Canada Correctional Service Report on Safer Tattooing Practices Pilot Initiative 2009

The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel - Header

Canada Correctional Service Report on Safer Tattooing Practices Pilot Initiative 2009

• Topics: Medical, Contagious Disease -- Misc.

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

.+.

Correctional Service
Canada

Service correctionnel
Canada

File # 394-2-39

Evaluation Report:
Correctional Service Canada’s
Safer Tattooing Practices Pilot Initiative
Evaluation Branch
Performance Assurance Sector
January 2009

Canada

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The evaluation team would like to express their appreciation to the members of the Safer
Tattooing Practices Pilot Initiative working group and National Joint Occupational Health and
Safety steering committee, for their comments and feedback regarding the evaluation process.
We also wish to thank Dr. Tom Wong, Director of the Community Acquired Infections Division
at the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) as well as Katherine Dinner and Kazimiera
Adamowski from PHAC for peer reviewing the evaluation plan, the interview questions, and the
evaluation report. The evaluation team sincerely appreciates the participation of staff members
at the pilot sites for their valuable assistance during the evaluation, in facilitating the
identification of key stakeholders and ensuring timely access to inmates, staff members, and
relevant documentation.
The evaluation team also wishes to thank all who facilitated the creation of this report.
Specifically, Debra Gaskell, Joanne Barton and Nirmala Seegobin from CSC’s Health Services,
for being key sources of information and guidance, as well as the primary contacts in the
orchestration of data collection and coding in the regions; Sylvie Carrier and Justin Gileno, for
assisting in conducting interviews at the pilot sites; and Dave Lenihan and Chantalle Lambert for
providing technical expertise in the creation of the data; Christa Gillis and Jessica Service for
their significant contribution to the data collection and entry phase of the evaluation.

Evaluation Report Prepared by:
Mark Nafekh
Senior Evaluation Manager
Evaluation Branch, Performance Assurance
Correctional Service Canada

EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS
Nicole Allegri
Marie-Lynn Bériau
Kendra Delveaux
Alina Kotov
Karen Kaschube
Hongping Li
Mark Nafekh
Lidia Peci
Marlène Pepin
Yvonne Stys
Paul Teworte
Evguenia Tsiroulnitchenko

Correctional Service Canada’s
Correctional Program Evaluation
SIGNATURES

…………………………………………..
Ian McCowan
Assistant Commissioner
Policy and Research

……………………………………………
Date

…………………………………………..
Lynn Garrow
Associate Assistant Commissioner
Policy and Research

……………………………………………
Date

…………………………………………….
Pamela Yates
Director General
Evaluation Branch

……………………………………………..
Date

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The practice of illicit tattooing in prison has been associated with high incidence and prevalence
rates of blood borne infectious diseases within federal correctional institutions 1 , a risk which is
also extended to correctional staff members and to the general public.
In response to the Federal National AIDS Strategy (1997) and the 31st Annual Report of the
Correctional Investigator (2004), Correctional Service Canada (CSC) agreed to explore
expanding its infectious disease control program to include Safer Tattooing Practices as a harm
reduction initiative.
In August 2005, CSC began its pilot of the Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative (STPI) 2 , which
was implemented through an education component and an operational component. The
operational component saw the implementation of tattoo rooms in six federal institutions – one
men’s institution in each of the five regions (Atlantic, Cowansville, Bath, Rockwood and
Matsqui Institutions) plus one women’s institution (Fraser Valley Institution for Women). The
education component, delivered at CSC’s five regional reception centres, informed all inmates
with a new federal offence about the risks of unsafe tattooing practices at the five regional
reception centres. The education component also provided information through a guidelines
document and pamphlets distributed at each of the six pilot sites.
This report provides findings of the targeted evaluation of the STPI. The report measures
achievements and outcomes as outlined in the Evaluation Framework (2005). The report is
summative in nature even though it incorporates aspects of both the formative and summative 3
approaches towards evaluation. Thus, most but not all of the immediate, intermediate and long
term impacts were assessed. As such, the report includes findings and recommendations
regarding the implementation of the STPI, however not all aspects of this area were examined in
detail as they would in a purely formative evaluation. The findings and recommendations
contained in this report are designed to guide decisions regarding the suitability of continuing the
Safer Tattooing harm reduction initiative.

Multiple sources cited in: Collins, P., Dias, G., Dickenson, M., Lines, R. & Vidovich, L. (2003). Driving the Point
Home: A Strategy for Safer Tattooing in Canadian Prisons. Retrieved from http://www.pasan.org.
2
The Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative Guidelines contain detailed information of the sociology and psychology
of tattooing, tattooing in incarcerated population, health risks associated with illicit tattooing in Canadian
institutions, as well as detailed implementation information. The Guidelines are available through CSC’s infonet.
3
A formative evaluation occurs at the mid-point of implementation of a policy, program or initiative, and typically
focuses on implementation issues. A summative evaluation incorporates formative evaluation information close to
the completion of implementation, and encompasses a broader range of evaluation objectives; namely success, costeffectiveness, unintended effects and continued relevancy.

Evaluation Strategy
The evaluation was conducted by the Evaluation Branch, CSC, and various components were
peer-reviewed by the CSC’s Health Services, as well as the Public Health Agency of Canada
(PHAC) 4 . Aspects of both the formative and summative approaches 5 were combined to
facilitate the assessment of the evaluation objectives: success, cost-effectiveness,
implementation, unintended effects and continued relevancy.
The evaluation used both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Information used to
facilitate these analyses was collected through:
•
•
•
•

Interviews with key sources 6 ;
Surveys/questionnaires specific to the initiative;
Data derived from CSC’s automated data base - the Offender Management System; and,
A review of relevant documentation (e.g., STPI National Guidelines 7 ; Media coverage
and reports on the STPI).

Interviews were conducted by the evaluation team in person and by telephone during the months
of August and September, 2006. Interview data were collected from the following key sources:
•
•

Institution staff members, including: Wardens, Security Intelligence Officers (SIOs),
Assistant Wardens Correctional Programs (AWCPs), Social Programs Officers (SPOs),
Health workers, Correctional Officers, union representatives; and,
Inmates at the pilot sites including the Tattooists, Tattoo Apprentices, Tattoo Clerks,
inmates who received a tattoo at the tattoo room, inmates on the wait list to receive a
tattoo, and Chairs of the Institutional Inmate Committee at each pilot site.

The interview process included site visits to the pilot sites during the month of August, 2006.
Quantitative analyses were conducted using automated data on identified tattoo clients who
received or were waiting to receive a tattoo between August 1, 2005 and August 31st, 2006.
Quantitative and qualitative analyses were also conducted on data received as a result of
interviews and forms completed as part of the procedural requirements of the Initiative.

The Public Health Agency of Canada reviewed the Evaluation Framework and the interview keys, as well as the
report.
5
A formative evaluation occurs at the mid-point of implementation of a policy, program or initiative, and typically
focuses on implementation issues. A summative evaluation incorporates formative evaluation information close to
the completion of implementation, and encompasses a broader range of evaluation objectives; namely success, costeffectiveness, unintended effects and continued relevancy.
6
Sources included but were not limited to: Wardens, Assistant Warden Correctional Programs, Security Intelligence
Officers, Health Services employees, local Union representatives, Correctional Officers, Social Program Officers,
Tattooists, and Inmates (who had received tattooing services or were on the waiting list).
7
Document can be found at http://infonet/HS/documents/guidelines_e.pdf

Financial Expenditures
Actual expenditures for the STPI were $960,689.63 throughout the course of the Safer Tattooing
Practices Pilot Initiative (7 months of start-up plus approximately 12 months implementation
period). Expenditures reflect start-up costs (construction and equipment, supplies, staff
expenditures on salaries, travel, and education and training costs, and technical contracts) and
ongoing expenditures (see Table below).
Actual Costs Associated with the STPI
Start-up Costs Prior to Implementation (7 months)
Construction and equipment
Tattoo Room Supplies
Staff Expenditures (salary, training, travel, etc.)
Technical Contracts
Sub-Total
Ongoing Implementation Costs (approx. 12 months)
Staff Expenditures
Materials (ink, needle tips, etc.)
Sub-Total
TOTAL

$40,538.20
$148,139.57
$143,973.33
$25,000.00
$357,651.10
$287,946.67
$315,091.86
$603,038.53
$960,689.63

vii

Key Findings
FINDING 1: The Initiative has resulted in an enhanced level of knowledge and awareness
amongst staff and inmates regarding blood borne infectious disease prevention
and control practices.
FINDING 2: Initial results of the initiative indicate potential to reduce harm, reduce exposure
to health risk, and enhance the health and safety of staff members, inmates and
the general public with higher risk groups (medium and maximum security
institutions for male offenders).
FINDING 3: The Initiative provided additional employment opportunities for inmates in the
institution, and work skills that are transferable to the community.
FINDING 4: Tattooing activities at most pilot sites were constrained due to the limited
number of trained Tattooists.
FINDING 5: Tattooing hours of operation were sporadic at some sites, and thus had an
impact on the number of tattoos administered.
FINDING 6: The cost of the Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative is low respective to the
potential benefit.
FINDING 7: Implementation issues, such as the tattooist skill level, training and availability,
negatively impacted the effectiveness and efficiency of the Initiative.
FINDING 8: Enhancements to the current delivery model could address many of the
implementation issues in a more cost effective and efficient manner.
FINDING 9: There was some perceived increase in the demand for tattoos, particularly at the
women’s multi-level and men’s minimum security level pilot sites.
FINDING 10: The Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative remains consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Federal Initiative to Address HIV/AIDS in Canada.
FINDING 11: There is a need for more information regarding inmate infectious diseases and
risk behaviours in order to adequately evaluate future harm reduction
initiatives.

viii

Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION 1: To maintain an enhanced level of knowledge and awareness of
infection prevention and control practices, CSC should continue the education component of
the Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative.
RECOMMENDATION 2: CSC should integrate the evaluation findings with results of the
National Inmate Infectious Diseases and Risk Behaviours Survey, and the recommendations
of the Health Care Advisory Committee, to ensure an optimal and cost-effective harm
reduction strategy.
RECOMMENDATION 3: If CSC decides to continue the operational component of the
Initiative, the following modifications should be considered to ensure enhanced levels of
success, efficiency and cost-effectiveness:
•

Consider providing tattoo services in federal institutions only where the risk of blood
borne infectious disease transmission through illicit tattooing is revealed to be high.

•

Revise the Peer Education and Counselling (PEC) training requirement for inmate
tattooists such that this component is delivered primarily as a self-study module,
requiring successful completion of a written exam.

•

Raise the cost of a tattoo session for inmates such that prices are commensurate with
what an individual would pay in the community as a proportion of their disposable
income.

•

Ensure all Program Officers are provided with direction to operate the Tattoo Room,
such that the room’s operating hours meet the needs of inmates.

•

Purchase full-size ink bottles such that the Initiative coordinator dispenses a prespecified amount of ink outside of the tattoo room, keeping the bottles in their
possession at all times.

•

Increase the capacity of the tattoo room.

•

Consider using services from community tattooists to train inmate tattooists in the art
of tattooing.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................................................I
EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS............................................................................................I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... V
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ X
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... XII
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. XII
LIST OF ACRONYMS ...........................................................................................................XIII
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
1.

Program Profile ................................................................................................................. 1

2.0

1.1
Background ............................................................................................................ 1
1.2
Policy and Legislation............................................................................................ 4
1.3
The Initiative .......................................................................................................... 5
1.4
Profile of Pilot Site Participants: Operational Component.................................. 6
1.5
Profile of New Federal Admissions: Education Component at Intake ............... 8
1.6
Financial Expenditures ......................................................................................... 9
1.7
Logic Model............................................................................................................ 9
EVALUATION METHOD............................................................................................. 12
2.1
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3

2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2

3.0

Scope of the Evaluation ....................................................................................... 12
Sample Composition ............................................................................................ 12
Key Sources ...............................................................................................................................12
Automated Data.........................................................................................................................13
Document Review ......................................................................................................................13

Measures............................................................................................................... 14
Infection Risk Profile (IRP)......................................................................................................14
Semi-Structured Interviews.......................................................................................................16

2.4
Procedures............................................................................................................ 17
2.5
Analyses................................................................................................................ 18
2.6
Limitations............................................................................................................ 18
KEY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................. 22

Objective 1: Success:.................................................................................................................... 22
Effectiveness: .................................................................................................................... 22
Efficiency: ......................................................................................................................... 34
Objective 2: Cost Effectiveness: .................................................................................................. 37
Objective 3: Implementation: ...................................................................................................... 39
Objective 4: Unintended Findings: ............................................................................................. 42
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 49

Appendix 1: Pre-post Questionnaire......................................................................................... 50
Appendix 2: Logic Model ........................................................................................................... 51
Appendix 3: Staff Interview Key ............................................................................................... 52
Appendix 4: Inmate Interview Key ........................................................................................... 57
Appendix 5: Inmate Tattooist/Apprentice/Clerk Interview Key............................................ 63
Appendix 6: Community Tattooist Interview Key .................................................................. 67
Appendix 7: References: Risk Factors for Having Blood Borne Virus ................................. 70

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Actual Costs Associated with the STPI........................................................................ 9
Table 2: Cost-Effectiveness ........................................................................................................ 38
Table 3: Tattoo Cost Calculation as a percentage of disposable income (DI)....................... 44

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Seizures of Tattoo Contraband by Gender and Security Level ............................. 26
Figure 2: Tattoo Contraband Seizure Rates ............................................................................ 29
Figure 3: Staff Perceptions of Risk of Exposure to Unclean Tattoo Needles – Prior to and
During the STPI .................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 4: Staff Perceptions of Risk of Exposure to Needle-stick Injury – Prior to and
During the STPI .................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 5: IRP Release Trends.................................................................................................... 46

xii

LIST OF ACRONYMS
AWCP
CSHA
CD
CSC
CCRA
DI
HB
HBV
HCV
HIV
IRP
IDU
IMRS
OSH
OIA
OMS
PEC
PEP
PHAC
RAP
STPI
SIO
SPO
SAS
VDRL

Assistant Warden Correctional Programs
Canadian Strategy on HIV/AIDS
Commissioner’s Directive
Correctional Service Canada
Corrections and Conditional Release Act
Disposable Income
Hepatitis B
Hepatitis B Virus
Hepatitis C Virus
Human Immunodeficiency Virus
Infection Risk Profile
Injection Drug Use
Integrated Management Reporting System
Occupational Safety and Health
Offender Intake Assessment
Offender Management System
Peer Education and Counselling
Post-Exposure Prophylaxis
Public Health Agency of Canada
Reception Awareness Program
Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative
Security Intelligence Officer
Social Programs Officer
Statistical Analysis System Analysis System
Venereal Disease Research Laboratory

xiii

INTRODUCTION
1.

Program Profile

1.1 Background
Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) plays a role in maintaining a just, peaceful and safe
society and in assisting in the government’s overall agenda of improving the health, safety and
the quality of life of Canadians. 8 The Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative (STPI) was a health and
a harm reduction initiative piloted to support the Federal Initiative to Address HIV/AIDS in
Canada.

