Wood Street Campus Workplace Assessment Released Seven Years Later With Harassment Sections Redacted

Government Files is The Canada Report's public-records analysis series examining government documents obtained through Canada's Access to Information (ATI) and provincial Freedom of Information (FOI) laws. These transparency laws allow members of the public to request internal government records from federal and provincial institutions. This article reviews documents released through those processes and summarizes what the records contain and what they show. While we strive for accuracy, this article represents an analysis and interpretation of the source material. For complete accuracy and full context, readers should review the original documents, which are available in full below.

Full Document

The complete document is available for download below:

A 114-page workplace assessment of Wood Street Campus — Nova Scotia's only Level 4 secure-treatment facility for youth in care — has been released through Freedom of Information more than seven years after it was completed. The December 2018 report, prepared by Halifax lawyer Krista K. Smith of Barteaux Durnford for the Department of Community Services, runs through 18 recommendations on staffing, training, communication, safety, and culture at the Truro facility, but key sections dealing with sexism, sexual harassment, and professionalism are almost entirely redacted.

The records were released on April 13, 2026, in response to a February 2026 FOIPOP request that specifically asked for "the findings and report related to an independent investigation into the workplace culture and allegations of sexual harassment and favoritism at the Wood Street Campus." What the Department of Opportunities and Social Development released in response was Smith's broader 2018 workplace assessment, with substantial portions withheld under sections 15(1)(g) (fair trial or impartial adjudication) and 20(1) (third-party privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

What the Documents Show

Wood Street Campus opened in 2003 as a 20-bed secure treatment facility and has since grown to 38 beds — 20 in Secure Treatment and 18 in Residential Treatment. The campus serves children and youth in the care of the Minister of Community Services, and the assessment confirms it is the only Level 4 residence for youth in care in the province. As of the assessment, Nova Scotia had approximately 1,030 children in care at any given time, with roughly 14 per cent placed in residential programs.

Smith was retained with a broad mandate — to identify what was working and what was not working at the campus. Between March 21 and June 7, 2018, she interviewed 65 of the roughly 120 employees, accumulating about 153 hours of interview material. The campus's full complement included Youth Workers, clinical staff (psychologists, clinical therapists, social workers, occupational therapists, teachers, nurses), Unit Supervisors, and upper management.

Her overall conclusion was that Wood Street Campus "is a highly functional workplace" where employees "generally resolve conflict and manage difficult conversations effectively." But the bulk of the 114-page report focuses on areas the assessment identified for growth.

The most consequential structural finding was that Wood Street Campus has become what the report calls a "shadow system" for the Health and Justice systems serving youth in care. Cuts to services across provincial departments — particularly the Nova Scotia Health Authority, the IWK Health Centre, and the Department of Justice — have shifted increasingly complex cases onto the Truro campus. Where a youth might previously have accessed services through those departments, the report concludes, "now the only option is Wood Street Campus."

The Sexual Harassment Section Is Almost Entirely Redacted

The specific subject of the FOIPOP request — sexual harassment and favouritism — receives concentrated treatment in only a handful of pages in the released report, and most of those pages are blacked out. The "Sexism/Sexual Harassment" subsection on page 49 of the underlying report acknowledges that "there were some issues in the past" at the campus, with the substance of those issues withheld under the privacy and law-enforcement exemptions. The next paragraph indicates that "these concerns appear to have been addressed," again with the mechanism redacted.

The one unambiguous statement in the released portion of that subsection is Smith's note that she "was not provided with any recent examples of inappropriate comments or conduct of a sexual nature" during the 2018 assessment. The section closes with a redacted observation about how workplace norms around appropriate conduct have evolved over time.

An adjacent subsection on "Lack of Professionalism" is similarly heavy with redactions. The released text identifies "over-familiarity, gossiping, and talking about other employees behind their backs" as examples of professionalism concerns raised during interviews, alongside references to humour that might cause offence and what the report calls inappropriate conversation. Specifics — including who was identified as engaging in or condoning such conduct — are withheld.

The released report does not contain a separate, standalone investigation into sexual harassment allegations. Coverage in Nova Scotia government transparency efforts has previously highlighted similar friction between FOIPOP requests and the records that surface in response; Premier Tim Houston earlier this year blocked the provincial Information and Privacy Commissioner's request for order-making powers, citing a 2016 youth detention centre records request as part of his rationale.

Safety, Crisis Intervention, and Workplace Injuries

One of the more concrete strands running through the report is workplace safety. Staff at Wood Street Campus rely on non-violent crisis intervention (NVCI) methods to manage youth who become physically aggressive. The assessment found that NVCI is adequate in almost all cases, but inadequate in "a small percentage of critical incidents" — and that when it fails, workplace injuries result.

Smith notes that she was not provided with quantitative data on leaves and injuries at the campus, but the surrounding discussion makes clear that injuries are not uncommon. The report draws a comparison with the Department of Justice's Waterville Youth Centre, where corrections officers respond to similar situations in full riot gear including shields, which the assessment concludes "greatly reduces the likelihood of employee injury." Wood Street is not a correctional facility, and the report acknowledges the Department of Community Services may not wish to be seen as adopting correctional-style methods such as pain compliance, which the report describes as "hard to square with trauma-informed care."

The report also catalogues high absenteeism, burnout, and turnover among Youth Workers, attributing it to a combination of factors: Youth Worker positions function as an entry point into provincial government employment, shift work is difficult, and the physical and emotional demands are significant. Most of the specific data points on turnover rates and the underlying causes are redacted.

