I rarely
worked with.

Untrained people do not help you feel secure. Some guys are too scared to come
out from behind the desk, others go in and heat up the unit and then leave. You
have to be able to talk yourself out of situations, be firm, earn respect. You do not
want a physical fight.

Looking at the topics included in the Induction Training, it is apparent that the
emphasis is on control, not on the skills needed to successfully perform direct
supervision as it is envisioned. Training needs to focus primarily on the skills needed
for direct supervision like communications and conflict resolution, with restraining
inmates treated as an emergency measure, not the focus.

32
7. Professionalism

The concept of professionalism is difficult to define. The definitions run from dressing
appropriately to being on-time. While those are all important, for the purpose of this
report, professionalism encompasses more than that.

Professionalism is having a work ethic where you are proud of what you do, where you
feel valued and value the ideas of others, where you treat staff and clients with respect,
and you value ethical behaviour for yourself and others. Honesty and integrity are
included in a definition of professionalism.

7.1. Valuing staff input

In order for staff to act professionally, employees need to feel that they are treated as
professionals. One of the ways to let them know that they are valued as professionals is
to solicit and listen to their ideas and consider their input.

Many people in the interviews felt that ERC is a top down organization with little value
placed on input from staff. Several people described incidents where they suggested
ideas, only to be ignored or shot down.

It was common to hear comments such as:

Top down. Decisions are made by upper management without all the information.

This lack of input inhibits change and the development of a dynamic and effective
organization. The staff forums hosted by the Centre Director are a step towards input,
but it also needs to be an ongoing process supported by all managers.

Interviewees also suggested that input would be increased if the senior and middle
managers were more visible, walking around and observing how things are done,
asking questions or engaging in conversation.

Valuing input starts with managers at the top and includes middle managers and front
line supervisors. A common mistake for managers is to believe that, because they are
managers, they must have all the answers. When a staff person asks a manager a
question, it is possible that he or she will not have the answer. But managers often feel
that, because they are the supervisor, they should have the answers.

To be open to ideas and input from staff, the first step is for managers to admit that they
do not always have the answers. Quite often, the front-line staff, working day-to-day
with inmates, has a better understanding of the dynamics. The role of a good leader is
to gather that information and to work with staff to find a solution to problems or a better

33
way of working - not to make an uninformed decision. The process of encouraging input
needs to be put in place.

An article by Hugh Arnold in The Globe and Mail, May 12, 2018, discusses this concept.

People today are not looking to their leaders to have all the answers. What
they are looking for is a boss who is genuine and candid, who values the
members of his or her team, respects their ideas and expertise, and who is
willing to listen to suggestions before deciding on a new direction or course of
action. A leader who…is saying "I have all the answers" is sending a powerful
message to his or her team that:

- I am smarter than all of you;

- Even though you may have deep knowledge and expertise, I do not
need to waste my precious time seeking out your ideas;

- I do not need your help;

- All I really need from you is to put your heads down and do what I tell
you.

That is a message that will guarantee alienation and disengagement – just

the opposite of what is needed for any team or organization to succeed today.

Successful leadership is about motivating people to do things that they

otherwise would not have done. In order to accomplish that, a leader needs
first to paint a picture of a future that the majority of people feel excited about
and are willing to commit to working toward. Then the leader needs to lay out
a process that the team will follow to allow that vision to be accomplished.
Finally, the leader needs to get people aligned in the proper roles so that they
can each contribute in their own way to the attainment of their shared goal.

People will not buy into a vision that has been imposed on them. Nor will they
go the extra mile attempting to implement a plan for which they do not feel
any sense of personal ownership and that does not incorporate their own
knowledge, experience and expertise.7

The first step in encouraging input is active listening. The second step is giving
feedback and letting staff know you listened and either acted on it or decided not to, and

7https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/leadership-lab/leaders-
dont-need-to-have-all-the-answers/article17376138/
34
what the reasons were. You cannot ask for input and then have the ideas disappear into
the ether.

This report is an example of staff voluntarily giving their input into what is happening
and how to make ERC a more respectful and effective organization. They will need to
know that the process was valuable and that their ideas were taken seriously.

The staff forums held over the last couple of years have been a place where input was
sought and given, and the updates shared with staff will be a signal that they were
heard.

7.2. Work Ethic

Most staff value a positive work ethic but believe it is not encouraged or consistently
role modeled by managers. Some of the comments were:

The goal is just to look good and to get ahead. Not to do good work.

My work ethic is way less than it was when I first started. Now I pick my battles.

They need to be accountable and hold people accountable. Hire appropriate people.
Accountable; they need to follow-up. People, they are not prompt, not attending
Muster. Not being professional, not acting professional.

It is a disincentive to staff to see that co-workers who do not pull their weight or who
have a poor work ethic are not dealt with, or in some cases even appear to be rewarded
for poor behaviour (e.g., being moved to certain posts/positions). Both minor and
serious issues are not dealt with consistently, and this again reinforces the idea that
there are certain rules for some people, and other rules for the rest.

On the proactive side, all staff in their performance contract need to have specific
expectations as to proper conduct within the current ERC workplace as a reminder of
what is considered professional behaviour.

Work ethic is eroded when some staff work hard but see that others do not and there
are no consequences. It is also eroded when middle and senior managers are not role
modeling a positive work ethic or are vocally negative about the workplace. One
particular concern that was raised was the extent of swearing in the workplace. This
negatively affects a sense of professionalism, particularly when done by supervisors
and managers. Managers need to engage in professional behaviour and hopefully,
others will follow suit.

7.3. Personal Relationships

35
ERC has a culture of permissiveness around personal relationships and dating. This
affects the professionalism of the workplace because of the rumours and gossip about
who is with whom. Both women and men said that new female staff are quickly rated in
terms of their attractiveness by some men and they are treated like “new meat.”

It is not that some of the women are not also participating in this dating culture. There is
already some opposition to women being in correctional jobs, and their participation in
relationships at work denigrates their professionalism, whether they are correctional
officers or administrative staff.

Why has this culture developed at ERC? It may be that many staff are younger, with
less work experience in other places and where this is not prohibited. It may also be that
stressful work environments create more opportunities for stronger bonds between
employees.