The STPI aimed to support key results associated with CSC’s overall strategic outcome:
“Offenders are safely and effectively accommodated and reintegrated into Canadian
communities.” 9 To support the achievement of this outcome, CSC has identified a “care and
custody” program activity, which includes a wide range of activities that address the health and
safety needs of offenders. The STPI is one of the activities that were put in place to support the
achievement of priorities identified under the care and custody program activity: enhance health
and well being, and reduce the risk of transmission of blood borne infectious diseases. 10

Furthermore, the STPI directly and indirectly aimed to contribute to one key area of federal
government involvement: the health of Canadians. The direct contributions can be described as
the surveillance and control of blood borne infectious diseases within federal penitentiaries, and
the potential reduction in illicit tattooing and spread of blood borne infectious diseases;
specifically, the decrease in the spread of blood borne infectious disease among inmates and their
families, and the enhanced safety of staff members. Indirect contributions were the potential of
enhanced public health and reduced costs to the health care system. Consequently, the legitimate
role for CSC to test this initiative was also confirmed by the consistency with government
priorities. 11

8
9
10
11

See the October 2004 and April 2006 Speeches from the Throne
idem
See the 2005-2006 Report on Plans and Priorities for the Correctional Service Canada
Idem and Canada’s Performance: Annual Report to Parliament 2004

The practice of illicit tattooing in prison has been associated with high incidence and prevalence
rates of blood borne infectious diseases within federal correctional institutions 12 . Specifically,
the practice of non-sterile tattooing places inmates at a higher risk of Human Immunodeficiency
Virus (HIV), Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) and Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) infection, relative to the
general population. The risk of infection is extended to correctional staff members and to the
general public, as inmates are supervised in prison and the vast majority is eventually released to
Canadian communities.

Correctional Service Canada’s (CSC’s) National Inmate Survey (1995) revealed that 45% of
respondents reported they had received a tattoo in prison. Of those, 30% reported they thought
that the equipment was unclean or could not ascertain that it was clean 13 . Notably, the
prevalence rates of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) within
this population are much higher than that of the Canadian population (1.9% versus 0.2%, and
24.6% versus 0.6%, respectively) 14 . This disparity is becoming larger as, within the incarcerated
federal offender population, the rate of blood borne infectious diseases has been on the rise.
Between 2002 and 2005, the number of HCV cases in federal prisons is projected to increase by
12.9% (from 3,173 to 3,581) 15 .
In response to Federal National AIDS Strategy 16 (1997) and the 31st Annual Report of the
Correctional Investigator 17 (2004), Correctional Service Canada (CSC) agreed to explore
expanding its infectious disease control program to include Safer Tattooing Practices as a harm
reduction initiative. 18 As stated in the CSC response, objectives of the Initiative were to
i) minimize the risk of transmission of blood borne infectious diseases in the inmate population
12

14
15
16

Multiple sources cited in: Collins, P., Dias, G., Dickenson, M., Lines, R. & Vidovich, L. (2003). Driving the
Point Home: A Strategy for Safer Tattooing in Canadian Prisons. Retrieved from http://www.pasan.org.
Correctional Service of Canada (1995). Special report: CSC national inmate survey 1995 final report. Ottawa:
Correctional Service of Canada.
Correctional Service of Canada Infectious Disease Surveillance System. Preliminary Data (up to year 2002.)
Ibid.
This Strategy was directed at responding to the issues of HIV/AIDS in Canada. The evaluation report (1997)
concludes that resources are required for further developmental work towards achieving the goals of the
Strategy, including tattoo equipment in institutions.
The Correctional Investigator is mandated by Part III of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act as an
Ombudsman for federal offenders.
In the 31st Annual Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator (CI), the CI recommended that CSC
introduce a safe needle exchange program based on thorough consultation with medical and security experts,
offenders, CSC staff and concerned community organizations.

and to the community at large; ii) minimize the risk of CSC staff injuries; iii) to educate inmates
regarding the transmission of infectious diseases associated with illicit tattooing, and iv) promote
health and wellness while maintaining security. Subsequently, the Safer Tattooing Practices
Pilot Initiative was introduced as a component of the enhanced Canadian Strategy on HIV/AIDS
(CSHA) 19 announced by the Minister of Health in 2004. CSC’s partners in the CSHA include
the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada, and the Canadian Institutes of Health
Research.

Illicit tattooing in Canadian federal institutions also poses health and safety risks to correctional
staff members and to the public at large. Between 1997 and 2004, there has been an increase in
contraband seizures of tattoo related paraphernalia within federal institutions 20 . Over the same
time period, there were 48 recorded staff injuries resulting from a puncture with a sharp object
directly related to tattoo needles 21 .

As inmates are released to the community, potential health risks are extended to their families,
partners and the public in general 22 . Between 2000 and 2002, the number of HIV and HCV
infected inmates released to the community has increased. For HCV, the increase was 60%,
from 1,156 in 2000 to 1,856 in 2002, and for HIV there was a 13% increase from 162 in 2000 to
183 in 2002 23 .

20
21
22

In May 2004, the Minister of Health reaffirmed the federal government’s commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS,
and announced an expanded and strengthened federal role in addressing HIV/AIDS through the enhanced
Federal Initiative to Address HIV/AIDS in Canada, under the new title “The Federal Initiative to Address
HIV/AIDS in Canada”.
Correctional Service of Canada’s Offender Management System (OMS).
Data provided through CSC’s Occupational Health and Safety division.
Infectious diseases prevention and control in Canadian penitentiaries 2000-01: A report by CSC’s Infectious
Diseases Surveillance System
Smith, J. (2005). Hepatitis C Surveillance. Focus on Infectious Disease, 3 (1). Retrieved from http://www.cscscc.gc.ca.

1.2 Policy and Legislation
Section 70 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA, 1992) provides the
legislative framework within which the Correctional Service of Canada can address the health
and safety issues associated with illicit tattooing:

70. The Service shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that penitentiaries, the
penitentiary environment, the living and working conditions of inmates and the
working conditions of staff members are safe, healthful and free of practices that
undermine a person's sense of personal dignity.
In addition to the CCRA, Commissioner’s Directive 821: Management of Infectious Diseases
(CD 821, 2004) also provides a framework within which CSC can implement harm reduction
measures. Specifically, the policy’s objective indicates that CSC is to contribute to public
health and a safe and healthy environment through a comprehensive infectious diseases
program. 24 The principles of this policy also stipulate that a full range of infectious disease
program elements, including but not limited to screening/testing, immunization, education and
training, harm reduction measures, care and treatment, surveillance activities, and partnerships,
shall be implemented based on best evidence and public health expertise. 25

The goals of the revitalized strategy, introduced jointly by the Minister of Health and the
Minister of State (Public Health), were to:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Prevent the acquisition and transmission of new infections;
Slow the progression of disease and improve the quality of life;
Reduce the social and economic impact of HIV/AIDS; and,
Contribute to the global effort to reduce the spread of HIV and mitigate the impact of
the disease.

Under the renewed Federal Initiative to Address HIV/AIDS in Canada, CSC identified three
areas of pursuit: (1) knowledge, via surveillance of the epidemics of infectious diseases in
prisons; (2) expanded intervention throughout sentence, from admission through to and

24
25

Correctional Service Canada, Commissioner’s Directive 821, s.1
Correctional Service Canada, Commissioner’s Directive 821, s.9

including the community portion; and (3) coordinated responses through strengthened prevention
activities with public health units and federal/provincial/territorial partnerships.

1.3 The Initiative
Correctional Service Canada’s Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative was introduced as a
component of the enhanced Canadian Strategy on HIV/AIDS 26 announced by the Minister of
Health in 2004. As a health and a harm-reduction initiative, the objectives of the STPI were to:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)

Minimize the transmission of blood borne infectious diseases in the inmate
population and to the community at large;
Minimize the risk of CSC staff injuries;
educate inmates regarding the transmission of infectious diseases; and,
Promote health and wellness while maintaining security.

Implementation of the Initiative began in August 2005 with two main components:
1.

The Operational Component made tattoo rooms operational in 6 institutions – one men’s
institution in each region (Atlantic, Cowansville, Bath, Rockwood and Matsqui
Institutions) and one women’s institution (Fraser Valley Institution for Women) 27 . Safer
tattooing services were provided by inmate tattooists who had successfully completed
training on blood borne infectious diseases and infection prevention and control practices.
The tattoo room selected within the institution was designated as a controlled
environment in meeting the standards for infection prevention and control practices.
Supervision of the designated area was to ensure ongoing quality control of the service
provided, as well as safety and security.

The Education Component provided educational materials through the Reception
Awareness Program, which is available to all inmates entering with a new federal offence
at CSC’s Regional Reception Centres, and through pamphlets distributed within all pilot
sites. Education materials informed inmates with regards to risks of unsafe tattooing
practices. Education was also provided at pilot sites through the Peer Education and
Counselling (PEC) program and the Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative Guidelines.
The Safer Tattooing Guidelines describe this component of the initiative as follows:
“The CSC Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative (STPI) provides education to all
inmates about safer tattooing practices. This is achieved through:
• A CSC Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative pamphlet provided to all
inmates upon entry to CSC and available to all inmates.

•
•
•

Incorporation of information about CSC's Safer Tattooing Practices
Initiative into the Reception Awareness Program.
Availability of the STPI Guidelines to inmates in the general
population
Opportunities for inmates to participate in the training received by
the inmate tattooist (Peer Education and Counselling Program and
access to the STPI Guidelines) even if they are not applying for the
position.”

1.4 Profile of Pilot Site Participants: Operational Component
Demographic Profile
Between August 1, 2005 and August 31st, 2006, 384 inmates sent out requests for tattoo services.
Among them, 324 inmates (89% were men and 11% were women) received a tattoo through the
Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative and, at the data collection cut-off date (August 31st, 2006),
there was 60 inmates who were waiting and had not yet receive a tattoo through the Initiative.
Tattoos were provided at the six (6) pilot sites across the regions: Atlantic Institution
(Atlantic) 28 , Cowansville (Quebec) 29 , Bath Institution (Ontario) 30 , Rockwood Institution (Prairie
Region) 31 , and Matsqui and Fraser Valley Institution for women (Pacific) 32 . The pilot sites
ranged in security level, thus 15.2% of participants resided in a minimum security institution,
66.2% were in medium security, 8.1% were in maximum security and 10.5% were in a multisecurity level institution for women. Twenty tattooists were trained to provide tattoo services.
By the cut-off date, tattoo shops had operated 1,566 days in total and 1,043 tattoo sessions were
performed. Of those who received a tattoo through the Initiative, 89.0% were men and 11.0%
were women, and all those waiting to receive a tattoo through the Initiative at the data cut-off
point were men. For both tattoo recipients and those wait listed, 19.3% were Aboriginal. The
average age for this group at the beginning of the Initiative was 32 years, and 6.1% were
identified as being gang members or gang affiliates. Interestingly, 68% of men and 41% of
women were identified as already having a tattoo prior to the Initiative.

Additional information about this institution is available at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca
Additional information about this institution is available at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca
30
Additional information about this institution is available at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca
31
Additional information about this institution is available at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca
32
Additional information about this institution is available at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca
29

Region

Pilot Sites 33

Tattooist
Trained 34

Days of
Operation 35

Tattoo
Sessions 36

Requests for
Tattoo
Services 37

376

377

Prairies
Ontario

Matsqui
Fraser Valley
Institution
Rockwood
Bath

2
5
4

98
349
238

116
118
80

53
141
36

Quebec

Cowansville

364

264

Atlantic

141

Pacific

Infection Risk Profile (IRP)
For this evaluation, it was not possible to determine the precise incidence rate of HIV and
Hepatitis among the inmate population. The only way in which to obtain accurate, valid
information regarding these incident rates would be to conduct a seroprevalence study (i.e.,
blood tests to determine presence of the diseases). This was not possible for two reasons: 1)
ethical issues associated with privacy (e.g., obtaining consent for offenders to take a blood
sample or review medical health records for blood borne infectious disease information); and 2)
the amount of time that it would take to collect this data for all inmates participating in the safer
tattooing program. To address this limitation, the Infection Risk Profile (IRP) was developed to
obtain an indication the degree of infection with blood borne diseases among the inmate
population. However, it is important to note that this measure provided an indication of “risk”
for blood borne infectious disease, not an actual indicator of the presence or absence of a blood
borne infectious disease.

For the purposes of this evaluation, inmates receiving or waiting to receive a tattoo were
classified into either a high risk or low risk grouping, where risk refers to the likelihood of
having a blood borne infectious disease, specifically the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV),
33 The cut-off date for data collection was August 31, 2006, and data received before cut-off date was incorporated
in the above table. However, data received after September 2006 may also contain information that covers the
operation period.
34 Information was from “Inmate Tattooist Testing and Results” forms provided by pilot sites.
35 Information was taken from “Tattoo Shop Movement and Tool Control” forms provided by pilot sites. Days
were calculated as the period between the first and the last tattoo service in our records..
36 Information was taken from “Tattoo Shop Movement and Tool Control” forms provided by pilot sites.
37 Information was from “Request for Tattoo Service” forms provided by pilot sites.

Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) or Hepatitis C Virus (HCV). The ‘high’ and ‘low’ risk groupings were
accomplished through the creation of an Infection Risk Profile (IRP) of the inmate population.
The IRP, created for the purposes of this report, was used to establish whether ‘high risk’
inmates were using the services provided through the program. The IRP is based on items that
have been identified in the literature 38 as factors that are associated with having a blood borne
virus. The IRP items were approximated using automated data 39 and validated in the sample of
inmates interviewed for the evaluation (see Methods section). Of those inmates at the pilot sites
for whom interview data were available, 25.1% were classified as high risk on the IRP. Of all
inmates who were interviewed and who reported they were tested for a blood borne infection,
30.3% reported they were infected with HBV, HCV and/or HIV.

1.5 Profile of New Federal Admissions: Education Component at Intake
Demographic Profile
A demographic profile was derived for all new federal admissions to custody (i.e., offenders with
a new federal offence) between March 1, 2006 and May 16, 2006 (N=978). During this time
period, offenders were exposed to the education component of the STPI as part of the Reception
Awareness Program (RAP) 40 , and were also asked to complete the Evaluation Branch’s pre-post
questionnaire (see Appendix 1). The average age of this admissions cohort was 34 years, and the
average sentence length was 3.4 years. Further, 10.8% were rated as minimum security, 53.3%
as medium security and 35.9% as maximum security 41 . Approximately 19% were Aboriginal,
and a representative proportion of the total number of admissions was women (5.8%). There
were 3.5% admitted with a homicide offence, 26.0% with a robbery offence, 6.5% with a sex
offence and 31.2% with a drug-related offence 42 . Forty-five percent of those admitted during
this time period was identified as having a tattoo upon admission. Of those inmates who
completed the questionnaire administered after the RAP (N=599), 39% indicated that they would
prefer to receive a tattoo through the Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative in the institution while
38
39

40
41
42

See Appendix 7 for references.
Data regarding the Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) were extracted from CSC’s automated Offender
Management System. The OIA collects extensive information pertaining to a number of offender static and
dynamic factors.
For a detailed description of the Education component, please refer to the introduction of this report.
Security ratings as per CSC’s Custody Rating Scale.
Numbers do not add to 100 as offence categories are inclusive. That is, an offender may have both a robbery and
drug offence, and thus be included in both groups.

2% indicated they would prefer to receive a range tattoo. Over half (55%) of inmates completing
the post Reception Awareness Program questionnaire indicated that they would prefer not to get
a tattoo in a correctional institution.