Communication Gaps Between Clinical and Frontline Staff

A central theme of the assessment is what Smith repeatedly characterizes as a "clinical-frontline divide." Decisions made at treatment team meetings, morning meetings, and the psychiatry clinic are not reliably communicated to the Youth Workers on the floor. Clinical staff frequently use email for decisions and information, which Youth Workers — who work shifts and do not check email when off-duty — often do not read in time. Notes on whiteboards in Youth Worker offices get erased or ignored, and there are inconsistent understandings of what information should be passed along at shift change.

The report finds that communication gaps are more prevalent at Residential Treatment than at Secure Treatment, attributing this to the larger number of staff and youth, the physical layout of the building, and the relative immaturity of the program itself. Poor communication, the assessment warns, "gives rise to the perception that clinical staff and upper management do not care about the views or experiences of frontline staff."

The morale consequences of that perceived divide are described as significant. Youth Workers interviewed "consistently expressed gratitude" for time clinicians or upper management spent communicating with them or visiting the frontline. Smith concludes that "even small amounts of time that professionals can spare to informally engage with frontline staff and the youth has a disproportionately beneficial effect on staff morale and the Campus' operations."

Unit Supervisors, Training Gaps, and Relief Staff

Smith identifies Unit Supervisors — the middle-managers responsible for translating clinical and management direction to Youth Workers on the floor — as a critical and uneven layer in the campus's operations. Some Unit Supervisors prefer to remain in administrative work and expect Youth Workers to make routine operational decisions independently; others spend significant time on the floor and engage in collaborative decision-making. Youth Workers interviewed generally preferred the latter approach. Inconsistency between Unit Supervisors creates inconsistencies between teams, which in turn fuels inter-personal conflicts that the assessment treats at length in heavily redacted sections.

Training for Youth Workers emerges as another area of consistent concern. Many Youth Workers — particularly recent hires — described initial orientation as primarily sitting in a boardroom reviewing policy binders, with management or clinical staff occasionally checking in. The mandatory subjects (fire safety, food handling, first aid, NVCI) crowded out topics the report flags as central to the job: documentation and file management, trauma-informed care, vicarious trauma and self-care, and diversity training tailored to the circumstances arising at the campus. Ongoing professional development was similarly described as patchy, with many Youth Workers reporting they had never received training in the youth's treatment programming (Anger Replacement Therapy, mindfulness, experiential learning) that they were expected to support.

Relief staff — the on-call workforce expected to rotate across all units and teams at Wood Street — are described as marginalized by both structural and attitudinal barriers. Because they move between teams, they have fewer opportunities to build relationships with colleagues and youth. They are frequently excluded from team decision-making, are less likely to receive support from Unit Supervisors, are not assigned youth as Key Workers, and are therefore less likely to attend treatment team meetings. The assessment notes corroborated accounts that relief staff are excluded from the draw for last break — a small workplace ritual that the report uses to illustrate the broader pattern.

Staff Diversity Does Not Reflect the Youth Population

The demographic composition of the Youth Worker workforce, the report concludes, "does not reflect the population it serves — in particular with respect to race, ethnicity, and gender and sexual identity." Standard provincial diversity training was characterized by several Youth Workers as inadequate given the diversity of the youth population and the kinds of issues that arise routinely at the campus. The report recommends greater recruiting efforts and tailored training, with most of the specific examples drawn from interviews redacted under the privacy exemption.

What's Not in the Released Records

The FOIPOP request specifically asked for "the findings and report related to an independent investigation into the workplace culture and allegations of sexual harassment and favouritism at the Wood Street Campus" with a search range of December 2015 to December 2019. What was released is a single broadly-framed workplace assessment from December 2018, not a discrete investigation into specific allegations. Whether a separate investigation file exists — and was withheld in full, never created, or already destroyed under the province's records-retention rules — is not addressed in the disclosure package.

The two sections most directly responsive to the original request — Sexism/Sexual Harassment and Lack of Professionalism — are also among the most heavily redacted in the released report. Section 15(1)(g) of the Act, cited repeatedly through both subsections, allows a public body to refuse disclosure where it "could reasonably be expected to deprive a person of the right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication." Whether that exemption is being applied because adjudicative proceedings of some kind remain ongoing more than seven years after the report's completion is not stated.

The disclosure also contains no quantitative data on workplace injuries, leaves, or turnover at the campus — gaps Smith herself flagged in 2018. The released package does not include any organizational response to the 2018 assessment, any implementation plan for the 18 recommendations, or any indication of which recommendations were acted on between December 2018 and the document's release in April 2026.

The 18 Recommendations

Smith's report concludes with 18 recommendations, organized loosely around the themes that recur throughout the assessment. They include improving relationships with other provincial departments, clarifying role expectations and performance evaluations, updating youth treatment materials, streamlining Unit Supervisor responsibilities, improving workplace safety and "a security mentality," increasing the ratio of Youth Workers to youth at Secure Treatment, filling clinical vacancies, improving orientation and continuing professional development for Youth Workers, improving trauma support, improving communication between clinical staff and Youth Workers, improving consistency between teams, improving working conditions for Relief Staff, discontinuing the annual "April Shakeup" team reconfiguration, helping youth transition back into the community, increasing staff diversity, and fostering a culture of positivity.

The closing recommendation captures the report's overall tone: "Negative stereotypes and entrenched attitudes about other teams, Unit Supervisors, clinical staff and relief staff should be challenged when they are expressed." Smith ends on the observation that "the task ahead is to challenge practices that lower morale and to shift the culture to one of mutual respect, trust and support."

All information referenced is from the Nova Scotia Department of Opportunities and Social Development, FOIPOP request 2026-00320-DOSD, obtained through Nova Scotia's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The records consist of a 114-page workplace assessment of Wood Street Campus prepared by Krista K. Smith of Barteaux Durnford for the Department of Community Services, dated December 20, 2018, and released on April 13, 2026.