The only ACOB policy on relationships is on nepotism, which states that married
people, including common-law, cannot work directly for one another. But that does not
address the issue of casual dating. According to some interviewees, and this may be
rumour, there are senior managers role modeling the same negative behaviour.

One female staff person said she would not recommend a job at ERC to a friend
because:

I do not want them to experience what I experience. I would tell them not to work at
ERC because managers want to get into our pants. Managers have personal
relationships with staff. CPO3 females get their jobs because they slept with
managers. I would say if you are a visible minority, you would not have chance of
getting promoted or being treated well by management.

Our interviewers at ERC witnessed a female CPO in the cafeteria rubbing a male CPOs
shoulders and a couple in the hallway touching one another in an overly friendly way,
without any concern about who might be watching. It does not appear to be seen by
some as unprofessional for a correctional facility, but it is quite unusual and negatively
affects the professional image of ERC.

It has an additional harmful affect on the organization because some relationships do

not last and can sour and become acrimonious. Staff want to work separately from their
ex-partner. And, it seems this is often accommodated, disrupting work assignments for
the staff around them.

The ACOB policy is clear on married or common-law relationships where one person
supervises the other. It should also include provisions on dating between staff where
there is a power imbalance. Dating subordinates should be prohibited, as there is a

36
possibility of favouritism or a perception of favouritism. This could create liability issues
for the manager should the relationship end acrimoniously.

What is more complicated are consensual relationships between staff who are equal.
ERC cannot prohibit people from having a consensual relationship where there is no
power differential. However, ERC needs a policy that defines ethical behaviour about
relationships and particularly, what happens if the relationship ends. These scenarios
should not disrupt the work of the group or the promotion of a respectful workplace.

Other organizations have suggested some parameters on dating relationships, such as:

 Employees may date and develop friendships and relationships with other
employees—both inside and outside of the workplace—as long as the relationships
do not have a negative impact on their work or the work of others.

 Any relationship that interferes with the culture of teamwork, the harmonious work
environment or the productivity of employees, will be addressed by applying the
progressive discipline policy, up to and including, employment termination.

 Adverse workplace behavior—or behavior that affects the workplace that arises
because of personal relationships—will not be tolerated.

 Anyone employed in a managerial or supervisory role needs to heed the fact that
personal relationships with employees may be perceived as favoritism, misuse of
authority, or potentially, sexual harassment.

Some policies also define unacceptable behaviour, which include demonstrations of

affection that may cause others to be uncomfortable.

Examples of unacceptable behaviour:

1. Overt signs of affection such as touching or kissing in front of co-workers or

inmates.

2. Excessive exchanges of messaging or calls during working hours.

3. Discussing the relationship in inappropriate ways.

4. Personal arguments in the workplace.

The question remains, “What to do when a relationship ends acrimoniously?” According

to interviewees, the current practice is to move one or the other staff person. In a place
like ERC, there are already complaints about moving people as a way to solve
problems, rather than deal with the conflict. There are times when moving is the only

37
reasonable option, but the primary option should be to encourage the people involved to
be professional and to work with their ex-partner as respectful co-workers. As adults,
they need to have some responsibility for resolving the issues so they can work
harmoniously with one another.

7.4. Rumours and Gossip

Interviewees were asked if there were a lot of rumours and gossip at ERC and what the
impact was on the workplace.

A lot of the gossip is about co-workers dating and break-ups. This is not good for the
workplace.

It is like a high school. People bring outside issues into the workplace. Management
should deal with it but they do not.

Numerous interviewees said ERC was just like high school, rampant with gossip and
rumours. In answer to the question “Do you feel there is a lot of gossip at ERC?” the
response was overwhelmingly “yes.”

Chart O – Gossip

Percentage of People who

believe
there is a lot of gossip

4%
No
Yes
96%

What makes gossip even more harmful is the posting of information and misinformation
about individual co-workers. There are some who post on Facebook. This is sometimes
about managers and sometimes by managers. Not only is this poisoning the work
environment for staff, it can be dangerous to post personal information in a public place,
available to past or present inmates.

But rumours were not only about personal relationships. They were also about
organizational issues like who was destined to get a promotion, who was manipulating

38
the staffing process, who was a favourite, upcoming changes being made by
management, and similar workplace issues.

In doing this assessment, because of the depth and breadth of the rumour mill, it was
difficult to separate fact from fiction. Usually, the rumour mill is stronger if staff do not
feel they have information and therefore use their imagination to fill in the gaps.
Unfortunately, co-workers believe the misinformation. Better communication, more
transparency and trust can positively impact the extent of rumours.

Yes, there is always some gossip in workplaces but interviewees described it as

rampant at ERC, and that managers also participate. It may not be possible to eliminate
entirely, but it is possible to limit it. This is a place where all staff can make a difference.

7.5. Social Media

Having the right guidelines for the use and limitations of social media is a struggle for
many organizations today. For some people, it is a nuisance. For others, their cell
phone is as attached to their arms as their hands. They have a strong desire to keep in
touch with their virtual world every moment of the day. In a corrections environment,
that is not desirable or safe.

The reality at ERC is that although there is a rule prohibiting cell phones at work, many
people do carry them. The danger is both that CPOs are distracted and that there is a
possibility that an inmate could get a hold of a cell phone, with personal information
about the staff member and others. The rule is sporadically enforced.

Added to that is the concern about posting on Instagram, Facebook and other sites. The
pros and cons of connecting to social media at work are complex. Banning all forms of
social media everywhere may not be the answer. There needs to be a clear message to
staff about where and how to use social media, recognizing that a connection to the
internet is important to a generation of people. As one interviewee put it, “Management
needs to draw the line, but the work lives and personal lives here are intertwined.”

Comments from interviewees were mixed, with many interviewees not seeing cell
phones as a problem while others expressed concerns.

I understand our clients are inmates, but we are professionals…we should not use
swear words, and cell phone use is banned in the building…but I still see some
officers using cell phones on the unit. I know there are consequences if they get
caught. I understand during slow times they do not have anything to do so they
are watching movies. Nights may be less inappropriate, but days/evening seems
inappropriate. There are few people who will post improper stuff on Facebook etc.,
but the majority are pretty professional.