Infection Risk Profile (IRP)
As noted earlier, the IRP was created for the purposes of this report, and was based on items
identified in the literature as factors associated with having a blood borne infection. Of those
new admissions to federal custody for whom data were available, 22.2% were classified as high
risk of having a blood borne infection as per the IRP. This is just slightly lower than the 25.1%
of the inmate population at the selected sites who were classified as high risk on the IRP.

1.6 Financial Expenditures
Actual expenditures for the STPI were $960,689.63 throughout the course of the Safer Tattooing
Practices Pilot Initiative (7 months of start-up plus approximately 12 months implementation
period). Expenditures reflected i) start-up costs, i.e. one-time costs at the start of the pilot such
as construction and equipment, supplies, staff expenditures on salaries, travel, and education and
training costs, and technical contracts, and ii) ongoing expenditures (see Table 1).

Table 1: Actual Costs Associated with the STPI
Start-up Costs Prior to Implementation (7 months)
Construction and equipment
$40,538.20
Tattoo Room Supplies
$148,139.57
Staff Expenditures (salary, training, travel, etc.) $143,973.33
Technical Contracts
$25,000.00
Sub-Total
$357,651.10
Ongoing Implementation Costs (approx. 12 months)
Staff Expenditures
$287,946.67
Materials (ink, needle tips, etc.)
$315,091.86
Sub-Total
$603,038.53
TOTAL
$960,689.63
1.7 Logic Model

The logic model is a schematic representation of the essential components of that which is being
evaluated (Posavac & Carey, 1992). It delineates the philosophy and relevant issues that
underlie the basic principles of the pilot of the Safer Tattooing Practices Pilot Initiative, linking
the flow of activities to their outputs, and finally to their expected outcomes (see Appendix 2).
Three activities were identified as being essential to meeting the requirements of the Initiative:

1) Education of inmates (at pilot sites and upon admission to federal custody) regarding
infection prevention and control and safer tattooing practices;
2) Recruitment and training of the tattooist and inmate clerk;
3) Operation and supervision of the tattoo room at the designated pilot site.

These activities had several outputs: information distributed through pamphlets and incorporated
into the Reception Awareness Program, pre-employment screening of tattooist for HB
immunization and optional screening of other diseases (Hep A, C, VDRL & HIV), inmate
certificate of completion of Peer Education and Counselling program, safe tool and environment
control measures, and new and cover-up tattoos.

The expected results of the activities carried out were grouped into immediate, intermediate and
long-term impacts. Given the summative nature of the evaluation and time constraints, most but
not all of the immediate, intermediate and long term impacts were assessed 43 .

The four immediate impacts were:
1. Increased awareness of blood borne diseases, infection risks and prevention measures
related to tattooing;
2. Safer tattooing practices in a controlled environment, with infection prevention and
control practices;
3. Additional employment opportunities for inmates; and,
4. Proper disposal of used sharps, and maintenance of tattoo supply inventory.

See the limitations section for a discussion on the issues associated with the assessment of successful
reintegration.

Intermediate impacts were listed as:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Promotion of health and wellness while maintaining security;
Reduced risk of needle stick injuries to staff;
Improved reintegration;
Reduction in the display of violence, hate and gang related tattoos; and,
Tattoo portfolio for tattooist.

Ultimately the expected long-term impacts of the STPI, as illustrated in the logic model, were:
1. Reduced risk of infection (HIV, HCV & other blood borne diseases) in the inmate
population, CSC staff, and community while maintaining security; and;
2. Contribution to successful re-integration.

2.0 EVALUATION METHOD

2.1 Scope of the Evaluation
The Summative Evaluation was conducted by the Evaluation Branch, CSC, and various
components were reviewed by the CSC’s Health Services, as well as the Public Health Agency
of Canada (PHAC) 44 . This targeted evaluation was completed to inform decision-making on the
future disposition of the program and focused on success, cost-effectiveness, continued
relevancy, as well as unintended effects, as outlined in the Evaluation Framework (2005) 45 .

2.2

Sample Composition
2.2.1

Key Sources

Information was collected from individuals and groups considered to be primary stakeholders as
specified in the STPI National Guidelines; specifically, the Assistant Warden Correctional
Programs (AWCP), the Social Programs Officer (Tattoo Room), Security Intelligence Officers,
Health Workers, Correctional Officers, Union representatives, those who have received a tattoo
through the Initiative, those who have not received a tattoo and were on the waiting list,
Tattooists, Tattoo Apprentices, Tattoo Clerks, and Inmate Committee Chairs. Overall, 234
people were interviewed.

Information was also collected to assess the education component of the STPI delivered to all
new federal admissions through the Reception Awareness Program (RAP). Confidential
questionnaires were administered to a representative sample of admissions immediately before
and after the RAP. For the purposes of this evaluation, a sampling plan was developed that was
expected to adequately reflect the total new admissions to federal custody for one year. The
resulting cohort of new admissions was taken between March 1st, 2006 and May 16th, 2006
(N=978).

The Public Health Agency of Canada reviewed the Evaluation Framework and the interview keys, as well as the
current report.
The Evaluation Framework for the Safer Tattooing Practices Pilot Initiative provides more information of the
program description, delivery approach, governance structure, Stakeholders and anticipated key results. The
framework can be found through CSC’s infornet.

2.2.2

Automated Data

Information was also collected from Tattoo Room Movement and Tool Control forms as well as
Request for Tattoo forms. These forms are maintained for administrative and monitoring
purposes, and were used to identify all offenders who received or requested to receive a tattoo at
any point in time between August 1st, 2005 and August 31st, 2006 (N=384). CSC’s Offender
Management System (OMS) was used to identify and profile all new federal admissions that
occurred during the time in which the education component of the STPI was delivered at CSC’s
Regional Reception Centres.
Data regarding staff injuries and costs of Post-Exposure Prophylaxis 46 (PEP) were also collected
from CSC’s Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Program. These data identified the number
of tattoo-related injuries to CSC staff members over the past ten years, as well as the costs CSC
incurred for staff to have PEP administered.

The key data source of financial information, used for the cost-effectiveness analyses, was drawn
from CSC’s Integrated Management Reporting System (IMRS). Data regarding HIV and HCV
treatment costs were also collected from CSC’s Infectious Disease Surveillance System as well
as from regional pharmacists and infectious disease nurses.

2.2.3

Document Review

Documents reviewed for various components of the evaluation were:

STPI National Guidelines;
Reception Awareness Program delivery module;
CSC financial records;
Literature regarding the risk, treatment and costs associated with HIV, HCV, HBV;
Peer Education and Counselling Program Guidelines;
Documents provided by CSC staff members to the evaluation team; and,
Documents provided by inmates to the evaluation team 47 .

Post-Exposure Prophylaxis, or PEP, is a medical treatment treatment started immediately after exposure to a
disease (such as a disease-causing virus), in order to prevent the disease from breaking out.
The Evaluation team accepted the written comments of some staff and inmates who did not want to be
interviewed but still wanted to provide their opinion, and incorporated these comments by identifying themes
commensurate with the qualitative data solicited through the interview keys.

2.3 Measures
2.3.1

Infection Risk Profile (IRP)

The Infection Risk Profile, developed for the purposes of this evaluation, was created through the
following steps:
1. Profile items were established based on factors that have been identified in the literature 48 as
those associated with having a blood borne infection.
Following an analysis of several national and international sources of information regarding
Hepatitis C in correctional institutions, five factors were identified as placing inmates at risk
of having the Hepatitis C Virus (HCV):
i)
Injection Drug Use (IDU);
ii) Non-injection narcotics abuse;
iii) Previous prison tattoo;
iv) Previous incarceration; and,
v)
Engaging in high-risk sexual activity.
Foremost, Injection Drug Use (IDU), both current and previous, was identified as the most
significant risk factor for contracting HCV. 49 Non-injection narcotics abuse, such as
smoking cocaine or heroin, was also recognized as a possible method of transmission of
HCV. 50 Previous incarceration was also a significant risk factor that was associated with

48
49

See Appendix 7.
Abbas, J., Shahnaz, S., Kamyar, M., Shahram, M. & Hossein, S.A. (2006) Risk Factors in Addict Prisoners of
Central Provinces of Iran. The Internet Journal of Epidemiology, 3 (1). Retrieved from http://www.ispub.com/.
Champion, J. K., Taylor, A., Hutchinson, S., Cameron, S., McMenamin, J., Mitchell, A., et al. (2004). Incidence
of Hepatitis C Virus Infection and Associated Risk Factors among Scottish Prison Inmates: A Cohort Study.
American Journal of Epidemiology, 159 (5), 514-519.
Correctional Service of Canada, Health Services (2003). Infectious Diseases Prevention and Control in
Canadian Federal Penitentiaries 2000-01: A Report of the Correctional Service of Canada’s Infectious Diseases
Surveillance System. Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca.
Ontario Ministry of Health (2006). Assessment Guide for Hepatitis Risk Factors. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for
Ontario.
Public Health Agency of Canada (2004). Hepatitis C Virus Transmission in the Prison/Inmate Population.
Canadian Communicable Diseases Report, 30 (16). Retrieved from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/.
Salcido, R., & Chen, L. (n.d.). Hepatitis A, B, and C Prevention Programs: Information and Programs for Adults
and Adolescents at Risk. Carson City, NV: Nevada State Health Division and Nevada Department of
Corrections.
Tepper, M. (1998). The Epidemiology of Hepatitis C in Canada. The Hepatitis Information Network. Pointe
Claire, QC.
Thaisri, H., Lerwitworapong, J., Vongsheree, S., Sawanpanyalert, P., Chadbanchachai, C., Rojanawiwat, A., et
al. (2003). HIV Infection and Risk Factors among Bangkok Prisoners, Thailand: A Prospective Cohort Study.
BMC Infectious Diseases, 3 (25).
Ontario Ministry of Health (2006). Assessment Guide for Hepatitis Risk Factors. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for
Ontario.

contracting the virus. 51 Moreover, receiving a body piercing or tattoo, notably a
piercing/tattoo in prison or from an unregulated establishment, is recognized as a high-risk
activity for HCV. 52 Dangerous sexual activities that involve blood contact, including
unprotected sex or prostitution, carry the risk of HCV transmission. 53 Apart from the
previous risky behaviours, homelessness has been identified as a minor risk factor in one
report. 54 .
2. Congruent OMS items were identified to serve as proximal indicators.
It was established that the above items could also be approximated through CSC’s automated
data and applied to a larger sample if appropriate. For items i) and ii) (IDU and noninjection narcotics abuse), data collected upon an offender’s admission identifying those
with histories of frequent drug use was used as a proxy-indicator. Similarly, for item iii)
(previous prison tattoo) the CSC data describing an offender’s physical profile was used to
establish whether they had a tattoo at the time of incarceration. Although it could not be
determined whether the tattoo was received in prison or from an unregulated establishment,
item iv) (previous incarceration) was modified to include only those with a previous federal
incarceration, thus increasing the opportunity that the tattoo was received while
incarcerated 55 . Finally, there were no OMS data that would identify high-risk sexual
practices, thus item v) (engaging in high-risk sexual activity) was not approximated.
3. Inmates were asked to self-report on various risk factors and infection status as part of the
evaluation questionnaire.
51

Public Health Agency of Canada (2004). Hepatitis C Virus Transmission in the Prison/Inmate Population.
Canadian Communicable Diseases Report, 30 (16). Retrieved from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/.
Salcido, R., & Chen, L. (n.d.). Hepatitis A, B, and C Prevention Programs: Information and Programs for Adults
and Adolescents at Risk. Carson City, NV: Nevada State Health Division and Nevada Department of
Corrections.
Tepper, M. (1998). The Epidemiology of Hepatitis C in Canada. The Hepatitis Information Network. Pointe
Claire, QC
Hellard, M., Crofts, N. & Hocking, J. (2004). Hepatitis C Virus Among Inmates in Victorian Correctional
Facilities. Retrieved from http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/.
Ontario Ministry of Health (2006). Assessment Guide for Hepatitis Risk Factors. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for
Ontario
Public Health Agency of Canada (2004). Hepatitis C Virus Transmission in the Prison/Inmate Population.
Canadian Communicable Diseases Report, 30 (16). Retrieved from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/.
Salcido, R., & Chen, L. (n.d.). Hepatitis A, B, and C Prevention Programs: Information and Programs for Adults
and Adolescents at Risk. Carson City, NV: Nevada State Health Division and Nevada Department of
Corrections.
Thaisri, H., Lerwitworapong, J., Vongsheree, S., Sawanpanyalert, P., Chadbanchachai, C., Rojanawiwat, A., et
al. (2003). HIV Infection and Risk Factors among Bangkok Prisoners, Thailand: A Prospective Cohort Study.
BMC Infectious Diseases, 3 (25).
Public Health Agency of Canada (2004). Hepatitis C Virus Transmission in the Prison/Inmate Population.
Canadian Communicable Diseases Report, 30 (16). Retrieved from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/.
Thaisri, H., Lerwitworapong, J., Vongsheree, S., Sawanpanyalert, P., Chadbanchachai, C., Rojanawiwat, A., et
al. (2003). HIV Infection and Risk Factors among Bangkok Prisoners, Thailand: A Prospective Cohort Study.
BMC Infectious Diseases, 3 (25).
Tepper, M. (1998). The Epidemiology of Hepatitis C in Canada. The Hepatitis Information Network. Pointe
Claire, QC.
Federal sentences are those that are comprised of two or more years.

Questions were incorporated into the semi-structured interview that asked inmates to selfreport on their incarceration history, drug abuse history, tattoos and infection status (HIV,
HCV, HBV). Only items that could be approximated with CSC’s Offender Management
System (OMS) were included in the self-reporting procedure. Thus, inmates were not asked
to report on their sexual practice histories.
4. The IRP was then validated on the interview sample, and the approximated items were tested.
Using the interview sample, Chi-square analyses were conducted to assess whether inmates
with a previous federal incarceration and either a history of frequent drug use and/or a
previous tattoo were more likely to report they had HIV or Hepatitis. Results revealed that
those who rated high risk of having a blood borne infection by the IRP were more likely to be
infected than those who were not rated as such (51.3% vs. 12.4% respectively, χ² (1, n =
108) = 12.36, p<0.001). Similarly, those with a blood borne disease were more likely to rate
high on the IRP (60.6% vs. 25.3% respectively, χ² (1, n = 108) = 12.36, p<0.001).
As part of CSC’s intake assessment process, indicators regarding inmate substance abuse
histories are collected at admission. Although the process identifies whether inmates had a
history of frequent drug use, the process does not ascertain whether inmates have a history of
injection drug use upon admission. Thus, as part of the evaluation interview, inmates were
asked to self-report both indicators (history of frequent drug use and injection drug use).
Each indicator was correlated with the OIA proxy to ascertain whether the OIA indicator is
an appropriate proxy of injection drug use amongst this population. Results showed that
those who reported a history of frequent drug use during the interview interviewed were
more likely to have also reported injecting drugs (46.0% vs. 9.5% respectively, χ² (1, n =
108) = 9.5, p<0.01). Thus, the IRP appears to be a valid proxy indicator of risk for blood
borne disease.

