Monitoring and Evaluating Impact of Using the Media

Though it has been proven time and time again that the media influences society daily, it is not sufficient just to rely on this knowledge. We know our message will be heard and seen but whether it has an impact is what is important. In order to find out if our campaign has been effective it must be thoroughly monitored and evaluated.

To truly know what kind of effect our campaign has had it is imperative that baseline data is collected before the campaign is launched. The data could be collected by a survey and/or questionnaires with very basic questions about attitudes towards transgendered people. Baseline data lets researchers know a groups’ opinion before the project and then is used for comparison when the project is finished. When the media campaign has completed its run, post completion research would be conducted, using the same indicators as the baseline to note any changes or variations. Using these methods in conjunction with each other can give us a good indication as to what type of shift has been made in the public’s attitudes. The only really disadvantage of this type of research is that without the ability to use a focus group, it is hard to know whether change is attributed to the campaign or other factors.

That being said, it is important to not only evaluate the campaign in the beginning and the end but also to be monitoring its impact throughout its full run. In our case this would be best achieved by using outcome evaluation methods, mainly random survey throughout the campaign to judge attitudes towards transgendered people. It would also be beneficial to hold focus groups and community meetings to get feedback on the media campaign, both its success and failures.

Because the whole point of the campaign is to promote trans-positive attitudes it would be important to get feedback from the transgendered community to make sure they are feeling properly represented. This data could be collected qualitatively during and after the campaign. It would also be useful to collect some quantitative data in terms of hate crimes towards transgendered individuals before and after the campaign. These numbers could be collected from correctional facilities and local police forces.

After the success of the campaign has been evaluated, it would be important to decide if another large scale mass-media campaign would be needed or whether it should be followed up by a smaller scale campaign. The transgender population has been unfairly stigmatized in Canada for far too long and unfortunately one media campaign, not matter how effective, will not entirely change people’s attitudes, but it is a good first step. A step, we hope, will lead to a future where transgendered people can live their lives without fear and be seen for who they really are away from prejudice and labels in a trans-positive society. Here’s to hoping!
References:
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/icd-guidelines.pdf
http://www.civicus.org/new/media/Monitoring%20and%20Evaluation.pdf

Using The Media to Make Canada More Trans-Positive

Changing hateful and discriminatory attitudes is not an easy task. Yet in order for our proposed policy to be effective this is what needs to be accomplished. The media has long been seen as a medium used to influence people’s attitudes, actions and believes; and with today’s growing technology it has become even easier to reach a higher number of potential message recipients (Bryant and Zillmann, 2002). Every day we are subjected to messages from companies of consumer goods, the entertainment industry, politicians, and everyone in-between. We process and are influenced by these messages both consciously and subconsciously many times a day.

In conjunction with implementing policy changes within the prison, as described in previous blogs, a mass media campaign would be launched in order to help create a more trans-positive society and a large reduction in hate crimes. Research shows that when introducing any media campaign there are rules that need to be followed (Bryant and Zillmann, 2002). Firstly it is imperative that the campaign start out small and build slowly. For our trans-positive campaign the message would start through blogs, websites and print ads, then move to television and billboards, and finally to featured stories, public services announcements and documentaries. This progressive strategy seems to legitimize the message in the eyes of the public. It is also important to make sure your message comes across strong and relevant to the audience. For example, in our campaign to stop hate crimes, it would be impactual to use statistics as well as personal stories. Lastly research has proven that the source of the message has an effect on the effectiveness of the campaign. It is important that the message comes from a neutral or unstigmatized group. Considering that transgender people are extremely stigmatized is it vital for this campaign to have outside groups backing it; for example, the Canadian government and/or local human rights groups.

Implementing a successful media campaign will be a long and hard process, one that does carry a financial burden, but if it educates and helps shift public attitudes towards being trans-positive, then surely the benefits would outweigh the costs both inside and outside the prison walls.
Bryant, J. and Zillmann, D. (2002). Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research
Tuscaloosa, AL: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Accountability in Prison

Canada’s history is tainted by generations of hatred towards certain groups of people. "Hatred of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, people with different political ideas, anyone who was different from the average white Christian." www.canadianinjustice.com/history_of_hate.htm. This type of hatred still exists today, and is not only perpetuated by average citizens; it is an ongoing systemic process. "There is still one group that you, government, courts, and politicians can hate. The criminal." www.canadianinjustice.com/history_of_hate.htm. When compiling a "criminal’s" identity with another label, such as transgender, it makes that individual even more of a target for hate within the prison system.

In terms of policy changes there are many goals that we must establish in order to reach our objectives. Our objectives are to keep transgender people safe in Canadian prisons. Secondly we would like to help provide the best quality of life possible within prison. This will be accomplished alongside our objective of eliminating bigoted jail guards, through education, and last resort, suspension or termination of oppressive guards. By educating the prisoners and guards we are hoping this increased knowledge will translate into a safer prison system.