39
 People post a lot of things on Facebook at work.

Huge problems. You get mad at someone then some people post things. Officers
post things on Facebook about drinking. It is not professional. EPS is very strict
about this.

Access should be blocked; the no cellphone rule needs to be enforced.

There are issues because it leads to harassment and exposes people to being
harassed. People are having affairs and they post it on Facebook. No more
posting parties on Facebook, people are not cautious, it opens you up to critique. .

There were examples of staff posting inappropriate information or pictures on social

media – and it was damaging to others. However, interviewees generally did not report
widespread use of social media to damage people’s reputations. It was reported more
as an occasional misdeed by some people.

The use of cell phones and social media is evidently a concern for some ERC staff. The
issues for different types of use, while intertwined, are not the same and need to be
considered individually:

• Facebook and other social media. Posting information about staff, particularly
derogatory or hurtful posts is harmful to the workplace. The policy should more
clearly say that it will not be tolerated and will result in disciplinary action.

• Downloading pornography, racist jokes, and other offensive material will not be
tolerated and will result in disciplinary action.

• Watching movies. Is there any time or place this could be allowed? One manager
said he would rather have them watch a movie than fall asleep. Are books ok? Are
there other more productive ways to keep people’s minds active and awake that
would be acceptable, particularly on the night shift? This could be a consultation with
staff to look at options. Make a clear rule and enforce it.

• Cell phones. They should never be in the possession of a staff member working on a
unit, but perhaps they could be kept in certain approved areas for use during a
break.

There is a current Social Media policy but clarifying with more details for ERC staff
would be helpful.

7.6. Image of ERC

40
It will come as a surprise to no one that corrections overall has a difficult time projecting
a positive and professional image. Media and movies prefer to project an image of
“guards” being nasty to each other and to inmates. That is a big perception to change.
Without a strong sense of professionalism within ERC, and staff knowing that what they
do is important and worthwhile, the media view can be overwhelming.

It was unfortunate in the interviews to hear multiple times that ERC positions,
particularly CPOs, were not viewed as valuable long-term careers, but as “stepping
stones” to other jobs. This was said by a number of staff, including managers. And yet,
many interviewees had been with corrections for 20 to 30 years – obviously a career.

Building skills in the area of direct supervision could change this perception. Although
there were some concerns about security, many of the interviewees were accepting of
the concept of direct supervision. One person said:

My background working with on the street involved youth, I was trained to see them
as human. Inmates deserve respect as human beings but when you do, some
people say you are soft.

However, there was not an understanding of the career advantages for staff in working
with direct supervision, which requires far more skill than the notion of a “guard”
watching monitor screens behind a glass wall. One staff member noted, “We are not
guards, we are correctional officers.” The importance and use of a comprehensive skill
set for dealing with a challenging population should be a source of pride for correctional
staff and needs to be reinforced in training materials, training scenarios and by
supervisors and managers on the units. The direct supervison model recognizes the
skills that all staff need, in order to implement a different approach to corrections. If
implemented and managed appropriately, the direct supervision model at ERC could be
an example of excellence for correctional institutions in Canada and elsewhere.

7.7. Would you recommend ERC?

Interviewees were asked “Would you recommend a job at ERC to a friend or relative?”

Chart P – Recommend ERC?

41
 Recommend ERC?
25

20

15

10

0
CPO1 CPO2 CPO3 CSW Admin Management

No Yes

There were mixed answers on this question.

In the “yes” category, some remarks were:

You make good money; you learn a lot; opportunity in a large jail.

It is ok to work at the ERC. You have a chance to work with good people.

In the “maybe” category, remarks included:

A stable job, opportunities to move upward. If I said no it would be because of the

negativity. The negativity is people do not feel valued.

Colleagues are good and I have made good friendships here. Too much
nepotism.

As a stepping stone but not as a career.

In the “no” category:

Job is monotonous, it requires no brain power.

Inconsistency by management, the gossip and the fact that 98 per cent of issues
are not dealt with.

There is nothing good here at the ERC. I do not feel proud to put on the uniform
and come to work at the ERC.

42
8. Leadership and Accountability

8.1. Training

When ERC first opened, there was a huge need for managers and supervisors and
many existing staff were promoted. Training on leadership was arranged with
Barry Mitchelson, a professor from the University of Alberta. Although well received, it
did not seem sufficiently relevant for a corrections environment. Since then, there has
been no further training for managers.

Having well trained leaders is a key to the future success of ERC. Interviewees describe
the leadership as inconsistent, with a predominantly “power and control” model, rather
than a supportive leadership model. Comments were:

ERC not functional. "Functional” workplace means you see mentoring, teaching,
and worker support. How the workplace functions varies from shift to shift. The
director wanted standards but CPOs push back.

Lack of leadership at all levels. Good leadership is Be a leader, not a friend,

communicates, educates and shows trust.

All managers need leadership training. The ERC has to change the culture, "I am the
boss-now respect me.”

(There needs to be) leadership training for managers. We have too many managers
and not enough leaders. There needs to be mandatory leadership training by an
outside agency. Including ADD’s and supervisors.

We need improvement. This would lead to less turnover and less sick time. It needs
to start at the top. Hiring and training. Make people accountable. Make them earn
their position.

A lot of the negativity is not about working in a prison environment it’s about how
people are dealt with by management and how staff are handled and whether they
are supported or not.

43
Chart Q – Quality of Leadership

Quality of Leadership
16

14

12

10

0
CPO1 CPO2 CPO3 CSW Admin Management

Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent

Again, it is evident that CPO2s and CSWs have the most concerns about leadership.

There are good leaders, but the differences in leaders and the inconsistencies, make
the job more stressful for front-line workers. Building the skills of managers is essential
to getting input and new ideas from staff.

In an article in the Harvard Business Review, the author, Christine Poratti, says:

When it comes to garnering commitment and engagement from employees, there is

one thing that leaders need to demonstrate: Respect. That’s what we saw in a study
of nearly 20,000 employees around the world.