5. The IRP items were then approximated, applied and tested for a larger inmate sample using
CSC’s automated data, the Offender Management System (OMS).
Three OMS items were used to approximate the identified risk factors. They were i)
previous federal term; ii) history of frequent drug use; and iii) previous tattoo. If inmates
reported they had a previous federal term and either (or both) of the other two items above,
they were designated ‘high risk’ of having the infection. Otherwise, they were rated ‘low
risk’. For all new admissions to federal custody between January 1st, 2001 and August 31st,
2006 (N=23,978), 25.2% were rated as high risk on the IRP. Those who were rated to be at
high risk of having a blood borne infection were more likely to have been taking medication
upon admission than those not rated high risk (28.7% vs. 22.2% respectively, χ² (1, n =
20,938) = 114.6, p<0.001), and were also more likely to be identified as having health
concerns requiring immediate attention (30.2% vs. 23.9% respectively, χ² (1, n = 20,745) =
65.1, p<0.001).
2.3.2 Semi-Structured Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were used to facilitate the collection of information and to provide
stakeholders the opportunity to identify issues that may not have been considered prior to the
evaluation. Participation in interviews was solicited by way of a request to contribute
information relevant to the evaluation through telephone interview or face-to-face meetings.
Unique interview formats were developed for each of the stakeholder groups; CSC staff
members including union representatives, inmates, and community contacts. Interviews were
structured such that they addressed the following evaluation objectives: i) relevancy, ii) success,
iii) cost-effectiveness, iv) implementation and v) unintended effects 56 . Questions were designed
such that responses were open-ended, categorical, dichotomous, or rated along a five point
scale 57 .

2.4 Procedures
Interviews were conducted by the evaluation team either in person or by telephone during the
months of August and September, 2006. The interview process included site visits to each of the
pilot sites. Key sources who were unavailable at the time of the site visit, or who were not
physically located at the sites, were contacted by telephone and subsequently interviewed.
Interviews were approximately 20 to 30 minutes in duration.

Qualitative data generated as a result of the interview process were entered into Microsoft Word
and organized by different stakeholder groups. Themes relevant to the evaluation objectives
were then generated by evaluation analysts. Similarly, quantitative data were entered into a
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, and then converted and analyzed electronically using a Statistical
System Analysis (SAS).

Information from the Tattoo Room Movement and Tool Control forms and the Request for
Tattoo forms was entered into a spreadsheet table, then converted and manipulated electronically
using SAS. From this information, databases were created that would facilitate various types of
analyses: the “tattoo client” data base identified inmates who received or were waiting to receive

56
57

See Appendix 2 for the Evaluation Matrix.
See Appendix 3 for key informant interview formats

a tattoo through the STPI, and the “summary” data base contained one unique record for clients
for profiling purposes.

Financial information regarding the STPI was obtained from CSC’s automated comptrollership
system. Costs associated with treating inmates for HCV and HIV were collected through CSC’s
Infectious Disease Surveillance System (IDSS), infectious disease nurses and regional
pharmacists via telephone interviews.

2.5 Analyses
The evaluation team conducted qualitative analyses for open-ended interview questions, through
content analysis of the interview responses, which resulted in the identification of themes.
Themes were generated for evaluation objectives where appropriate (relevancy, success, costeffectiveness, implementation issues and unintended effects). These results are presented in the
Key Findings section.

Quantitative methods were used to profile the STPI clients, and the IRP was used on a larger
sample of inmates for similar purposes. Specifically, chi-square analyses were used for within
group analyses on categorical variables (IRP rating).

Cost-effectiveness analyses were used to determine whether the STPI was a cost-effective
approach to achieving results. Cost-effectiveness analysis is a decision-oriented tool that
simultaneously considers costs and effects. It is more cost-effective if one operation yields the
same level of effectiveness as others for lower cost 58 . Cost comparisons were also conducted
under hypothetical scenarios to establish whether there was a more efficient alternative of
producing the same level of results.

2.6 Limitations
Limitations of the present study were related primarily to the difficulty of obtaining healthrelated information on blood borne infectious diseases for inmates, as well as the self-selection
58

Levin, H.M. & McEwan, P.J. (2003). Cost-effectiveness analysis as an evaluation tool. In Kellaghan, T. &
Stufflebeam, D. L. (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Evaluation. Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

of interview participants based on the voluntary nature of the evaluation interviews.
Approximately 30% of all inmates receiving or waiting to receive a tattoo through the Initiative
were interviewed (114 of 384). With respect to health-related information, one of the limitations
of the current evaluation was related to the inability to determine the precise incidence rate of
HIV and Hepatitis among the inmate population. The only way in which to obtain accurate,
valid information regarding these incident rates would be to conduct a seroprevalence study (i.e.,
blood tests to determine presence of the diseases). This was not possible for two reasons: 1)
ethical issues associated with privacy (e.g., obtaining consent for offenders to take a blood
sample or review medical health records for blood borne infectious disease information); and 2)
the amount of time that it would take to collect this data for all inmates participating in the safer
tattooing program.

To address this limitation, the Infection Risk Profile (IRP) was developed to obtain an indication
the degree of infection with blood borne diseases among the inmate population. However, it is
important to note that this measure provided an indication of “risk” for blood borne infectious
disease, not an actual indicator of the presence or absence of a blood borne infectious disease. It
is quite possible that inmates at high risk for infection might never in fact contract a blood borne
disease. For example, they may have practiced harm reduction procedures even while engaging
in risky behaviours (e.g., using sterile needles when injecting drugs), and thus never have
contracted HIV or Hepatitis. Similarly, some low risk inmates may have contracted HIV through
practices such as risky sexual behaviour, which was one risk factor which could not be
approximated utilizing the IRP in the present study.

Results of the current evaluation provided support for the validity of the IRP (i.e., inmates with a
high IRP score were more likely to report infection with either HIV or Hepatitis during the
evaluation interviews). However, it is important to note the biased nature of the interview
sample for the present evaluation (i.e., inmates who were interested in obtaining tattoos, who
volunteered for the study, and who were available at the time of the evaluation). Ideally, the
measure would have been validated on a random sample of all CSC inmates to ensure the
validity of the measure. This was not possible given the timeframes of this evaluation, but
should be considered for any future evaluations.

Next, it is important to discuss possible selection biases in the interview samples. Staff and
inmates were selected for interviews based on their interest and availability. Therefore, only
inmates who were incarcerated during the time that interviews were conducted were able to
participate in the interview phase of the evaluation. Also, due to the fact that interviews were
voluntary, it is likely that staff and inmates who had a high degree of interest in the pilot
Initiative volunteered to participate. Nonetheless, attempts were made to ensure participation by
a broad spectrum of staff and inmate participants. 59 Participants interviewed included the
following groups: Wardens/Deputy Wardens, Assistant Wardens Correctional Programs
(AWCPs), Institutional Services Supervisors, Unit Managers, Security Intelligence Officers,
Security Maintenance Officers, Finance Officers, Inmate Pay and Program Clerks, Regional
Chiefs of Health Services, Co-Chairs of Health and Safety, Local Union Representatives,
Psychologists, Behavioural Councillors, Regional Health Coordinators, Correctional
Supervisors, Correctional Program Officers, Institutional Search Coordinators, Program
Managers, Program Assistants and Facilitators, OMS Specialists, Teachers, Team Leaders,
Chaplains, Institutional Parole Officers, Inmate Committee Chairs, Inmate Tattooists, Inmate
Tattoo Apprentices, and Inmates on a waiting list to receive a tattoo.

When examining and comparing trends of tattoo contraband seizures per 100 inmates, it should
be noted that contraband seizure rates at institutions with small populations will be more
sensitive than those at institutions with larger populations. Further, trends are examined over a
finite time period, and given the low base rates they could significantly change with the addition
of more observations in the future.

Finally, the evaluation report is limited in that it was not feasible to assess the impact of the STPI
on offender reintegration given the limited follow-up time available. A longer time period for
follow-up would have been required to examine whether there was an impact on a number of

Prior to the site visits, a memo was sent to the Wardens at the pilot institutions requesting that interviews be
conducted with a broad range of stakeholders including: Wardens, Assistant Warden Correctional Programs,
Security Intelligence Officers, Health Services employees, local Union representatives, Correctional Officers,
Social Program Officers, Tattooists, Inmates (who had received tattooing services or were on the waiting list).

reintegration factors, such as: successful discretionary release, time in the community and job
placement. Thus, long-term follow-up should be considered in future evaluations.

3.0 KEY FINDINGS
The following results are presented under their respective Evaluation Objectives, namely:
1) Success (effectiveness and efficiency), 2) Cost Effectiveness, 3) Implementation,
4) Unintended Findings and 5) Continued Relevancy.

Objective 1: Success:

Effectiveness:
The extent to which a policy, program, or initiative is meeting its planned results.

•

FINDING 1: The Initiative has resulted in an enhanced level of knowledge and
awareness amongst staff and inmates regarding blood borne infectious disease prevention
and control practices.

A significant element contributing to the reduction in risk of infection among inmates, staff, and
the community was the education of inmates regarding safer tattooing practices. As part of the
Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative, information was disseminated through the Reception
Awareness Program, the Peer Education and Counselling Program and the STPI Guidelines.
Each education delivery method is discussed below. For a detailed description of the information
that was disseminated, please refer to the Safer Tattooing Guidelines. 60

The Reception Awareness Program (RAP)
The first point of contact for the education of inmates regarding tattooing practices occurred
during intake, through the Reception Awareness Program (RAP). In addition to the provision of
information regarding blood borne infectious disease prevention and control, the RAP was
modified to include information on the health risks associated with tattooing.

In order to determine if the level of knowledge surrounding these health risks had changed as a
result the educational Reception Awareness Program, inmates were asked to complete a
questionnaire measuring their knowledge of blood borne infectious disease as it relates to
60

The Safer Tattooing Guidelines are available through CSC’s Infonet.

tattooing practices both before and after taking part in the Program. Overall, 599 of
approximately 978 inmates completed the pre and post questionnaires. Please note that the total
number reported with respect to the pre and post questionnaires include only offenders who
provided an answer to each specific question. Consequently, total number of respondents might
differ from one question to the other.

Inmates were significantly more likely to rate sharing of tattoo rigs, needles, and inks as being a
health risk after the RAP program as compared to before. Specifically, inmates were asked to
rate the level of risk (‘no risk’, ‘low risk’, or ‘high risk’) associated with these three elements of
tattooing: sharing of tattoo rigs, sharing of tattoo needles, and sharing of tattoo inks. Chi-square
tests for independence found significant differences between pre and post measures of risk
awareness for sharing of tattoo rigs (87.5% vs. 95.1%, χ² (3, N = 1133) = 19.93, p = .0002) and
sharing of tattoo needles (92.9% vs. 97.0%, χ² (3, N = 1130) = 12.99, p = .0047). The RAP
appeared to be most informative when it came to informing inmates of the risks associated with
sharing of tattoo inks. Where 83.5% (N = 492) of those surveyed thought that sharing inks was
high risk prior to the Program, 94.4% (N = 506) thought it was a high risk practice after the RAP
(x2 (3, N = 1125) = 34.01, p < .0001) 61 .

Inmates were also asked to indicate pre and post RAP, which infectious diseases could be
acquired by using unsafe tattoo equipment. Although no significant differences were found
between pre and post tests on knowledge regarding the transferal of HIV or Hepatitis C, the large
majority of inmates recognized that these diseases could be spread through unsafe tattooing
practices. Eighty two percent (N = 492) thought that HIV could be spread, and 86% (N = 528)
realized that Hepatitis C could be spread through unsafe tattoo practices. Inmates were correctly
aware that Hepatitis A was not something that was normally transmitted through tattoo practices,
with a significant increase in this knowledge from pre to post test (49.6% vs. 60.1%, χ² (1, N =
1198) = 13.38, p = .0003), as was the case for Tuberculosis (73.8% vs. 83.8% respectively, χ²
(1, N = 1198) = 17.99, p < .0001).

Sample sizes vary as not all respondents answered all questions.

Finally, inmates were asked, before and after taking part in the Reception Awareness Program, if
they would receive a prison tattoo, either from the range or through the Safer Tattooing Practices
Initiative. No significant differences existed between pre and post test in the number of
offenders who indicated they would get a tattoo in prison, however, the majority (post) indicated
they would either not get a tattoo at all (55%, N = 290) or they would prefer to get a tattoo
through the Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative (39%, N =206). Only 2% of inmates (N =523)
indicated that they would get a range tattoo during their incarceration period. Therefore, only a
very small percentage of inmates indicated that they would engage in high-risk tattooing
behaviour following the presentation of the RAP session information.

Information Distributed at the Pilot Sites
A variety of educational materials surrounding the implementation, operation, and rational
behind the Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative was provided to inmates and staff at each of the
pilot sites. Among these documents were the Guidelines for the STPI (available to inmates
through the library and to staff through CSC’s intranet web-site), and various information and
education pamphlets. In order to build on the information available, training sessions on the use
of the guidelines were also provided to both staff and inmates prior to the implementation of the
pilot.

When pilot site staff and inmates were asked to rate how satisfied they were with the educational
materials that were provided, 69% of staff members who read the materials, and the majority
(86%) of inmates indicated that they were satisfied with the information made available. In
addition, 62% of inmates agreed that they felt more informed about how blood borne infectious
diseases are spread as a result of the Initiative. Similarly, almost half (46%) of the staff
members interviewed agreed that inmates are now more informed about how blood borne
infectious diseases are spread. Although 17% of staff and 14% of inmates felt that the inmate
population was not any more informed about how blood borne infectious diseases were spread as
a result of the Initiative, it was observed by a number of the staff and inmate respondents that the
inmates’ knowledge had not been enhanced because they were already well-informed of
infectious disease prevention and control practices. Both groups provided the caveat that even
though this group of inmates did not acquire any additional knowledge, the educational material

available served as an excellent refresher. The evaluation team did not receive concrete
suggestions for improvement of this material.

The STPI Guidelines
As previously mentioned, the STPI Guidelines were made available to staff prior to and
throughout the Initiative through the CSC intranet site. Interviews with pilot site staff (N = 110)
found that 62% of those interviewed had read the Guidelines for the CSC Safer Tattooing
Practices Initiative. More specifically, of those that identified their positions, 83% of health care
workers, 90% of social programs officers, and 54% of correctional officers had read the
Guidelines. In general, staff who had read the guidelines commented that they were well
thought out and provided clear, concise direction.

The Peer Education and Counselling Program (PEC)
Commissioner’s Directive (CD) 821 - “Management of Infectious Diseases”, notes that the PEC
Program “… must be put in place at all penitentiaries with the exception of mental health units
and reception units.” Accordingly, the National HIV/AIDS Peer Education and Counselling
Program (commonly referred to as “PEC”) and Circles of Knowledge Keepers (Aboriginal PEC
program) contain information on HIV/AIDS and other blood borne infectious diseases. These
programs are intended to train inmates to become “peer educators” who provide support and
information on blood borne infectious diseases to other inmates, and are offered at various times
throughout the year on an as-needed basis. The “Women’s Component” of PEC contains
additional information related to how HIV/AIDS and other blood borne infectious diseases affect
women in particular.

RECOMMENDATION 1: To maintain an enhanced level of knowledge and awareness of
infection prevention and control practices, CSC should continue the education component of
the Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative.

•

FINDING 2: Initial results of the initiative indicate potential to reduce harm, reduce
exposure to health risk, and enhance the health and safety of staff members, inmates and
the general public with higher risk groups (medium and maximum security institutions
for male offenders).