Our goals that we must implement in order to reach the desired result, of a safer prison system for transgendered individuals, are first, decrease hate crimes and transphobia in prisons. Secondly, we must hold jail staff accountable for transphobic actions and hateful speech. Our third goal is to establish new policy, using the input of the Trans community, in order to punish transphobia within the prison system. Lastly, but most importantly, we would like to have mandatory education and training programs, for guards and inmates, on hate crimes and transphobia.

These goals can be directly translated into our recommendations to improve the incarcerated lives of transgender individuals. We recommend education and training. We recommend accountability in terms of hate crimes. Lastly we recommend, and frankly should expect, to implement new policy that protects the lives of all people, including trans individuals, within the Canadian prison system.

Policy Creation: Involvement of Transgender Specialist

In order to carry on with our goal of creating uniform, fair and non-discriminatory policy to protect incarcerated transgendered inmates, our recommendation is to hire a specialist that will advocate for the rights of the transgendered inmate.

The specialist will preferably be a transgender themselves, and an advocate who is aware and understands the complexities of the transgender community. In order to create objectivity and impartiality, this individual should not be hired by the prison or jail system. This recommendation is formed upon the reality that prison staff are not educated on the unique needs of the transgendered inmate, and as previously mentioned may have long standing bias which directly influence the way they treat the transgender inmate. As a result, transgender inmates have minimal support within the prison system, feel uncomfortable speaking to staff and ultimately feel helpless if they are victimized. When vulnerable individuals are left alone and isolated, they are at defenseless, helpless and ultimately at risk for further maltreatment. In the following section we will discuss various aims and objectives we hope our specialist will fulfill.

The role of this specialist would be to cater to the victims of abuse or violence during their time spent in confinement. The specialist will be responsible for initiating inter-agency collaboration in order to coordinate safety planning strategies such as fair and consistent responses and penalties for discriminatory behavior towards the transgender inmate. Thus, they should understand the practices and politics of law enforcement and the prison system. The specialist will provide information and insight about how the criminal justice system works and when necessary support the inmate during court proceedings. The specialist will act as a consultant and provide information and support in order for the victim to decide how best to protect their interests and attain a level of security. However, they shouldn’t let their personal views dominate the work with their inmates. It is important that this person displays characteristic such as empathy, compassion and kindness.

Specialists that become involved in policy creation and work directly with transgender inmates in prison have similar positions to those of an advocate. For more information on this role, please visit http://www.gain.org.uk/index.htm

A Humanist Approach to Prison Life

Now that implementation of the modified policy has been explored, it is crucial to understand and proceed in pinpointing the ways in which we will monitor and evaluate this new policy. We will use specific methods of monitoring and evaluating, expressed in Westhues book, "Canadian Social Policy, in order to measure the progress of our policy and program. The humanist approach is the approach that we will use in order to monitor and evaluate the progress of our policy and program within the prison system.
In order to monitor and evaluate the progress of the Commissioner’s Directive 800 policy we will approach the process from a humanist perspective. By approaching the monitoring from this angle we will focus on qualitative research as opposed to quantitative. Unlike quantitative research we believe that we will be able to gain greater insight into the program and people affected, through the gathering of qualitative research. Our monitoring will be a hands on process, which means the researcher will serve as an advocate for change, rather that measuring progress like a positivist, who would use information simply for assessment purposes (Westhues, 2006). Lastly, our humanist approach would allow for goals that encourage self-determination, which is directly in line with our goals in terms of transgender surgeries. This self-determination would finally put power into the hands of the transgender individuals, something that has been distinctly lacking for this community thus far.
Evaluating our policy and program will be achieved through outcome evaluations. Is our program having the desired effect? Using a humanist approach we will focus on the achievements of the individual; we will look at the goals of the people within the program. Cost-benefit analysis will be used by attaching a monetary value to the benefits afforded the Trans individuals. A process evaluation will be used to gain insight into how the program is operating. Is it operating how we intended this program to operate? Are the intended services being delivered to the desired population? All of these answers will be answered within this process evaluation by using client satisfaction surveys.
Monitoring and evaluating is a critical part of the process when initiating policy changes. Pros and cons, that were not anticipated, will surface throughout the life span of the policy and program. Through monitoring and evaluating we will be able to modify our policy in order to achieve the best result for our population of transgender inmates. By understanding that policies need constant re-evaluation we will be able to better meet the needs of the anticipated clients, including incarcerated transgendered individuals.

Presentation- Pros and Cons of Policy Revision

Throughout the development of this blog, goals and objectives were proposed as well as recommendations for the improvement of Commissioner’s Directive 800. Pros and Cons of our new policy will now be explored within this improved version of the Commissioner’s Directive 800. By enacting this new policy we hope to eliminate the discrimination and hurdles that are inherent within this policy in the hopes of improving the quality of life for incarcerated transgendered individuals. Pros and cons will be assessed in terms of the new policy, as it is crucial to be constantly re-examining the new policy and its effects on the intended program.