In fact, no other leader behavior had a bigger effect on employees across the
outcomes we measured. Being treated with respect was more important to
employees than recognition and appreciation, communicating an inspiring vision,
providing useful feedback — even opportunities for learning, growth, and
development. 8

As stated previously, ERC was built with the concept of direct supervision, which
focuses on building relationships with inmates, listening to them, empathizing and

8 https://hbr.org/2014/11/half-of-employees-dont-feel-respected-by-their-bosses

44
creating a positive environment. The same skills that are expected of staff also have to
be demonstrated by managers or leaders in their daily contact with staff. Leadership
rather than management is more sought after in today’s work environment.

The following are excerpts from an article on the difference between Leadership and
Management:

What is the Difference Between Management and Leadership?

Adapted from “The Wall Street Journal Guide to Management” by Alan

Murray, published by Harper Business.

Leadership and management must go hand in hand. They are not the same
thing. But they are necessarily linked, and complementary. Any effort to
separate the two is likely to cause more problems than it solves.

Still, much ink has been spent delineating the differences. The manager’s job
is to plan, organize and coordinate. The leader’s job is to inspire and
motivate. In his 1989 book “On Becoming a Leader,” Warren Bennis
composed a list of the differences:

— The manager administers; the leader innovates.

— The manager is a copy; the leader is an original.

— The manager maintains; the leader develops.

— The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on

people.

— The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust.

— The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range

perspective.

— The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why.

— The manager has his or her eye always on the bottom line; the leader’s
eye is on the horizon.

45
 — The manager imitates; the leader originates.

— The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.

— The manager is the classic good soldier; the leader is his or her own
person.

— The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.

Perhaps there was a time when the calling of the manager and that of the
leader could be separated. A foreman in an industrial-era factory probably
didn’t have to give much thought to what he was producing or to the people
who were producing it. His or her job was to follow orders, organize the work,
assign the right people to the necessary tasks, coordinate the results, and
ensure the job got done as ordered. The focus was on efficiency.

But in the new economy, where value comes increasingly from the knowledge
of people, and where workers are no longer undifferentiated cogs in an
industrial machine, management and leadership are not easily separated.
People look to their managers, not just to assign them a task, but to define
for them a purpose. And managers must organize workers, not just to
maximize efficiency, but to nurture skills, develop talent and inspire results. 9

Extensive training for management and supervisors at ERC in both management and
leadership skills is important. ERC needs consistent policies and procedures,
consistently applied. Managers need to be held accountable for managing people to
comply with those policies. And managers need to accountable and be seen to be
accountable themselves.

8.2. Accountability

Also high on the list of concerns raised by interviewees was the lack of accountability
overall.

What about accountability? There’s no accountability. Everything gets swept under

the carpet. They just move people, don’t deal with conflict or harassment.

9http://guides.wsj.com/management/developing-a-leadership-style/what-is-the-
difference-between-management-and-leadership/#
46
 Management sleeping with staff? Just look the other way. There’s a woman who is
a bully but nothing is done.

They issue rules and then forget about them and don’t enforce. For example, there
was a reminder of email about no sleeping on the job. I caught someone sleeping
and he just said ignore it. In terms of Netflix or internet, there are 2 problems. One
is that managers turn a blind eye and the other is managers don’t go on the floor so
don’t see it.

No one ever gets disciplined. A couple of guys left for 3 hours, everyone knew, they
posted having a beer on Facebook, but no discipline.

Upper management don't promote a safe environment. They don't hold people
accountable and there is lack of visibility of senior management on the front line.

As an example, there is a policy on cell phone use which prohibits cell phones on the
floor. They are a distraction but also dangerous if they get in the hands of an inmate,
who could potentially have access to employees’ personal information on the phone.
But everywhere, people have cell phones sticking out of their pockets or on the counter,
in plain sight. If not enforced, this leads to a belief that all rules can be ignored.

The impact of some people following rules while others are not is tremendous. The
ethical people wonder “why should I follow the rules if others don’t?” It spreads
unethical behaviour very quickly, until the rule becomes meaningless.

A lot of things, it goes back to consistency and accountability. Director here did an
audit of night shifts, and you had serious transgressions (sleeping, leaving post…)
and nothing seems to happen. Management is afraid to deal with issues, because of
having to deal with lawsuits or union. Even if they know there is a problem they don’t
really do anything about it.

For example, a recent directive has been sent out to remind all staff of the rule about
cell phones and that the rule will be enforced. If there is a rule, people have to be
accountable for enforcing the rule.

8.3. Acting in Management

According to staff, there are substantial numbers of people acting in management

positions. It is not unusual for people in short term acting positions to be reluctant to do
more than keep the seat warm, because they feel it is not their place to make
substantial changes. They may also feel that holding people accountable or any form of
discipline may be disadvantageous to them because, eventually, they will be returning
to the ranks and may have made a co-worker unhappy.

47
As interviewees said:

There is a problem with so many acting supervisors. It is like having a substitute

teacher. You know what happens then. Acting supervisors don’t know the issues on
the pod, they change frequently and they don’t know what to do. We don’t have
enough supervisors because people leave. And a lot of people are CPO 3’s off
acting as ADD’s. They are almost permanently doing this and they don’t have
someone for their position

A lot of CPO3s come from gravy gigs escort, central or A and D…where you don’t
have to deal with inmates. Without ever working a unit, particularly pod 2, they just
import people to act there and no one moves up. Normal way it goes – guys work a
unit for a while, then when the 3 is gone, they fill in…but with pod 2 none of the 3’s
want to work there so it is filled with OT or actings so nothing gets addressed
because they want to look like they know what they are doing.

Rotating supervisors can’t build relationships. Floating 3’s. Need a regular boss that
all 11 staff know what the CPO3 is about. They all want things done a bit differently.

Most CPO-3 s are acting so cause problems, they lack experience. ADDs, DDOs
and upper managers don't have much experience in management.

Acting can be useful for career development but too much acting can be disruptive to an
organization, because it is difficult for actors to build a team or to hold people
accountable. The solution is to reduce acting and hire permanent staff in a fair
competition.