Illicit Tattooing: Site-Specific Trends
The practice of illicit tattooing is most evident in men’s medium security institutions, as
indicated by the number of seizures of tattoo contraband. A review of the total number of tattoo
contraband seizures since August 31st, 2003 (N=1,171) revealed that the majority of seizures
occurred at medium security men’s institutions (78.3%), followed by maximum security
(20.3%), while less than 1% occurred at men’s minimum and women’s institutions respectively
(see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Seizures of Tattoo Contraband by Gender and Security Level
Tattoo Contraband Seizures
August 31, 2003 to August 31, 2006
(N=1,171)
100%
78.31%

Percent

80%
60%
40%

20.32%

20%
0%

0.94%

0.43%

Women's
Institutions

Men's Minimum
Security
Institutions

Men's Medium
Security
Institutions

Men's Maximum
Security
Institutions

Facility Type

This finding also held for the STPI pilot sites. Specifically, at Fraser Valley Institution for
Women and Rockwood Institution (men’s minimum security), there was little indication that
inmates were tattooing on the range prior to the Initiative. In the two years prior to the Initiative,
there were virtually no seizures of tattoo contraband at both institutions. 62 Conversely, seizures
of tattoo contraband at men’s medium and maximum security pilot sites typically fluctuated
between 0 and 4 seizures per 100 inmates per month over the same time period (see Figure 1).

The above trends were confirmed by staff and inmate-reported incidence of range tattooing. Of
those interviewed at women’s and men’s minimum security pilot sites, 50% of staff and 65% of
62

Only includes those known seizures reported on CSC’s Offender Management System.

inmates indicated that there was little or no tattooing occurring on the range prior to the
Initiative. On the contrary, at men’s medium and maximum security pilot sites, 90% of staff and
75% of inmates indicated that range tattooing was in fact a reality at their institutions.

Finally, the variation in tattooing practices across security levels was also evidenced by results of
the 1995 Inmate Survey. According to the 1995 Survey, 36% of all inmates (ranging from 24%
in minimum security to 43% in maximum) reported feeling that they needed more help to protect
themselves from HIV/AIDS. Of those who felt they needed more help, 32% felt they needed
new and/or sterile tattooing equipment: 13% in minimum, 30% in medium and 41% in maximum
security institutions.

Harm and Risk Reduction
As noted above, data suggests that the practice of tattooing on the range is more common at
men’s medium and maximum security pilot sites than at women’s and men’s minimum security
institutions, suggesting that the exposure to the risk of infection with a blood borne disease is
greater at those sites. Results also suggested that, during the Initiative, there was a reduction in
illicit tattooing at medium security institutions.

Analyses compared the rate of tattoo contraband seizures at pilot sites compared to other similar
institutions. During the Initiative, there was a reduction in illicit tattooing at medium security
institutions (see Figure 2) as evidenced by the decrease in the level of tattoo materials seized.
Moreover, seizure rates were increasing at other men’s medium security institutions (non-STPI)
over the same time period.

Next, at the men’s maximum security pilot site (Atlantic Institution), rates of illicit tattoo
materials seized remained steady (see Figure 2) while at other similar institutions these rates
were slightly decreasing. The reason for the lack of the expected decrease in contraband seizures
can not be clearly attributed to any known factors assessed in the current evaluation. However, it
should be noted that the results obtained for the Atlantic Institution may have been impacted by
the fact that the Initiative was only implemented within a section of Atlantic Institution, thus not

all inmates at the institution had access to the tattoo room. The evaluation team did not find an
explanation for the slight decrease at other maximum security institutions.

Finally, at the men’s minimum security pilot site (Rockwood Institution), seizure rates increased
during the Initiative while decreasing at other minimum security institutions. The degree to
which the Initiative may have impacted this trend should be examined in future evaluations. For
women’s institutions, the trend was next to 0 over the time period, so no chart was created to
establish a trend over time.

Figure 2: Tattoo Contraband Seizure Rates
Pilot Sites (Men’s Medium Security Institutions) 63

Other Men’s Medium Security Institutions

Matsqui Institution (Medium Security)
Seizure of Tattoo Contraband

1.5

Other Institutions (Medium Security)
Seizure of Tattoo Contraband

1.0
0.5

Date

1.5
1.0
0.5

Jul-06

May-06

Mar-06

Jan-06

Nov-05

Jul-05

Sep-05

May-05

Jan-05

Mar-05

Nov-04

Jul-04

Sep-04

Mar-04

May-04

Jan-04

Nov-03

0.0
Sep-03

Seizures per 100 Inmate
Population

August 8, 2005
2.0

Date

Data were not available for Cowansville Institution.

Jul-06

May-06

Jan-06

Mar-06

Nov-05

Jul-05

Sep-05

May-05

Jan-05

Mar-05

Nov-04

Jul-04

Sep-04

May-04

0.0
Jan-04

Bath Institution (Medium Security)
Seizure of Tattoo Contraband

1.5

Mar-04

Date

2.0

Nov-03

Jul-06

May-06

Jan-06

Mar-06

Nov-05

Jul-05

Sep-05

May-05

Jan-05

Mar-05

Nov-04

Jul-04

Sep-04

May-04

Jan-04

Mar-04

Nov-03

0.0

Sep-03

0.5

Seizures per 100 Inmate
Population

1.0

Sep-03

Seizures per 100 Inmate
Population

August 18, 2005
2.0

Seizures of Tattoo Contraband (continued)
Pilot Sites (Men’s Maximum Security Institution)

Other Men’s Maximum Security Institutions

Atlantic Institution (Maximum Security)
Seizure of Tattoo Contraband

Other Institutions (Maximum Security)
Seizure of Tattoo Contraband

1.0
0.5

Date

Jul-06

May-06

Jan-06

Mar-06

Nov-05

Jul-05

1.0
0.5

Date

The above findings were also supported by data collected throughout the course of interviews
with staff members and inmates at the pilot sites. Results are presented below.

Staff Members
Overall, staff members were significantly more likely to indicate there was ‘some’ to ‘high’ risk
of staff exposure to unclean tattooing devices prior to the STPI compared to during the Initiative
(85.7% vs. 65.4% respectively, χ² (1, n= 206) = 11.6, p<0.001) 64 . Similarly, staff members
were also more likely to indicate there was ‘some’ to ‘high’ risk of staff needle-stick injuries
prior to the STPI compared to during the Initiative (81.9% vs. 64.1% respectively, χ² (1, n=
208) = 8.40, p<0.01) (see Figures 3 and 4).
64

Refer to question 3, section A of the Staff Interview key, Appendix 3.

Jul-06

May-06

Mar-06

Jan-06

Nov-05

Sep-05

Jul-05

May-05

Jan-05

Mar-05

Nov-04

Sep-04

Jul-04

0.0
May-04

Jul-06

May-06

Mar-06

Jan-06

Nov-05

Sep-05

Jul-05

May-05

Mar-05

Jan-05

Nov-04

Sep-04

Jul-04

May-04

Mar-04

Jan-04

0.0

1.5

Mar-04

0.5

2.0

Jan-04

1.0

2.5

Nov-03

1.5

3.0

Sep-03

2.0

Seizures per 100 Inmate
Population

2.5

Nov-03

Sep-05

Other Institutions Minimum Security)
Seizure of Tattoo Contraband

September 14, 2005

Sep-03

May-05

Other Men’s Minimum Security Institutions

Rockwood Institution (Minimum Security)
Seizure of Tattoo Contraband
Seizures per 100 Inmate
Population

Jan-05

Date

Pilot Sites (Men’s Minimum Security Institution)

3.0

Mar-05

Nov-04

Jul-04

Sep-04

May-04

Jan-04

0.0
Mar-04

Jul-06

May-06

Jan-06

Mar-06

Nov-05

Jul-05

Sep-05

May-05

Jan-05

Mar-05

Nov-04

Jul-04

Sep-04

May-04

Jan-04

Mar-04

Nov-03

0.0

1.5

Nov-03

0.5

2.0

Sep-03

1.0

Seizures per 100 Inmate
Population

1.5

Sep-03

Seizures per 100 Inmate
Population

August 23, 2005
2.0

This finding did not hold for all sub-groups within the staff members interviewed. Although
Correctional Officers indicated higher levels of exposure to risk prior compared to during the
Initiative, the differences were not statistically significant.

Figure 3: Staff Perceptions of Risk of Exposure to Unclean Tattoo Needles – Prior to and
During the STPI

100
80
60
40
20
0

88.24

90.00

73.53 80.00
60.00

85.71

85.45
55.56

63.46

65.35

Prior
to
STPI
During
STPI
Prior
to
STPI
During
STPI
Prior
to
STPI
During
STPI
Prior
to
STPI
During
STPI
Prior
to
STPI
During
STPI

Percent

"Same" to "High" Risk of Exposure to Unclean
Tattooing Devices

Correctional Health Care
Officer
Worker

Social
Program

Other

Total

*See Footnote 65

*Note: “Other” includes staff members from the following groups: Wardens/Deputy Wardens, Assistant
Wardens Correctional Programs (AWCPs), Institutional Services Supervisors, Unit Managers, Security
Intelligence Officers, Security Maintenance Officers, Finance Officers, Inmate Pay and Program Clerks,
Regional Chiefs of Health Services, Co-Chairs of Health and Safety, Local Union Representatives,
Psychologists, Behavioural Councillors, Regional Health Coordinators, Correctional Supervisors, Correctional
Program Officers, Institutional Search Coordinators, Program Managers, Program Assistants and Facilitators,
OMS Specialists, Teachers, Team Leaders, Chaplains, Institutional Parole Officers.

Figure 4: Staff Perceptions of Risk of Exposure to Needle-stick Injury – Prior to and
During the STPI

"Same" to "High" Risk of Staff Needle-stick Injury
90.00

100

Percent

76.47

87.04

70.59 66.67 66.67

81.90
64.08

63.46

50.00

40
20

Correctional Health Care
Officer
Worker

Social
Program

Other

During
STPI

Prior
to

During
STPI

Prior
to

During
STPI

Prior
to

During
STPI

Prior
to

During
STPI

Prior
to

Total

Analyses across institution type were also conducted. Interestingly, staff members at medium
security pilot sites were significantly more likely to indicate higher levels of exposure to risk
prior compared to during the Initiative (98.0% vs. 73.1%, χ² (1, n= 96) = 11.9, p<0.001
respectively for exposure to tattooing devices), while, for men’s minimum and maximum
security pilot sites and women’s institutions, similar analyses did not yield statistically
significant results.

Finally, when giving their opinions regarding the impact of the STPI on various outcomes, the
vast majority of all staff members indicated they felt the Initiative helped to decrease the
likelihood that people will contract HIV and HCV/HBV (85.6%). Most staff members also
indicated that they felt the Initiative made the institution safer for both staff members (64.8%)
and inmates (72.4%). Interestingly, although many staff agreed that the Initiative decreased the
number of tattoos that inmates receive on the range (60.4%), many also indicated that they felt
the number of seizures of tattoo paraphernalia has not changed as a result of the Initiative
(60.5%).

Inmates
Most inmates indicated they would prefer to receive a tattoo through the safe and controlled
environment created via the Initiative (87%). Inmates also felt that other inmates were willing to
use the Initiative in the institution (77.1%). Lastly, over two-thirds of inmates interviewed felt
the Initiative decreased the chances that someone would get a range tattoo (67.3%), and most
indicated that they felt the STPI had caused a decrease in range tattoos (78.9%) and in HIV or
Hepatitis cases (88.0%).

The vast majority of inmates interviewed who reported they were infected with HIV and/or
HCV/HBV (N=32) indicated they would prefer to use the STPI tattoo room rather than get a
tattoo on the range (93.8%). Notably, 11 of those reporting they were infected with a blood
borne disease also indicated they had previously injected drugs in prison.

Similarly, most inmates who reported they did not have a blood borne infection also indicated
they would prefer to use the STPI tattoo room rather than get a tattoo on the range. There were a
total of 73 inmates who reported they were tested and not infected with HIV or HCV/HBV. Of
the total who responded, 83.6% indicated that they completely agreed with the statement “I
prefer to use the tattoo room rather than get a tattoo on the range”.

•

FINDING 3: The Initiative provided additional employment opportunities for inmates in
the institution, and work skills that are transferable to the community.

Over the course of the Safer Tattooing Pilot Initiative, 23 inmates were employed as
tattooists/apprentices at various pilot sites. Of those, 13 participated in the evaluation
interviews 66 and reported anywhere from 2 to 12 months of employment through the Initiative in
one of these positions. The majority of staff (53/77; 69%) also indicated a high degree of
perceived work satisfaction among tattooists and apprentices employed through the Initiative 67 .
A number of interviewees also spoke to the fact that the Initiative provided an opportunity for
tattooists to gain training/experience in a skill area which might facilitate employment - not only
within the institution but also in the community. Some tattooists and apprentices (31%)
66
67

The remaining 10 inmates were either not available or did not participate in the evaluation.
See question 2a Section B of the Staff Interview key, Appendix 3.

discussed the impact of the tattooing initiative in supporting goals related to reintegration (e.g.,
providing a valid career option, impact of gainful employment on reducing recidivism).
Similarly, some inmates (10%) and staff (9%) commented upon the impact of the program in
developing employability skills and employment opportunities for offenders in the institution, as
well as providing an avenue for potential employment upon release to the community. However,
considering the limited opportunity for follow-up, it was not possible to establish success in
providing a career in the community to inmate tattooists.

Efficiency:
The extent to which a policy, program, or initiative is producing its planned outputs as a result
of the Initiative and in relation to resources used.

•

FINDING 4: Tattooing activities at most pilot sites were constrained due to the limited
number of trained Tattooists.

As previously outlined, STPI tattooing services were provided by inmate tattooists who had
successfully completed training on infectious diseases and infection prevention and control
practices. Most pilot sites, however, experienced program constraints due to unavailability of
tattooists, despite interest on the part of inmates to become a tattooist through the Initiative. The
limitation in the number of available trained tattooists added to a delay in tattooing, and was
generally due to two factors: the availability and demands surrounding training, and the turnover
of Initiative tattooists. On average, inmates reported a wait time of 58 days to obtain their tattoo
from the day that they first applied; a time period that ranged from 1 to 230 days, depending on
the institution.

As previously described, in order to become a tattooist in the Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative,
inmates were required to complete the Peer Education and Counselling (PEC) Program. In many
cases, completion of this program was problematic for inmates. When interviewed, 7% of
respondents commented on the demanding nature of the PEC program, both in terms of inmate
time demands and staff time demands. Initiative tattooists and inmates noted that the program
was too long and that it required them to learn information that was irrelevant for their roles as

tattooists (e.g., the PEC program being designed to train inmates to act as liaisons between other
inmates and nursing staff).

