Task Force Report on Administrative Segregation

D. Description of the Segregated Population

The Task Force monitored the population in administrative segregation units in order to understand its composition. Monthly statistics, collected between September, 1996 and February, 1997, focused on the number of segregated inmates, their status (voluntary and involuntary), the duration of their stay, and the reason for their segregation. This data was taken from the Offender Management System (OMS), which is CSC’s computerized inmate management information system. A detailed comparison was made between segregated inmates and a sample of non-segregated inmates.

(a) Basic Statistics

On February 2, 1997, the total number of inmates in administrative segregation was 722. A breakdown of this population follows.

Aboriginal and Women Offenders in Administrative Segregation

Of the 722 inmates in administrative segregation in February 1997, 113 (15.7%) were Aboriginal males and 5 (0.7%) were women offenders (including 3 Aboriginals). These two groups represent 14.8% and 2.2% respectively of the general inmate population, which are similar national proportions as in administrative segregation. It is important to note that the information in OMS relating to Aboriginal inmates is self-reported and is low as a result.

Voluntary vs. Involuntary

Approximately half of the inmates were in voluntary segregation (49.6%) while the rest were in involuntary segregation (50.4%).

Reason for Segregation

Over half (54.4%) of the inmates in administrative segregation were placed there under Section 31(3)(c) of the CCRA ("continued presence of the inmate in the general inmate population would jeopardize the inmate’s own safety"). A further 42.3% were segregated under Section 31(3)(a) of the CCRA ("jeopardize the security of the penitentiary or the safety of any person"). The remaining 3.3% were segregated under Section 31(3)(b) of the CCRA ("interfere with an investigation that could lead to a criminal charge or a charge ... of a serious disciplinary offence").

Length of Stay

Over three-quarters (76%) of the inmates in administrative segregation have been there for less than 90 days. Nevertheless, the Task Force was particularly concerned with the 24% who had spent more than 90 days in segregation. As a result, it initiated a review to learn more about the obstacles encountered in the reintegration of these inmates in to less restrictive environments. The Task Force found, among other things, that the only alternative to confinement identified for most inmates who had been in administrative segregation for a period of more than 90 days was a transfer. In some cases, even this would be difficult considering the number of ‘incompatibles’ that some inmates have in institutions across the country. Furthermore, some inmates (12% of the sample) simply did not wish to be reintegrated into the general inmate population.

This information is supported by the fact that the proportion of voluntary cases in administrative segregation increases by more than 20% for periods of more than 90 days.

Table 1: Voluntary/Involuntary Case

Days	Voluntary	Involuntary
Less than 90 days	45%	55%
Greater than 90 days	66%	34%

Similarly, a significant proportion of inmates segregated after 90 days are there under s. 31(3)(c) of the CCRA.

Table 2: Inmates Segregated For More Than 90 Days

Days	s. 31(3)(a	s. 31(3)(b	s. 31(3)(c)
Less than 90 days	48%	4%	48%
Greater than 90 days	23%	1%	76%

(b) Characteristics of Segregated Inmates

The following is a brief summary of the major findings of a research project initiated by the Task Force and carried out by CSC Research Branch. Data, entered in OMS at time of admission, was used to develop comparisons between a sample of segregated inmates and a random sample of non-segregated inmates. This data came from three sources: the Offender Intake Assessment Process (a collection of historical and current information on each offender admitted in a federal correctional institution); the Statistical Information on Recidivism Scale (used to determine risk of reoffending); and the Custody Rating Scale (used to assess initial security level placement). The sample of segregated inmates was drawn from the inmates in administrative segregation on December 9, 1996.

(i) Criminal History Background

Statistical analysis revealed that segregated inmates had significantly different criminal histories than non-segregated inmates. They had more prior involvement with the criminal justice system both as young offenders and adult offenders; had been segregated more often for disciplinary reasons during previous prison terms; had higher rates of recidivism; and stayed out of prison for shorter periods of time.

Table 3: Inmates in Administrative Segregation: Criminal History

Variables	Segregated (percentages)	Not Segregated (percentages)
Youth court	59	41
Adult court	90	84
Disciplinary segregation	47	24
Escape	39	24
Failure on conditional release	54	37
Less than 6 months since last incarceration	39	21

(ii) Risk/Need

Segregated inmates were found to be higher-risk and higher-need inmates than non-segregated inmates. They were found to be more likely to reoffend than their non-segregated counterparts. Further, segregated inmates were found to be higher-need offenders than non-segregated inmates in six of the seven need categories assessed at admission. They were found to more likely to experience difficulties than non-segregated offenders in the following need areas:

• employment (e.g. less than grade 10, lacking skills area, trade or profession, unemployed at time of arrest, unemployed more often, unstable job history);
• associates and social interaction (e.g. socially isolated, association with substance abusers and criminal acquaintances, easily influenced by others, difficulty in communicating with others);
• substance abuse (e.g. abuse of alcohol and drugs, abuse of alcohol and drugs at an early age, alcohol and drug abuse interfered with most aspects of life)
• community functioning (e.g. unstable accommodations, financial difficulties)
• personal/emotional orientation (e.g. cognition problems, poor conflict resolution skills, low frustration tolerance, hostility, thrill-seeking, non-reflection, manipulative); and
• attitude (e.g. negative attitudes toward criminal justice system, pro-criminal attitudes, view interpersonal relations as having no value, disrespectful to personal belongings, lack direction, non-conforming).

It should be noted that the SIR scale has not been validated for Aboriginal and women offenders.

(iii) Voluntary vs. Involuntary

Voluntarily and involuntarily segregated inmates had very similar risk/need profiles. However, voluntarily segregated inmates were more likely than their involuntary counterparts to have previously served provincial prison terms (86% vs. 77%), to have a sexual offence history (27% vs. 18%), and to have often been victimized in social relations (30.2% vs. 18.5%).