8.4. Visibility/Positive feedback

“Walk the halls, do rounds, talk to staff.” a staff person

One of the simplest ways to build relationships and trust is to be visible. Any supervisor
or manager who regularly sits in his/her office day after day is not doing the job. Being a
manager is about building positive relationships.

Being visible can also mean going to the gym, having lunch in the cafeteria, and going
to social events organized for staff (but for the latter, limited time and be professional).

A front line manager should know the names of everyone who works for him/her, even if
the are just working there for the day. At least a part of a manager’s day should be
spent walking around.

Talk to people. Listen to their ideas. Don’t make it a time when you only catch them
doing something wrong. Workplace management experts, Kenneth Blanchard and

48
Spencer Johnson, have suggested that managers need to invest time in walking
around, “Catching people doing something right”. Give positive or helpful feedback.

Positive or constructive feedback can be given in a walkabout, at a meeting, in the

cafeteria or as someone is going off shift. But “good job” doesn’t cut it. It needs to be
specific and honest such as “That was a very professional way you handled that conflict
with the inmate George today. You were really able to calm him down”.

People love feedback. It is recognition that you see them and that they are important.

9. Union / Management Relationship

The relationship between the union and management was reviewed through a sample
of the union management committee (UMC) minutes, interviews with managers and
union representatives. Staff interviewed were also asked about union management
relationships.

It appears there are quarterly meetings of the UMC and the topics are varied, but
nothing related to staff morale or professionalism. It is important that the Director
attends union management meetings as it is seen as a way to develop a collegial
working relationship between union and management.

A collaborative union/management relationship can be a productive way of managing

change to the benefit of the organization. It does not have to be adversarial, although
the parties may have differing views on how to solve problems. Building a collaborative
relationship with the union can be a factor in developing a dynamic and respectful
workplace.

10. Working relationships

10.1 Staff and Management Work Dynamic

The following chart shows data related to the question “Which of the following best
describes whether the following are working well or not.” - Collaborative and respectful
relationships between staff and management.

49
 Chart R – Staff/Management Relationship
Excellent
Staff / Management Respectful Relationships
1%

Good
15% Very Poor
22%

Average
24%

Poor
38%

Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent

Over half of those interviewed believed that the relationship was very poor or poor.
Those more positive were new employees and managers.

Chart S – Staff/Management Relationship

Respectful Relationships between Staff and

Management by Random and Self Select
20

15

10

0
Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent

Random Self Select

Even separating out random from self-select, there was still a large number of staff
indicating the relationship is poor.

50
There does not appear to be strong positive working relationships between staff and
managers. Many interviewees cited lack of follow through and accountability, lack of
consistency between managers, favouritism and little positive feedback.

The divide is related to many of the topics already discussed in this report (hiring,
accountability, professionalism, etc.) Some of the most tangible examples from
employees regarding the disconnect between management and staff relate to day-to-
day needs of staff where their input is discounted and not welcomed, where decisions
are not explained and seem arbitrary. The result is a feeling of a lack of respect and
lack of consideration of the needs and requests of staff. These “small” things add up
and they do matter to staff.

When asked why they rated as they did, many said something similar to the following:

Especially with ADD's and DDO's, not good if they don't like you.

The CPO-3 supervisors are ok but lack consistency.

My encounters are good. But management does not give recognition.

If you are in boys club, better things happen and those managers are yes men. I
will say the program the 6-month secondment for CPO-3's has made things a bit
better.

I also heard that managers are telling others about issues that people have
brought to them (i.d.’ing the “rat” to others) so that’s a problem. No confidentiality.

Almost no positive reinforcement or kudos for anyone to identify strong work

ethic, diligence, awareness or recognition for doing a good job.

10.2 Staff and Staff Work Dynamic

The following chart shows data related to the question “Which of the following best
describes whether the following are working well or not.” -Collaborative and respectful
relationships between staff and staff.

51
Chart T – Staff to Staff Relationship

Staff / Staff Respectful Interactions

Excellent Very Poor
3% 9%

Poor
Good
14%
32%

Average
42%

Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent

Chart U – Staff to Staff Relationships

Respectful Relationship between staff and staff by

Random and Self Select
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent

Random Self Select

It is evident that interviewees, overall, felt more positive about the working relationship
with co-workers than with management. Comments included:

Because I feel within staff we bond together and staff you can go to if you have an
issue, more than management. Staff works together in a good way, but if there is a
problem, going to management to resolve it doesn't work, it either makes it worse or

52
 it doesn’t get resolved. Good with staff. Good plus actually. Socially we get along.
We aren’t a bunch of bullies.

I don’t hang out with the bullies and they don’t hang out with me. The bullies are
management here. My mantra is if you have an issue then talk to the person, then
go to management if you can’t work it out.

Others, in their remarks, did not feel positive about co-worker relationships. Comments
included:

It is eat or be eaten world in there…where there used to be trust and brotherhood

amongst the front line b/c it is beneficial to try to step on as many peers as possible
in order to get yourself aligned with management….right from the beginning of this
centre, they were being told in the class don’t trust senior staff and the junior staff
were coming and telling us this…so there was already this level of mistrust between
the front line staff.

Doesn’t feel different from other offices. Status quo of how that goes. Good for the
most part, but certain staff or groups don’t get along so sometimes the conditions
are poor.

When I first started, I was called to the office because someone complained about
me. It was gossip. My bosses listen to gossip from people who have been here
longer. I almost walked away. I’d like to see better relationships. The way I see it is
we are wearing the same uniform.

A breakdown of staff is 20% have relationship issues; 20% focus on promotions;

20% feel looked over; 20% just here to collect a paycheck and 20% are good
workers.

It is interesting to note that women were less positive about staff to staff relationships.

53
Chart V – Staff to Staff Respect
Respect Between Staff and Staff
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent

Male Female

In spite of the negative comments, interviewees in some other questions gave examples
of how they valued the relationship with co-workers. It was particularly evident in a
question about harassment, when people were asked if they saw a co-worker being
harassed, what they would do. Most would go and intervene, to help out the person
being harassed. That is an unusual response by so many. It likely speaks to the ability
of those even with vast differences to work as a team and protect each other, when
necessary.