In addition, interviewees commented that the lack of availability of the PEC program itself made
it difficult for the Initiative to maintain tattooists. The PEC program requires significant
classroom time (approximately 45 hours), and may or may not require outside resources
(contractors) to administer the program. Several staff members commented that the time
required to coordinate, administer, and complete the PEC program was not conducive to keeping
an active tattooist in the Initiative, especially if the institution was faced with inmate turnover.
This sentiment was commonly reflected in observations such as:

“The PEC training program is too long (it could be done in 1 or 1.5 days rather than two
weeks). This is too much program for tattooists; they don’t need to be trained as
counsellors.”
The lack of availability of Initiative tattooists was a concern voiced at many of the pilot site
institutions, with a few exceptions. Although many inmates (45%) indicated that they were
“very satisfied” with the availability of the tattooists and apprentices, they later expressed some
concerns in this regard. For instance, 39% of inmates noted that there were too few tattooists,
specifically trained tattooists. Many staff members also noted the lack of tattooists, indicating
that there “should be more tattooists, it could help reduce range tattoos”. The average turn-over
rate at men’s pilot sites was 3, and at the women’s pilot site it was one. In several cases,
Initiative tattooists were released from the institution during the pilot. In other cases, tattooists
were fired from their work in the Initiative, or had to leave their post for other reasons (i.e., being
segregated). Each time an Initiative tattooist was not available to work in the tattoo room, there
would be a break in tattoo services. This had serious implications for ensuring ongoing
accessibility to the program and for range tattooing. If for any reason the tattooist was no longer
in the position and there was no back up available, the shop would remain closed until a
replacement could complete the PEC program. In some cases, inmates sought tattoos (or
completion of tattoos initiated in the shop) on the ranges. Respondents noted that while they
would have preferred to receive (or have the tattoo finished) in the shop, given the length of the

wait time for the STPI and the availability of range tattooists, they chose the non sanctioned but
readily accessible route.

•

FINDING 5: Tattooing hours of operation were sporadic at some sites, and thus had an
impact on the number of tattoos administered.

Under the Guidelines for the STPI, direct supervision of the tattoo room was essential at the
beginning and end of each tattoo session, as well as at intervals within the operational period.
These responsibilities, along with many others, fell to the Social Programs Officers (SPO) at the
pilot program sites. Specifically, as per the Guidelines, all SPOs were to be able to manage the
tattoo room, with one SPO ultimately responsible.

Although some sites were able to distribute the responsibilities of the tattoo room across several
individuals, in most cases only one SPO was charged with the management and operation of the
tattoo room. This meant that when that particular individual was away from work, the tattoo
room could not operate. When asked how the Initiative could have been improved, 32% of
responding inmates commented that the Initiative would benefit from additional staff capable of
undertaking the tattoo room duties. Twelve percent of staff and 18% of inmate respondents
noted that often, the work schedule of the SPO (day shifts, for example) did not coincide with
most effective times to operate the tattoo room, and thus the room operated at limited hours or
was often closed. Interestingly, these respondents linked this lack of room availability directly
with the persistence of range tattooing in the institution. Respondents suggested that expanding
the number of staff members who could take responsibility for the tattoo room would allow for
the room to function at other times (on evenings and weekends, for example). As one
respondent noted:
“… need another SPO to assist in getting the shop running. (SPO’s name) is very
good, but [they are] at the limit of what [they] can do. They definitely need another
staff member involved …”.
The above comment also addresses another element which contributed to the sporadic times
allotted for tattooing: the element of day-to-day institutional operations. In institutions where
different populations required different movement schedules and meal times, scheduling

extended blocks of time for the tattoo room to function uninterrupted was a challenge, leading to
a decrease in Initiative efficiency. A direct result of a decreased capacity to perform tattoos is
an increase in the waiting time required to get a tattoo through the Initiative. On average, 22%
of respondents (tattooists, inmates, and staff) mentioned that the wait list to get a tattoo through
the Initiative was too long and that this had a direct impact on the amount of range tattooing
occurring in the institution.

Objective 2: Cost Effectiveness:
Cost-effectiveness determines the relationship between the amount spent and the results achieved
relative to alternative design and delivery approaches.

•

FINDING 6: The cost of the Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative is low respective to the
potential benefit.

As a harm reduction initiative, the STPI seeks to decrease the spread of blood borne infectious
disease among inmates, staff members, and the community at large – thus decreasing the overall
costs of medical treatment. In 2005, CSC recorded $2,645,134.00 in HCV related expenditures.

Taking into consideration the cost of such treatment, the STPI is cost-effective if one of every 38
tattoo sessions were to result in an ‘avoided’ HCV infection, or if one of every 50 tattoo sessions
resulted in an avoided HIV infection. Moreover, the Initiative is cost effective if one out of 248
sessions results in an avoided liver transplant. These estimates were calculated as follows
(Table 2):

Table 2: Cost-Effectiveness
1) Ongoing Cost of STPI for one year:
2) Number of Tattoo Sessions
3) Cost per Tattoo Session
4) Cost of HCV Treatment:
5) Cost of HIV Treatment
6) Cost of Liver Transplant:

$603,038.53
1,043.00
$578.18
$21,993.00
$29,000.00
$121,732.00

Ratio of HCV Costs to Tattoo Room Session Cost (4)/(3)

38:1

Ratio of HIV Costs to Tattoo Room Session Cost (5)/(3)

50:1

Ratio of Infection and Liver Transplant Costs to Tattoo Room
Session Cost [(4)+(6)]/(3)

248:1

The ongoing cost of the STPI for one year was $603,038.53. Over the course of the Initiative,
there were 1,043 tattoo sessions in total. As such, the cost per tattoo session was approximately
$578.18. The yearly cost associated with the initial treatment of inmates with HCV is
approximately $21,993.00 68 . Thus, the ratio of HCV treatment costs to the cost of tattoo session
is 38 to 1. Similarly, the cost associated with the treatment of an inmate with HIV is
approximately $29,000.00 per year. Unlike HCV, this is an on going annual cost. Thus, the
ratio of HIV treatment costs to the cost of tattoo session is 50 to 1. Lastly, the average cost of a
liver transplant has been estimated to be $121,732.00 69 , and the ratio of the cost of a liver
transplant resulting from HCV infection to a tattoo session is 248 to1 (includes costs of HCV
treatment).

Finally, it is important to note that the above cost calculations do not include the post-treatment
costs of ongoing diagnostics, monitoring, medication, or nursing and specialists’ costs.
Similarly, indirect costs were also not considered in the calculation. Indirect costs include the
human costs associated to having a blood borne infectious disease, productivity and tax loses,
and increased pressure on social support networks.

Costs include antiviral medications, supplements for side-effects of anti-viral medications, vitamins and blood
work costs. (Information source: Health Service Branch, CSC.)
As reported in Canadian Journal of Surgery (2002;45[6]:425-34).

Objective 3: Implementation:
This evaluation objective ascertains whether the Initiative is organized or delivered in such a
way that goals and objectives can be achieved. This involves appropriate and logical linkages
between activities, outputs, outcomes and long-term outcomes.

•

FINDING 7: Implementation issues, such as the tattooist skill level, and training and
availability of tattooists, negatively impacted the effectiveness and efficiency of the
Initiative.

Tattooist Skill Level, Training in the Art of Tattooing, and Availability
Among the interviewees who had worked as either tattooists or apprentices as part of the Safer
Tattooing Practices Initiative, only one-third had prior experience as a tattooist in the community
(4/12; 33%). A greater number of tattooists/apprentices reported some experience as a “range
tattooist” during the current, or a previous, incarceration (8/12; 67%). Overall, one-third of
tattooists employed through the Initiative (4/12; 33%) did not report any specific experience
providing tattoos to clients in the community or while incarcerated. 70

The majority of inmates employed through the Initiative (tattooists, apprentices, clerks) reported
that they were very satisfied with the training that was provided by CSC (62%), and most felt
that they received enough training to do the job (77%). Similarly, most inmates who responded
to this question agreed 71 that the tattooists received enough training to do their jobs (79%).

Although a majority of inmates seemed to perceive that the tattooists received enough training,
there were some issues raised by both inmates and staff with respect to the skill level and quality
of some of the tattoos provided through the Initiative. For example, interviewees were asked
why they thought that inmates might still be receiving range tattoos, even though they were able
to receive tattoos through the Initiative. Some tattooists (9%), inmates (7%), and staff (24%)
who responded to this question indicated that one of the reasons might be that the inmates
“preferred” a range tattooist to the program tattooist for various reasons (e.g., range tattooists
70

However, one of these tattooists did report that although he had not provided tattoos to others, he had tattooed
himself numerous times.
Agreement here represented all those who selected “4” or “5” on a 5-point scale, with higher scores representing
greater agreement with the statement.

were better artists or had a preferred “style” of tattooing). For example, one staff member
reported that there were still some really good range tattooists who were trusted and liked. Other
interviewees suggested that there were some cases where inmates did not like the Initiative
tattooist, his art, or style, and so would choose to get a tattoo from an inmate on the range
instead.

Thus, although respondents appeared to be satisfied with the training provided by CSC, there
were still some instances in which the style or quality of work provided by the Initiative
tattooists was called into question. It is possible that this may have more to do with innate
artistic abilities and degree of past tattooing experience than with any level of direct training that
can be provided for this type of artistic work.

Cost of Supplies
When asked whether there was anything that could be done to improve the Initiative or if there
was any way that the Initiative could be run at a lower cost without jeopardizing it, many
respondents suggested that supplies were too expensive and that costs could be reduced in this
area. This theme was particularly prevalent in the comments of tattooists/apprentices (7/13;
54%), but was also mentioned by some other inmates (8/114; 7%) and staff members (15/110;
14%) as well. Some of the more common suggestions were related to the reduction of tattoo
related supply costs through: purchasing materials from more than one supplier, buying reusable
rather than disposable materials where possible (e.g., stainless steel nozzles), and ordering larger,
bulk quantities of ink (rather than the individual ink packets).

•

FINDING 8: Enhancements to the current delivery model could address many of the
implementation issues in a more cost effective and efficient manner.

Given the implementation issues presented above and the suggestions for improvements to
program delivery and cost effectiveness indicated by staff and inmates, a number of
enhancements could be made to the current delivery model to facilitate cost effectiveness and
efficiency. The proposed enhancements include, but are not limited to:

Revising the Peer Education and Counselling (PEC) training: Revising the PEC training
such that it is delivered primarily as a self-study module, requiring successful completion
of a written exam would reduce staff resource requirements while increasing the pool of
trained tattooists.

Training Correctional Staff to Operate the Tattoo Room: Training correctional staff to
operate the tattoo room would allow the room to function at hours not congruent with the
SPO’s schedule, to function when the SPO is not present at the institution, and would
decrease the salary dollars required to operate the Initiative.

Purchasing of Full-Size Ink Bottles: Purchasing larger ink bottles would require the
Initiative coordinator to dispense a pre-specified amount of ink outside of the tattoo room
and keep the bottles in their possession at all times. This option is the most cost effective
and would eliminate the issue of limited suppliers for the currently used ink caps.

Increasing the Capacity of the Tattoo Room: Increasing the number of tattooists able to
work in the tattoo room at the same time would decrease range tattooing by increasing
room efficiency and providing more choice of artists for clients. In addition, increasing
the number of tattooists able to work at one time in the tattoo shop would allow more
tattoos to be completed during a given session. Not only would this generate more
revenue for the shop, but it would also maximize the salary dollars required to operate and
supervise the program.

Consider Using Community Tattooist Services: Random interviews were conducted with
community tattooists across Canada (N=10). Interviews were designed to estimate service
costs and establish the willingness of community tattooists to work with federal inmates.
Results showed that the majority of community tattooists (70%) would be willing to
perform and supervise tattooing in federal institutions. Only half indicated they would
train inmate tattooists. Of those willing to provide tattoo services, many were willing to
complete an Infectious Disease education self-study module, complete a written test on
Infectious Diseases, and be monitored by a nurse in the set-up of the tattoo room (5 of 7).

Objective 4: Unintended Findings:
Unintended findings are areas wherein the Initiative created or encountered any positive or
negative effects.

•

FINDING 9: There was some perceived increase in the demand for tattoos, particularly at
the women’s multi-level and men’s minimum security level pilot sites.

Staff and inmates were asked whether “the Initiative had created a demand for tattoos that wasn’t
there before”. The majority seemed to agree that there had been at least somewhat of an
increase 72 in demand for tattoos: tattooists/apprentices/clerks (75%); other inmates (54%); and
staff (61%).

Chi-square tests were also conducted to determine any differences between staff and inmate
perceptions of increased demand at men’s vs. Women’s pilot site and as a function of
institutional security level for the men’s institutions. Only one significant difference was
observed. A greater percentage of staff at the women’s institution pilot site than at the men’s
institutions reported a perceived demand for tattoos that did not previously exist (100% vs. 45%
respectively, χ² (1, n = 87) = 22.50, p < 0.001). 73 Finally, as noted earlier, seizure rates of illicit
tattoo materials increased at the men’s minimum security pilot site during the Initiative,
suggesting the demand for tattoos increased as a result of the Initiative.

When respondents at women’s multi-level and men’s minimum security pilot sites were asked
why range tattooing was or was not taking place, several noted that while there was not a
problem with range tattooing prior to the program, they were seeing it more often now as the
Initiative had increased the desire for tattoos among these populations.

“Somewhat of an increase” was defined as those who selected “3 – 5” on the 5-point rating scale, with higher
scores representing greater agreement with the statement.
73
Chi-square tests were conducted to determine any differences between perceptions of increased demand at
women’s vs men’s institutions, and as a function of institutional security level for both inmates and staff. Other
than the significant difference observed between perceptions of staff at men’s and women’s institutions, no other
significant differences were observed.

Overall, a few inmates (2%) and one-quarter of staff members (25%) discussed the issue of the
perceived increase in awareness and demand for tattoos in greater depth at various stages during
the interview. Many hypothesized about the reasons for the increase in demand, which most
commonly included a perception that STPI tattoos were inexpensive as well as “cleaner” or
“safer”.

The perception that STPI tattoos were inexpensive is substantiated. As per the Initiative, inmates
were charged $5.00 for a two hour tattoo session 74 . In the community, the estimated cost of a 2
hour tattoo session is $300.00. Comparing both prices as a proportion of disposable income
revealed that STPI tattoo prices were lower than what the general public would pay in the
community as a proportion of disposable income. As per CSC’s Inmate Pay Scales, employed
inmates currently receive a daily rate that is based on four levels ranging from $5.25 to $6.90
(Monday to Friday - max $69/two-week pay period). Inmates who are unable to work or for
whom there is no work receive a daily allowance of $2.50. Inmates who refuse to work or to
take part in their assigned programs receive a basic daily allowance of $1. 75 It is estimated that
inmates are paid, on average, $4.00 per day 76 . At this rate, an inmate would have an annual
disposable income of $1,040.00 ($40/2 week period x 26 periods). In the community, the
Personal Disposable Income per capita (2002) is $22,268 77 . Thus, in order for inmate costs to
reflect those in the community, inmates would be required to pay $14.00 per session (See Table
3).

76
77

Note that this time period included set-up and take-down of materials in the tattoo room, which is estimated to
take anywhere between 10 and 20 minutes for both.
Sourced directly from CSC’s InfoNet, and Correctional Service Canada (2003). Commissioner’s Directive 730,
s.17-20. Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca
Estimated from CSC’s 2002 budget and the average number of inmates incarcerated.
According to Statistics Canada.