Original Policy: Gender Identity Disorder
1. Sex reassignment surgery shall be considered during incarceration only when:
a. A recognized gender identity specialist has confirmed that the offender has satisfied the real life test, as described in the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care, for a minimum of one year prior to incarceration; and
b. The recognized gender identity specialist recommends surgery during incarceration.

The New Policy: Transgendered Individuals (eliminate the pathologizing of the individual)

1. Sex Reassignment Surgery for Transgendered people in prison will be a self-determining process between the transgendered individual and the specialist of their choice.

a. Mandatory Transgender specific training and certification for all prison staff.

b. Prison staff accountability for hate crimes and hate speech.

c. Board of directors would oversee all aspects of the treatment of Transgender inmates.

Pros of this new policy, that have been pinpointed, revolve around increased respect for the incarcerated transgendered individual by allowing for Trans empowerment through flexibility, access and self-determination. One positive aspect of the new policy is in the way this policy will allow for flexibility in terms of lengths of life tests. We will also allow access to previous doctors that were being utilized in the individual’s community, thus decreasing the risk of receiving medical care from a transphobic doctor. Next we will encourage input from the individual in determining their own life path. Lastly, we will decrease the ammount of hate crimes by enacting mandatory education programs for prison staff. All of these positive steps within our revised policy will be monitored by a board of directors in order to ensure quality of implementation. Client satisfaction surveys will also be utilized in order to assess whether these factors are in fact "pros" within our new policy. Surveys will be used in order to measure levels of efficacy in reaching the desired population.

The pros of this policy are plentiful, and looking through an anti-oppressive lens the cons seem fairly minimal. However, some individuals would argue, from a cost benefit perspective, that this new policy is too costly, although, I would tend to argue just the opposite. By placing a monetary value to the new and improved quality of life for the Trans individual, we would be able to see that this policy is indeed cost effective. Another negative aspect of this changed policy, from certain perspectives, would be increased workload for Jail staff, as they would be required to attend and be certified in Trans specific programming. Although, looking again through an anti-oppressive lens this negative could easily be seen as a positive step towards eliminating discrimination within the prison system.

The myriad positive aspects of this improved policy far outweigh the negatives, as we are ultimately eliminating government sanctioned systemic oppression of transgendered individuals in the prison system. There are many ways that the incarcerated transgender individual would benefit from this policy change and implementation. Pros include: Trans empowerment, increased self-determination, decreased hate crimes through trans education and specific ways of monitoring the lives of Trans individuals in prisons, through use of a board of directors. In order to begin the implementation process we will draw from sources such as the media, internet(see you tube clip), feature stories and news releases. Due to the fact that this implementation is in its infancy, monitoring and evaluating is the crucial next step in ensuring success. Although we have stated the pros and cons of this policy, we must continue to assess these factors, as new pros and cons will undoubtedly surface. Through consistent monitoring we will be able to pinpoint needed change within the policy in order to devise a policy that works towards the best possible quality of life for Trans people in prison.

Flexibility to be Fair

Under Commissioner’s Directive 800, a prisoner has to have completed a year of his or her RLE at the time of their incarceration in order to even be considered for surgery. This means that if a transgender individual enters prison after only completing eleven or ten months of their RLE, they will not even be considered for SRS during their sentence. As we’ve discussed in previous blogs, the RLE is in itself a discriminatory practice that should be revised and/or optional, however until that happens it is still a requirement for transgender inmates who want to have SRS. Yet currently the policy only applies to transpeople at a certain point in their transition and excludes all others.

Those at an earlier stage of their transition can continue to take hormones but will be stuck in that stage of transitioning until their release, regardless of how long their sentence is. This is not only inequitable but can also prove to be dangerous. Transgendered prisoners faced with the refusal or option of surgery are likely to attempt to further their transformation themselves. Examples of this in prison are usually stories of self-castration and mutilation of testicles or breast (http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1206&context=lawfaculty). There needs to be some flexibility in length of RLE before incarceration in order to give all transgendered inmates an opportunity at a successful transition.

The goal of flexible standards would be to allow the transgender individual either to continue the RLE while imprisoned or to be evaluated for surgery when they feel prepared, regardless of whether they have completed a full year of the RLE prior to incarceration. Recommendations for this would include allowing self-determination for preparedness for surgery, given the unique nature that transgendered prisoners are in; their incarceration is not necessarily a reflection on their abilities to pass the RLE. This essentially gives back some of the power to transgendered inmates instead of rendering them helpless.

Another important proposal is that the transgendered inmates be allowed to use the doctors or specialists that have worked with them on the outside as references. Since they are the ones that have been with the transgendered individual throughout their transition, they are likely the best judge, along with the inmate, as to their readiness for surgery. By putting the specialist in the prison in touch with the individual’s doctors, they are given a better insight into their lives and motivations to want surgery. This communication will be a key in ensuring that transgendered inmates get a fair chance to transition from a body that feels foreign to them.