People would like to have more camaraderie between staff and feel more like a team
member than a collection of cliques or independent workers.

As well, interviewees did talk about the differences in work styles between correctional
officers and other groups such as the nurses, the CSW and administrative staff:

Very interesting work environment. I feel safer working here than hospital where I
used to work. Every time I have an interaction here I always have a officer with me.
The whole team is challenging. We provide health care but can’t because of safety
concerns e.g. in lockdown patients can’t get their meds. Sometimes some people
don’t understand and want to do their job first - can cause conflicts. I have seen
improvement with entire group since I have been here. e.g. When I started it was to
***something missing talk to JSG, there was a medical emergency, they don’t have
much medical background so it’s hard to work with. But no, we have joint training so
we understand where each group is coming from…so we work better as a team
during an emergency.

54
Over time, organizations can develop “silos”, which are separate groups with different
functions who are isolated from one another. The more opportunities the non-
correctional groups have to work together with correctional staff the better – doing joint
projects, taking training, going to joint social activities – it builds positive relationships
and breaks down the “us and them” mentality, whatever the dividing line might be
(organizational hierarchy, approach with the inmates, new or experienced, men and
women, etc.).

10.3 Building Teams versus “warm bodies”

Many factors, both historical and recent, contribute to making ERC staff feel like just
“warm bodies”, not valuable professionals.

The transition from the old to the new centre, where ERC needed large numbers of
staff, using the minimum selection criteria and interviewing by phone, was translated by
staff as meaning that anybody can work in ERC. You don’t have to have knowledge and
experience. Interviewees would say that “You can work at McDonalds yesterday and
ERC today.”

They believe there is still a desperation for “warm bodies” that drives the selection of
staff and uses only the minimum qualifications.

It is believed that people do not get released from positions, even if they are not good
workers, because managers do not want to let people go when they need staff, good or
bad.

Added to that, the way work is assigned also contributes to this opinion. If there is a
shortage in an area, and they need a “warm body”, a person can be sent there without
any rationalization, just to fill in a hole. It is not about you, or how good you are as a
worker, but the need to fill a spot.

Other factors outlined in the report also distract from the feeling of being a professional
and being valued, like the lack of attention to input that staff may have or the lack of
ongoing feedback about the work they are doing and the lack of professional training.

This “warm body” mentality makes people feel unimportant. It has been suggested in
other areas of this report to value input, provide training, give feedback and listen to
staff. But there is an organizational structure change that needs to be considered. Can
ERC develop ongoing teams, where people are part of smaller units and develop
positive working relationships with their teams?

55
Some interviewees said that there is a group who work together and stay together and
even meet for breakfast regularly. They count on each other. If one is not at work, it
affects the team. There is loyalty to the team. There is camaraderie.

Right now, there is little of that loyalty to co-workers because there is so much switching
around and lack of trust. There is a general notion that the “bare minimum” is good
enough. Why would you do any more than that if you do not feel supported, if you feel
like those who don’t work or misbehave are not held accountable? Here are some
comments:

It feels like they just want us to be drones …they have this “shut up, you are just a
number and if you don’t like it we can replace you” kind of attitude.

Its a stressful job, when employees are doing something to increase morale they get
in trouble…feels like upper management just want to make us drones, don’t care
about helping us manage stress, keeping it positive.

10.4 Social activities

Opportunity to get to know your co-workers as “people” with families and to share
experiences builds positive relations between staff and staff and managers. It also
builds trust within an organization.

Thought should be given to the impact of social activities at ERC. There are two ways to
do this – one is to establish a place on site for people to hang out. Unfortunately at
ERC, there is no natural meeting place for people – the workout room is small and the
cafeteria is too formal for casual interactions.

Some suggested that there is a lounge in the administrative area which could be open
to all for social events or casual coffee and tea. There is also an outdoor space in that
area which, according to some interviewees goes unused, but could have tables and
used for an occasional staff barbeque.

Another way to build relationships with co workers is through organized events or

sports. Unfortunately, there have been some negative experiences at ERC where the
hockey team is seen as a clique of favourites.

But overall, the interviewees would like to see more social activities at ERC.

Interviewees were asked about whether they would participate in social activities.
There was a majority who said they would.

56
Chart W – Social Activities

Percentage of Staff Participating in Management

Driven Activities
25

20

15

10

0
Random Self Select

Yes No

The Peer Support group has initiated a few fun events, which were very much
appreciated by staff.

Some units or shifts have parties or do sports but it is sporadic and does not involve
everyone who would like to be involved.

People are friends outside of work. Each shift has a Christmas party it would help to
do more team building activities.

I play shinny. It’s a work thing. There’s a golf tournament. BBQs to raise money for
the Xmas party. They have draws at the Christmas party and all the prizes go to
their friends.

There is a Christmas party. There is soccer at breaks. Hockey but I don’t play
hockey.

Management needs to be supportive of social events by attending them and role

modeling appropriate behaviour, to show support. There are many ideas for social
activities, from barbeques to fund raisers for a good cause.

This is not to say that social activities are not taking place at present at ERC; however
there is room for improvement, for more diverse thinking around the types of activities,
and also a role for management to have a stronger presence.

57
10.5 Supports for Staff

Staff does say that there are more supports for inmates than for staff, such as better
recreational facilities, better counselling, better help with conflict. Many feel that the job
is stressful and can even lead to PTSD if people do not get counselling.

The only help they see is the Employee Assistance Program. A number of people who
have used EAP are critical and did not find it helpful - partly because it is mostly
telephone counselling but also because the people who are doing the counselling have
no idea about the workplace. It is quite foreign to them.

(The EAP contractor for ERC) is horrible. The government needed something…use
it as a temp program. We had an incident last week, Shepell showed up. Starting
opening wounds, the people who were there were wanting to talk to us, not her, she
was out of touch.

People suggested redirecting the payments to the EAP provider and instead, have a
psychologist or counsellor trained in PTSD with a contract with corrections, someone
who staff could contact confidentially and see off site, either on their own time or with
some kind of special day leave. That would probably be more cost effective and more
relevant. Perhaps a task force within ERC, with all levels and groups represented, could
be set up to explore options.