Table 3: Tattoo Cost Calculation as a percentage of disposable income (DI)
Annual Disposable Income:
Community:
Inmate (estimate):

$22,268
$1,040

Cost of 2-hour Tattoo Session:
Community:
STPI:

$300
$5

Cost of 2-hour Session as % of DI:
Community:
STPI:

1.35%
0.48%

Required cost of an STPI Tattoo:
equivalent % of DI

$14.01

Interestingly, based on interviews, inmates are paying three to five times more for the same
session on the range. According to inmates interviewed who had received a tattoo on the range,
most indicated they paid an average of two bales of tobacco ($13.78 each) for two hours of
tattooing. A majority of inmates also indicated they prefer to use the services of the tattoo room
as reported earlier. Thus, increasing the cost of a session may also eliminate the excess demand
for tattoos that is driven solely by the low price. Finally, it is also likely that if the services
offered through the Initiative met the needs of the inmates, they would be willing to pay more
and not pursue tattooing on the range.

Objective 5: Continued Relevancy:
The extent to which the Initiative remains consistent with departmental and government-wide
priorities, and realistically addresses an actual need.

•

FINDING 10: The Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative remains consistent with the goals
and objectives of the Federal Initiative to Address HIV/AIDS in Canada.

The STPI was established in order to enhance CSC’s role in maintaining a just, peaceful and safe
society, and to assist in the government’s overall agenda of improving the health, safety and
quality of life of Canadians. As such, the goals and objectives of the STPI were designed to
promote health and wellness, and to minimize the health and safety risks to CSC staff, inmates
and the community at large while maintaining security.

Data indicate that the goals of the STPI continue to address an actual need. However, while the
education component of the STPI remains relevant for inmates in all institutions, data indicate
that the operational component is most relevant in medium and maximum security institutions,
where the demand and the associated risk of blood borne infectious disease transmission through
illicit tattooing is high.

STPI Goal #1: Minimize the risk of transmission of blood borne infectious diseases in the
inmate population and to the community at large.
Transmission of blood borne infectious diseases in prison remains a risk within the inmate
population. Of those inmates interviewed for the purposes of this evaluation who indicated they
were infected with HIV and/or Hepatitis (N=33), many had indicated involvement in high risk
activities, such as injecting drugs (85%), injecting drugs in prison (57%), giving a range tattoo
(36%), or receiving a range tattoo (87%).

Risk of blood borne infectious disease transmission extends to staff members and to the
community at large. For instance, the proportion of inmates released to the community who are
rated as being at high risk of having a blood borne infectious disease (as per their Infectious Risk
Profile) has been increasing over time, from 17.8% in 1997 to 24.6% in 2006 78 (see Figure 5).

Numbers as of August 31st, 2006.

Figure 5: IRP Release Trends
Releases with a High Infection Risk Profile (IRP)
30
25

Percent

19.5
17.8

18.2

19.3

20.8

21.6

21.7

2001

2002

2003

24.2

23.4

2004

2005

24.6

15
10
5
0
1997

1998

1999

2000

2006

Year

This evaluation reveals that there are strong indications of illicit tattooing in men’s medium and
maximum security institutions, as evidenced by rates of tattoo materials seized. Thus, given the
potential for the STPI to reduce the practice of illicit tattooing, the Initiative continues to be a
relevant harm reduction strategy at these sites if modified to better meet the needs of the inmates,
particularly at medium security men’s institutions where contraband seizure rates are increasing.

STPI Goal #2: Minimize the risk of CSC staff injuries
Potential injury and infection to CSC staff members from illicit tattoo materials has remained a
risk over the past 10 years. Between 1997/98 and 2005/06, there were a recorded 44 staff needle
stick injuries due to illicit tattoo materials. Further, as evidenced by the seizure rates of illicit
tattoo materials, range tattooing remains prevalent in federal institutions, particularly in men’s
medium and maximum security facilities. However, data provided related to finding #2 indicates
that there was a reduction in contraband seizures, at least at medium security institutions during
the STPI. Thus, the STPI demonstrates continued relevance, in that it shows the potential to
minimize the risk of staff needle stick injuries through a possible reduction in illicit tattooing
materials and the preference expressed by inmates for the STPI over illicit range tattooing.

STPI Goals #3 and 4: Educate inmates regarding the transmission of infectious diseases
associated with illicit tattooing, and promote health and wellness while maintaining security.
As indicated through the pre-post knowledge tests administered upon intake, there is a need to
inform inmates with regards to the risks of illicit tattooing in prison (see Finding #1).
Specifically, the pre-post knowledge tests revealed that inmates were more informed about risks
of sharing tattoo rigs, needles and inks after receiving the knowledge component of the Initiative.

•

FINDING 11: There is a need for more information regarding inmate infectious diseases
and risk behaviours in order to adequately evaluate future harm reduction initiatives.

National data regarding federal inmates’ histories of infection, risk behaviors, and sociological
and cognitive factors will assist in situating the Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative within CSC’s
broader harm reduction program. Subsequently, CSC is conducting the National Inmate
Infectious Diseases and Risk Behaviors Survey in 2007-08. The survey is a joint project between
CSC Research and Health Services Branches, and the Hepatitis C Branch of the Public Health
Agency of Canada (PHAC), and will thus be directed with the assistance of an advisory
committee comprised of those groups. As per CSC’s Research Plan, the purpose of the survey is
to obtain estimates of:
i)
ii)
iii)

inmate testing and infection status before, at and after admission (using inmate recall)
risk behaviours that could result in sexually transmitted and blood borne infections
those sociological and cognitive factors that could reduce risk, including:
a. information on the extent to which inmates know the risks of blood borne and
sexually transmitted infections (specifically HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C) and their
prevention
b. information on inmate awareness and utilization of health education, health
promotion and harm reduction programs offered by CSC Health Services
c. static (e.g. length of sentence) and dynamic (e.g. social support) criminogenic factors

RECOMMENDATION 2: CSC should integrate the evaluation findings with results of the
National Inmate Infectious Diseases and Risk Behaviours Survey, and the recommendations
of the Health Care Advisory Committee, to ensure an optimal and cost-effective harm
reduction strategy.

RECOMMENDATION 3: If CSC decides to continue the operational component of the
Initiative, the following modifications should be considered to ensure enhanced levels of
success, efficiency and cost-effectiveness:
•

Consider providing tattoo services in federal institutions only where the risk of blood
borne infectious disease transmission through illicit tattooing is revealed to be high.

•

Raise the cost of a tattoo session for inmates such that prices are commensurate with
what an individual would pay in the community as a proportion of their disposable
income.

•

Ensure all Program Officers are provided with direction to operate the Tattoo Room,
such that the room’s operating hours meet the needs of inmates.

•

Purchase full-size ink bottles such that the Initiative coordinator dispenses a prespecified amount of ink outside of the tattoo room, keeping the bottles in their
possession at all times.

•

Increase the capacity of the tattoo room.

•

Consider using services from community tattooists to train inmate tattooists in the art
of tattooing.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Pre-post Questionnaire

Rect'ptioll Awart'ness Program
Knowledge Questiollnaire Tattooing Practices

These quesTions are about your knowledge of some of the ways someone could geT an
infectious disease. Please indicate by checking The mosT appropriate box how much risk
There is of getting an infecTious disease from The list of activiTies.
No risk

Low risk

HiGh risk

Don't know

The range?

How lisky is shaling talloo needles
when taTtooing?

How lisky is shaling inks when
tattooing?

1 How lisky is shming TallOO rigs on

Please check all that apply:
4

Which of The following diseases
can you catch from using unsafe
tattoo equipment?
Which of The following would you
prefer to receive in plison?

HIV

Tuberculosis

Hepe

HepA

A range
tmtoo

A taTtoo from a
plisontaTtoo
shop

Neither

Don·t
know

Why?

Appendix 2: Logic Model
Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative

Program

Activities

Education of inmates
regarding safer tattooing
practices

Training and recruitment of
Tattooist and Inmate Clerk

Operation and supervision of
tattoo room

Information
distributed through
pamphlets and
incorporated into
the Reception
Awareness
Program

Pre-employment
screening of tattooist
for HB immunization
and optional screening
of other diseases (Hep
A, C, VDRL & HIV)

Certificate of completion
of training (i.e. Peer
Education and
Counselling Program,
CSC Safer Tattooing
Practices Guidelines)

Immediate
Outcomes

Increased awareness
of blood borne
diseases, infection
risks and prevention
measures related to
tattooing

Safer tattooing
practices in a controlled
environment, with
infection prevention
and control practices

Additional
employment
opportunities
for inmates

Intermediate
Outcomes

Promote health and
wellness while
maintaining security

Reduced risk of
needle stick injuries
to staff

Improved
reintegration

Products/
Outputs

Long Term
Outcomes

Reduced risk of infection (HIV, HCV
& other blood borne diseases) in the
inmate population, CSC staff, and
community while maintaining security

Tool and safe
environment
control measures

New and
cover-up
tattoos

Proper disposal of
used sharps, and
maintenance of
tattoo supply
inventory

Reduction in the
display of violence,
hate and gang
related tattoos

Tattoo portfolio
for tattooist

Contribution to successful
re-integration

Appendix 3: Staff Interview Key

Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative: Staff Interview
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Name (optional)

Date:

Institution:

Position
o Correctional Officer
o Other
CI
TiUe

o Health Care WorKer

o Social Pr

ram Officer

SECTION A - GENERAL HEALTH AND TATIOOING INFORMATION
This section will address your experiences with tattooing in general and how it relates to the
health of inmates and staff at the institution.

1 Are you mvare of any health consequences that occurred to inmates as a result of tattooing?
No

Unknown
0

Prefer not to answer
0

NfA

IF YES, Were the consequences due to a range talloo, a STPltaltoo, a community talloo?
Ranoe Talloo

Room Tattoo

Communitv Talloo

a) infection with HIV
b) infection with He atitis BIC
c) skin infection
d blUisin Iswellin
e other s

In your opinion, what activities are the inmates engaging in at the institution that would put them at high risk for
contracting an infectious disease?
o in"ection dIU
"~
o STPI room tattooin
o other (specify):
Details:

0 " rotected sex

o ran e tattooi

Please rale the following elements of \vo~place health and safety. with one (1) representing "no risk" and five
(5) representing "high risk"

a) risk of slaff exposure to unclean tattooing
evices (illegal rigs) prior 10 the Safer Tattooing
ractices Initiative
b) risk of staff needle-stick injuries prior to the
s..~ler Tattooinn Practices Initiative
c) risk of slaff exposure to undean tattooing
evices (illegal rigs) during the Safer Tatlooing
ractices Initiative
d) risk of staff needle-stick injuries during the Safe
atlooinn Practices Initiative

No Risk

Som,

1
0

2
0

Risk
3
0

4
0

5
0

nknow

High Risk

SECTION B. INITIATIVE ADMINISTRATION/ORGANIZATION

This section will address the administration and organization of the Safer Tattooing Initiative.

On a scale from one (1) to five (5), with one (1) representing "oot at all • and five (5) representing ·very·,
how satisfied are you with
Not at all

lies rovided in the tattoo room
b flash found in the tattoo room
c STPI information ovided b esc
d time rovided for tattooin
funds rovided for the Initiative
f number of tattooists and a rentices
infection evention and control ractices
h STPI Guidelines bei
foHowed
i educational materials available

" '"

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

V,,,

Somewhat

2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

nknow

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Please rate the following statements about the Safer Tattooing Initiative according to how much you
agree with the statement, with one (1) representing "do not agree at all" and five (5) representing
'com~etely agree"

Not at all
a) Tattooists/apprentices are satisfied with their
vOl1\ in the Initiative
b) Clients are satisfied with the taUoos they
eceive in the Initiative
c) The Initiative decreases the number of tattoos
hal inmates ael 00 the ranae
d) The clients have to wait too long 10 get a
altoo lhrouah the Initiative
e) The Initiative helps to decrease the likelihood

hal ~ole witl contract HIV and Henalitis BIC
f) The Initiative makes the institution more safe

()( offenders
g) The Initiative makes the institution more safe
()( staff
h) The Initiative has created a demand for
altoos that wasn't there before
i) The number of seizures of tattoo
araphemalia has not changed as a result of the
nitiative
~~) Inmates are more informed about how
nfectious diseases are ""read

Somewhat

Comoletel

1
0

2
0

3
0

4
0

5
0

nknow
0

Have supplies ever gone missing from the tattoo room?

Don't Know

NIA

IF YES,

0) Which supplies?

b) How many times?
0)

Where the supplies found? Where?

d) Was there a report filed regarding the missing supplies?

Don't Know

Prefer not to answer

IF NO REPORT WAS FILED, what was the reason?

Have you read the Guidelines for the esc Safer Taltoong Practices Initiative?

Prefer not to answer

NIA

0
3

Do you feel there is a way that the Initiative could be run at a kJwer cost without jeopardizing it?

NIA

[)oo't Know

IF YES, how?

SECTION C: OTHER FACTORS

This next section will address factors that might affect how the Initiative runs, such as
interference by gangs or criminal organizations. Please remember that the answers to these
questions are strictly confidential and that you do not have to answer the questions if you do
not wish to do so.
Please identify W'hich of the following tattoos inmates have aslled to have provided through the Initiative
o a
related tattoos
o tattoos on head/neck
o none of the aoove

o hate related tattoos
o tattoos in enital r
o other s ci

o tattoos on hands
Kln

o cover-u tattoos

a) What happens when these types of requests are received?

b) In your opinion, are inmates still receiving any of the aoove tattoos on the range?
No

[)oo't Know

Prefer not to answer

To your knowledge, are inmates still receiving any range tatloos?
No

[)oo't Know

Prefer not to answer

IF YES, Why?

To your knowledge, have gangs or other Ofganized crime groups tried 10 coolrollhe activities of the tattoo
room?
No

DoIl't Know

Prefer not to answer

IFYES,
a) Which ones?

b) How did they attempt 10 do this?

c) What was done 10 address the situation?

In your opinion, has the introduction of the Safer Tattooing Initiative caused any of the following?

o an increase in range
tattoos
o an increase in HlV or
Heoatitis BIC cases
o an increase in the
desire fOf tattoos among
inmates
o an increase in
knowledge of infection
prevention and control

o a decrease in range
tattoos
o a decrease in HIV or
Heootitis B/C cases
o a decrease in the desire
for tattoos among inmates
o a decrease in knolvledge
of infection prevention and
control

(~tive

o no effect on range
tattoos
o no effect on HIV or HVC

o unknown
o unknown

cases
o no effect on the desire
for tattoos amOflg inmates

o unknown

o no effect on knowledge
of infection prevention and
control

o unknown

Have there been any unintended impacts

In your opinion, are stall supportive of the Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative?

Do you have anything to add about your experiences with the Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative?

and/or negative) as a result of the Initiative?

Ex~ain

Thank you for participafing.

Appendix 4: Inmate Interview Key
Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative: Inmate Interview
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Date:

Institution

Have you been incarcerated before (previous 10 Ihis term)? _ Y " _No (IF YES: _Federal_Prov.)
Have you received a tattoo from Ihe lalloo room, or are you currently on a wailing Iisl?

OReceived a tattoo frOO1 the tattoo room

Isonawaiti

list

SECTION A - GENERAL TATTOOING INFORMATION
This section will address your experiences with tattooing in general.

Please identify W'hich of the following describes the tattoos you currenlty have: (check 3/1 rhat 3pply)

o community tattoo (not while incarcerated)
o ran e tattoo frOO1 revious incarceration
o none
,)

o
o
o

tattoo from safe; ~a~~ing Initiative
IF YES: Cover-Un? YIN
ran e tattoo from current incarceration
other s

If you received a tattoo from the Safer Tattooing Initiative, how many days did you have to wait to get
your tattoo after you applied?
Time
(DayslMonths)_

Unknown

NIA

If you have a range tattoo from your current incarceration, did you get il during the period when the Safer
Tattooing Initiative was underway?