The Peer Support program was generally well regarded within ERC. Its role would be
more informal support and referring staff to assistance from community sources, such
as family counselling, addictions, etc. But it is important to keep its role informal, as
empathetic staff volunteers who have an interest in helping others.

11. Building Trust

There are not enough words to explain why trust is the bedrock of good leadership and
how it determines whether staff feel encouraged to have input, to put forward new
ideas, or to go to a manager with a problem and trust he/she will be supportive.
Everything that has been said so far depends on trust.

Much has been written and is available on how to build trust in an organization. As an
article in Harvard Business Review says:

As difficult as it is to build and maintain trust within organizations, it’s

critical. An established body of research demonstrates the links between
trust and corporate performance. If people trust each other and their
leaders, they’ll be able to work through disagreements. They’ll take smarter

58
 risks. They’ll work harder, stay with the company longer, contribute better
ideas, and dig deeper than anyone has a right to ask. If they don’t trust the
organization and its leaders, though, they’ll disengage from their work and
focus instead on rumors, politics, and updating their résumés.10

However, trust is a two-way street. Managers want staff to trust them, but they also
have to show that they trust their staff. It appears from the interviews that some
managers do; while others do not demonstrate trust. There will obviously always be
some variance within the organization, but managers need to learn how to be more
consistent in creating and maintaining trust within their groups.

ERC has a way to go at all levels to gain and maintain trust.

Say as I do, don’t do as I do (management). We are told to do things then it is only

followed sometimes…creates more havoc more tension and less trust in the people
who are leading us…

A small percentage of the ADDs and DDOs you can trust.

The management you cannot trust. Management is not consistent in how they act
and what they say. I do have a supervisor that is awesome and the other is not.

An article in Forbes magazine explains the quality of trust in leaders:

Leaders can no longer trust in power; instead, they rely on the power of trust.

New Leaders: Those who can successfully persuade others to trust them will
evidence certain behaviors:

 They themselves will be skilled at trusting, because trusting and

trustworthiness enhance each other

 They will be good at collaboration and the tools of influence

 They will operate from a clear set of values and principles, because
opportunistic or selfish motives are clearly seen and rejected

10 https://hbr.org/2003/02/the-enemies-of-trust

59
  They are likely to be more intrinsically than extrinsically motivated, and
more likely to use intrinsic motivations with others

 They will not be dependent on direct authority or political power.11

Although some managers at ERC are considered trustworthy; others are not. And the
ones that are not are the ones who show favouritism or manipulate systems to their
advantage. Staff are aware of who they are and that the favoritism and manipulation
has not been managed appropriately.

12. Conclusion

It is a reasonable assumption, verified by the interviews, that the majority of people at

ERC want change and are willing to be part of a change process. They want to be
proud of the important work they do and know that their work is valued and appreciated
and there is purpose and satisfaction to the work they do.

Is it up to management alone to make change happen? No – it is the responsibility of

everyone at ERC. Each individual can make a difference. There is a theory of critical
mass that says if 25 per cent of the people in an organization are willing to make
change, change will happen.

Working together, management and staff can make ERC the professional organization it
needs to be where people feel valued, safe and respected.

“Alone we can do so little, together we can do so much." --Helen Keller

11https://www.forbes.com/sites/trustedadvisor/2012/04/03/why-trust-is-the-new-core-of-
leadership/#15dcd450645a
60
13. List of Recommendations

13.1 Recommendations on Conflict Resolution

a. Create a well defined, widely communicated process for handling issues at work –
both informally and formally, and provide more in-house resources to employees to
help them resolve issues at the lowest possible level.

b. Establish a position at ERC to assist with conflict resolution. Identify a person for
staff to go to, to help them through the process. Ideally, this person would be
someone independent of ERC.

c. Provide in-person training to staff on how to deal with conflict, harassment or

bullying.

d. Reinforce with managers and supervisors that they have a significant role in the
resolution of conflict, at the earliest opportunity.

e. Clearly communicate the steps to make a workplace complaint with a contact name
and number to call. Share broadly through posters, conversations at muster, etc.

f. Track the number of complaints as compared to the last five years. An increase may
indicate that people are more confident in dealing problems.

g. At union/management meetings, have standing agenda items and follow-up on the

relevant recommendations arising from the workplace assessment. Ensure ERC
Director is a participant.

13.2 Recommendations on Training

Induction Training:

a. Induction Training should begin immediately, whenever possible.

b. Continue the unpaid classroom training but reduce the number of days, as many
people cannot afford to be unpaid for four days. The training should give the recruits
an understanding of what it is like to work with inmates in a direct supervision model,
to work shifts and to perform all the duties of a CPO.

c. Induction Training should be at ERC or with another institution that operates in the
same way. Training should emphasize communication skills, conflict resolution,

61
 cultural differences, empathy, etc. Security skills should also be taught but in the
context of emergency situations.

d. Following Induction Training, a recruit should have a mentor (or Field Training
Officer) who is trained in the skills required to be a mentor. That person should
consistently work closely with the recruit and on the same shift. The role of the
mentor is to clarify expectations, to help the recruit learn but also to evaluate
progress. If the mentor is not regularly preparing evaluation reports, he/she should
be released from those duties.

e. Recruits not suitable for employment in a corrections environment should be

released.

Leadership Training

f. ERC needs to invest in their managers and provide extensive training on leadership
and management to existing and new managers. However, the training must be
relevant to corrections and relevant to the direct supervision model. This includes
skills in effective communication, conflict resolution, handling complaints, empathy,
accountability, professionalism, performance management, giving and receiving
constructive feedback.

g. ERC managers could consider developing their own “Lunch and Learn” sessions, by
setting aside 2 hours a month to bring in a speaker for an hour on various facets of
leadership and then engaging in dialogue about how implementing new ideas would
work at ERC.

Cross Training

h. Create opportunities for cross-training to contribute to eliminating silos between

different groups of employees. (e.g., CSW, sentence administrators, nurses.)

13.3 Recommendations on Recruitment and Retention

Gender and Diversity

a. In working with women or in promotional competitions, be aware of the different

values and skills women bring to the workplace.

b. Examine whether there are barriers to promotion for women and actively work to
remove those barriers.

c. Ensure that women have equal opportunity to be a member of the search team and
the TAC team. Interviewees indicated that the final say on new members of the TAC

62
 Team is left to the existing members. If that is the case, this process should be
eliminated.

d. Develop a recruitment strategy aimed at attracting more women to a career in

corrections.

e. To increase the diversity of the workplace, continue presentations at schools,

universities, community groups, multicultural associations, cadet programs of the
Canadian Forces, women’s groups, and Indigenous organizations to promote
careers in corrections.

f. Promote the ideal of corrections as a worthy career both internally and, more
broadly, with the external community, avoiding the “stepping stone” idea.

Transparency

g. In consultation with the Public Service Commission, review senior appointments

made at ERC since 2013 to determine if promotional hiring is occurring in an
objective, skills based manner.

h. Recognize there is a strong perception of favouritism playing a role in promotions.

True or not, the perception needs to be overcome by meticulous and transparent
measures to ensure fairness. Ensure that competitions are, and are seen to be,
transparent and fair.

i. For future management and CPO3 competitions, either the director or a respected
member of the corrections community, outside of ERC, should participate in the
panel.

j. Advertise competitions widely within ERC (posters, emails, etc.) so that people
have an opportunity to compete. Promote the use of the Government of Alberta
website to both post competitions and for staff to review to learn about new
opportunities.

k. Ensure HR representatives are involved in hiring panels to maintain the integrity

and transparency of the process.

Performance Excellence Process

l. Upgrade the training for managers related to performance evaluation and how to
give constructive feedback. Ensure managers are aware of their responsibility and
accountability to ensure the Performance Excellence process is completed for all
staff.

63
m. In the performance evaluation process, identify the training that staff want or need,
and follow up for career development.

Other Recruitment and Retention

n. Reduce the number of Acting positions and fill with permanent staff.

o. Continue the use of the Attendance Management Program and promote supervisor
accountability in identifying problem patterns and addressing them with staff. Identify
who is overusing sick leave. Help those who are experiencing problems. Hold
those accountable who are misusing sick leave. Hold supervisors accountable for
having conversations with staff about attendance

p. Improve the probationary system and if wage employees are not suitable for the
job, release them from employment.

q. If individuals are suitable, hold competitions for vacancies limited to wage

employees only.

r. Even if wage staff are used as back-up contract positions, they still need to be
trained. Give them the same training as permanent employees.

s. Recognize the skills needed for effective direct supervision. Hire and train to this.

t. Develop career paths and have annual performance discussions to encourage

growth and retention of staff.

13.4 Recommendations on Professionalism

a. Reinforce with staff that unprofessional behaviour such as touching, overt flirting,
sexual joking, etc. will not be tolerated. Managers must work with HR to deal
immediately with any inappropriate behaviour they see or hear.

b. Ensure that supervisors and managers role model appropriate behaviour, which
includes respectful communication with staff and zero tolerance for sexual jokes and
innuendo.

c. Any display of pornography should be dealt with immediately through the disciplinary
process.

d. Adopt a zero tolerance for sharing inappropriate and damaging gossip in the
workplace. Do not listen to it, do not encourage it and do not pass it on.

64
e. Review and strengthen the policy on personal relationships in the workplace.
Managers should model appropriate behaviour and refrain from dating anyone within
their scope of authority. Enforce the policy and address unacceptable behaviour.

f. Managers should be visible and accessible to staff on all shifts. Provide managers
with a refresher course on active listening. Encourage them to provide feedback –
positive, constructive and sometimes disciplinary or corrective, if necessary.

g. Establish a staff working group to define the concept of a positive work ethic and
professionalism.

h. Managers and supervisors must be clear about what is expected of every staff
member. Communicate it widely and often.

i. Ensure that all managers follow policy and hold staff accountable for adhering to
policy and standards. Review policy to remove standards that may be out of date or
no longer practical.

j. There is a hierarchy of accountability. The CPO3s and supervisors must hold staff
reporting to them accountable for acting professionally, being respectful, and
following the rules. Middle managers hold supervisors accountable. In addition,
senior managers hold middle managers accountable. If there is a break in the chain,
there will be inconsistencies in who follows the rules and who looks the other way.
Everyone needs to follow the rules.

k. Encourage staff to act professionally and avoid any possibility of favouritism or

perception of favouritism. Special treatment based on who you know is seen by
others as unfair.

l. Managers to be honest, open, and transparent about what is happening about

staffing and about changes so that staff are better informed with reliable information.

m. Clarify the rules on social media and enforce them.

n. Establish a staff working group to look at the issue of use of cell phones in the
workplace, as well as allowable activities during shifts, especially night shift.

o. Ensure that ideas and initiatives led by staff are considered/supported by

management, even if they seem minor.

13.5 Recommendations on Overtime

a. Hire the proper number of staff to ERC so that permanent positions can be filled,
reducing overtime.

65
b. Ensure a fair allocation of overtime and allow for people who do not want overtime to
opt out except during emergency situations.

c. Do an assessment of overtime allocation for the last three years. Who has worked
the most overtime hours and why? In the future, the Centre Director should review
override decisions.

d. Deal with any complaints that overtime is used as a reward or as a punishment.

13.6 Other Recommendations

a. Continue the staff forums, but ask for solutions, not just problems. Follow-up.

b. Develop a system for improvements at ERC. Not every idea will be workable, but it
is important to acknowledge the input and let staff know if it can be implemented. For
example, if a person has ideas on improving the Field Training Officer program, they
can approach their manager but also email a designated senior manager.

c. Work to develop a greater sense of belonging and being part of a community by

focusing on teamwork.

d. Create a safe space for staff to relax, interact, talk to others and have a
cookie/coffee.

e. Plan and support organized team events with both small units or with ERC as a
whole.

f. Managers should show their endorsement of these activities by attending and

modeling appropriate behaviour.

g. Maintain the Peer Support Program. Encourage the program to continue planning
small and fun events to raise awareness, build more comradery.

h. Review the existing EAP program and assess how well it is working. If it is not
working, form a working group to review and recommend changes.

66