No
0

Prefer not to answer

NIA

Prefer not to answer

NIA

0) IF YES, W'hat were your reasons for getting a range tattoo?

d) If you have a range tattoo, did you pay to have it done?

No
0

.) IF

Y"
0

YES, how did you pay for your range tattoo?

o With mooe S
o other s cif
2

o With ci
o NlA

arettes

Doo't know

Have you ever given a range tattoo?

No
0

Y"
0

Prefer not to answer

NIA

SECTION B: HEALTH-RELATED INFORMATION

This section will address information as it pertains to your health status. Please be reminded that

I you do not have to answer any of the following questions if you do not wish to do so.
1

Have you experienced any health consequences as a result of tattooing?
No

Prefer not to answer

NfA

IF YES, were the consequences due to a range tattoo, a room tattoo, a community tattoo (where applicable)?
Ranoe Tattoo

Room Tattoo

Community Tattoo

a infection with HIV
b infection with He atitis Bfe
c skin infectioo
d bruisin Iswellin
e) other (s
)

Have you Deen tested for the HIV virus?
No

Prefer not to answer

NfA

IF YES:

0) Did the results show that you were infected with HIV?
No

Prefer not to answer

NfA

b) When did you contract HIV? (Interviewer to provide options below)

I 0 while in the community
0)

I 0 during this incarceration

How did you cootmct HIV?

o in"ection dru
"~
o STPI tattoo

I 0 during a previous incarceration

o un rotected sex
o blood transfusion

o ran e tattooin
o other s

Have you been tested fOf the Hepatitis virus?
No

Prefer not to answer

NfA

IF YES,

0) Did the results show that you were infected with Hepatitis SIC?
No

Prefer not to answer

NfA

b) When did you contract Hepatitis? (Interviewer to provide options below)

I 0 while in the community
0)

I 0 during a previous incarceration

I 0 during this incarceraHon

How did you cootmct Hepatitis?

o intravenous d
o STPI tattOOn

o un rotected sex
o blood transfusion

o ran e tattooi
o other s

Have you ever used drugs 00 a regular basis? (ie was it part of your lifestyle)?

Prefer not to answer

NfA

Prefer not to answer

NfA

Prefer not to answer

NfA

Have you ever injected drugs?

IF YES,
0) Were you in prison al the lime?

SECTION C: INITIATIVE ADMINISTRATION/ORGANIZATION
This section will address the administration and organization of the Safer Tattooing Initiative.
On a scale from one (1) to five (5), with one (1) representing "not al all • and five (5) representing "very", how
satisfied are you with:
Not al all
0 cost of a tattoo room sessioo

, lime

b nash found in the tattoo room

rovided for tattooin
of SIPI tattooists and a rentices
0 SIPI infectioo revention and control raclices
0 educatiooal materials available

d availabili

0
0
0
0
0
0

Somewhat
3
0
0
0
0
0
0

VON

4
0
0
0
0
0
0

5
0
0
0
0
0
0

nknow

0
0
0
0
0
0

Please rate the following statements about the Safer Taltooing Initiative according to how much you agree with
the statement, with one (1) representing "do not agree at all" and five (5) representing "com~etely agree"
No t at aII
SomwtJ
Com IetelV
I
1
2
3
4
5
Unk. NlA
a) The inmates are willing to use the Safer
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a«ooin Initiative in the institution
b) I am satisfied with the tattoo I received through
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
he Initiative
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c) The Initiative decreases the chances that
omeone will aet a taltoo 00 the ranae
d) The tattooists receive enough training to do
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
he klb thev do
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e) The waiting time to get a tattoo through the
nitiative is too Ionn
f) The Initiative helps to decrease the ilkehhood
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
hat ~nle will cootract HIV and Henatitis BIC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
g) The Initiative makes the institution more safe
Of offenders
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
h) The Initiative makes the institution more safe
Of staff
i) The Initiative has created a demand for tattoos
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
hat wasn't there before
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
j) I prefer to use the tattoo room rather than get a
attoo on the ranae
k) I feel more informed about how infectious
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
iseases are soread

•

Where did you hear about the safer tattooing initiative?

o at intake
o information

m hlet

0 u
transfer to this institution
0 inmate

o staff member
o other s ci

SECTION D: OTHER FACTORS
This next section will address factors that might affect how the program runs, such as
interference by gangs or criminal organizations. Please remember that answering is voluntary,
and answers to these questions are strictly confidential.
Please identify wtJich, if any, of the following taltoos you asked the taltoo program to provide
o a related tattoos
o tattoos on head/neck
o none of the above

o hate related taltoos
o tattoos in enital r Kln
o other s ci

o tattoos on hands
o refer not to answer

a} What happened when you made this request?

In your opinion, are inmates still receiving any of the above tattoos on the range?
Don't Know

Prefer not to
answer

N/A

o
4

To your knowledge, have gangs or other Ofganized crime groups tried 10 coolrollhe activities of the tattoo

shop?

Oon'l Know

Prefer not to
answer

N/A

IF YES,

a) Which one(s)?

b) How did they attempt 10 do this?

c) What was done 10 address the situation?

In your opinion, are inmates still receiving range tattoos?

Don't Know

Prefer not to
answer

N/A

a) Why! Why not?

b) How are range tattoos different fTOO1 program tattoos?

In your opinion, has the introduction of the Safer Tattooing Initiative caused any of the following

a) lOan increase in range tattoos lOa decrease in range tattoos
b)

o an increase in HIVor

loa decrease in HIV Of Hepatitis I 0 no effect on HIV or Hepatitis
BIC cases
BIC cases

Henatitis BIC cases

I 0 no effect on range tattoos

o an increase In the desire for

tattoos amofl" Inmates

loa
tattoos amof)(] inmates

decrease in the desire for

I 0 no effect onlhe desire for
tattoos amofl" Inmates

o Other impacls?(explain)

To your knowledge, are any of the tattoo room tattooists also doing range tattoos?

Don't Know

Prefer not to
answer

N/A

Do you have any suggestions on how the initiative can be improved?

Do you have anything to add about your experiences with the Safer Tatloong Practices Initiative?

Thank you lor participating.

Appendix 5: Inmate Tattooist/Apprentice/Clerk Interview Key

Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative: Tattooist, Apprentice Tattooist,
And Tattooist Clerk Interview
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Date:

Instituli<Jn:

Position

Tattooist

Tattooist Apprentice

Tattooist Clerl<.

SECTION A - GENERAL TATTOOING INFORMATION

This section will address your experiences with tattooing in general.

Please indicate, in years, how long you have Deen involved in the following areas of the tattooing profession
Tattrost

AplXenlice

Cler1<.

a) tattoois~~fprenticein the community (prencarcerallon
b) ra e tattooist in evious iocmcerali<Jn
c) ra e tattooist in current incarceration
d) program tattooistlapprenticelcler1<. in current
incarceration
e) other (s
I

Have you witnessed, in your fellow inmates, any health consequences as a result of tattooing?
No

Unknown

Prefer not to answer

IF YES, were the consequences due to a range tattoo, a [QQffi tattoo, a community tattoo (where applicable)?
Ranne Tattoo

Room Tattoo

Communitv Tattoo

a) infection with HIV
b) infection with Hepatitis (BIC)
c skin infection
d bruisin Iswelli
e other s

SECTION B: INITIATIVE ADMINISTRATION/ORGANIZATION
This section will address the administration and organization of the Safer Tattooing Initiative.

On a scale from one (1) to fi~e (5), with one (1) representing ·oot at all " and five (5) representing "very",
how satisfied are you with
Not at all

rovided in the tatloo room
,b '"flash lies
found in the tatloo s

esc

c traini
rovided b
d time rovided for tatlooin
e funds rovided for the Initiative
number of tattooists and a rentices
infection evention and control ractices
h STPI Guidelines bei
followed

Some\vhat

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

VON

3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Please rate the following statements about the Safer Tattooing Initiative according to how much you
agree with the statement, with one (1) representing "do oot agree at all" and five (5) representing
'com~etely agree"
Not at all

cern
a I am satisfied with m worl<. in the
b) Clients are satisfied with the tattoos they
eceive in the Initiative
c) The Initiati~e decreases the number of tattoos
hal inmates net on the ranne
d)' did oot receive eoough training to do the job
do
e) The clients have to wait too long to get a
attoo throuah the Initiative
f) The Initiative helps to decrease the likelihood
hat oeoole will contract HIV and Heoatitis BIC
g) The Initiative makes the institution more safe
or offenders
h) The Initiative makes the institution more safe
or staff
i) The Initiati~e has created a demand for
attoos that wasn't there before
j) I would like to continue in this field of worl<.
vhen I leave the institution
k) I feel more informed about how infectious
iseases are smead

Somewhat

Comoletelv

0
0

5
0
0

nknow

0
0

3
0
0

1
0
0

Please identify if the program has servked clients from any of the foHowing populations

eneral

o intake unit
4

nknow

o administrative

ulation

ation

members

o disci lina ,
o other s ci

0
0

ation

Where did you hear about the safer tattooing initiative?

o at intake
o information

00
m hlet

transfer to this institution

o inmate

o staff member
o other s "

Have supplies ever gone missing from the tattoo shop?
[)oo't Know

Prefer not to answer

IF YES,
a) Which supplies?

b) What was done to address this?

SECTION C: OTHER FACTORS
This next section will address factors that might affect how the program runs, such as
interference by gangs or criminal organizations. Please remember that answering is voluntary,
and answers to these questions are strictly confidential.

Please identify wtlich of the following tattoos inmates have asked you to provide

0
related tattoos
o tattoos on head/neck
o none of the aoove

o hate related tattoos
o tattoos in enital r
o other s

o tattoos on hands
o CQver-u tattoos

refer not 10 answer

What has happened wtlen you received these requests?

0) In your opinion, are inmates still receiving any of the above tattoos on the range?

To your knowledge, have gangs or other Ofganized crime groups tried to
room?

conlr~

the activities of the tattoo

[)oo't Know

Prefer not to answer

IF YES,
a) Which one(s)?

b) How did they attempt to do this?

c) What was done to address the situation?

In your opinion, me inmates still receiving range tattoos?
No

Don'l Know

Prefer not to answer

a) WhyNVhy not?

b) How are range tattoos different from program tattoos?

In your opinion, has the introduction of the Safer Tattooing Initiative caused any of the following?

o an increase in range tattoos

o a decrease in range tattoos

o no effect on range tattoos

no effect on HIV or Hepatitis

o an increase in HIVor

o a decrease in HIV Of Hepatitis

Hepatitis BIC cases

BIC cases

o an increase in the desire for
tattoos among inmates

o a decrease in the desire for
tattoos among inmates

o no effect on the desire for
tattoos among inmates

d) I 0 Oth."mpoc"'

,,,p',,o)
I

Do you have any suggestions on how the initiative can be improved?

Do you have anything 10 add about your experiences with the Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative?

Thank you lor participating.

Appendix 6: Community Tattooist Interview Key
5aft'!' Tattooing Prartirt's InitiatiVt': Community Tattooist Intn\'it'w
1

Please indicate, in years, how 10flg you have t>een involved in the tattooing professioo

What type of training did you complete in order to become a tattooist?

We understand that the cost of a tattoo varies according to the time required and the colours that are used,
among other factors. If you had to estimate, 00 average, how much would it cost for a typical one (1) hour
tattoo session in your shop?

I
4

years

I hour

If some sort of cootractual arrangements {including financial compensahon) could be made, would you be
willing to do any of the following
a) To travel to institutions equipped with taltoo shops to trnin tattooists/apprentices.
No

Unknown

Prefer oot to answer

(If any comments, add here)

b) To travel to institutions equipped with taltoo shops to supervise tatlooistslapprentices.
No

Unknown

Prefer oot to answer

(If any comments, add here)

c) To travel to institutions equipped with tattoo shops to QlillQIIIl tatloos on clients
No

Unknown

Prefer oot to answer

(Jf any comments, add here)

d) To travel to institutions equipped with tattoo shops and provide your own ink.
No

Unknown

Prefer oot to answer

(Jf any comments, add here)

Currently, the inmate tattoosls have to complete a numDer of training elements in Ofder to De qualified to
perfOfm tattoos through the Initiative. Please indicate if you would De willing to complete the following
elements of training
a) To complete a self-study infectious disease information program?
No

Yes

Unknown

Prefer not to answer

(If any comments, add here)

b) To complete a written test on infectious diseases and infection prevention and
No

Yes

Unknown

contr~

practices?

Prefer not to answer

(If any comments, add here)

c) To complete WHMIS training (Worl\place hazardous materials)?
No

Yes

Unknown

Prefer not to answer

(If any comments, add here)

d) To have one of your tattooing sessions observed and monitored by an infectious disease nurse to
ensure the pc-oper use of infection preventioo and control practices?
No

Yes

Unknown

Prefer not to answer

(If any comments, add here)

Would you hire a tattoost who had Dean providing tattoos 00 the ranges/unit of an institution (illegal tattoos)?
No

Unknown

Prefer not to answer

a) Why or why not?

Would you hire a tattooist who had Deoo providing tattoos through the Safer Tattooing Practices Initiative in an
institution?
No

Unknown

Prefer not to answer

a) Why or why not?

Thank you for your time!

Appendix 7: References: Risk Factors for Having Blood Borne Virus
Abbas, J., Shahnaz, S., Kamyar, M., Shahram, M. & Hossein, S.A. (2006) Risk Factors in Addict
Prisoners of Central Provinces of Iran. The Internet Journal of Epidemiology, 3 (1).
Retrieved from http://www.ispub.com/.
Champion, J. K., Taylor, A., Hutchinson, S., Cameron, S., McMenamin, J., Mitchell, A., et al.
(2004). Incidence of Hepatitis C Virus Infection and Associated Risk Factors among
Scottish Prison Inmates: A Cohort Study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 159 (5),
514-519.
Correctional Service of Canada, Health Services (2003). Infectious Diseases Prevention and
Control in Canadian Federal Penitentiaries 2000-01: A Report of the Correctional
Service of Canada’s Infectious Diseases Surveillance System. Retrieved from
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca.
Ontario Ministry of Health (2006). Assessment Guide for Hepatitis Risk Factors. Toronto:
Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Public Health Agency of Canada (2004). Hepatitis C Virus Transmission in the Prison/Inmate
Population. Canadian Communicable Diseases Report, 30 (16). Retrieved from
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/.
Salcido, R., & Chen, L. (n.d.). Hepatitis A, B, and C Prevention Programs: Information and
Programs for Adults and Adolescents at Risk. Carson City, NV: Nevada State Health
Division and Nevada Department of Corrections.
Tepper, M. (1998). The Epidemiology of Hepatitis C in Canada. The Hepatitis Information
Network. Pointe Claire, QC.
Thaisri, H., Lerwitworapong, J., Vongsheree, S., Sawanpanyalert, P., Chadbanchachai, C.,
Rojanawiwat, A., et al. (2003). HIV Infection and Risk Factors among Bangkok
Prisoners, Thailand: A Prospective Cohort Study. BMC Infectious Diseases, 3 (25).