Task Force Report on Administrative Segregation

E. Preliminary Assessment: Task Force Findings

(a) A Casual Attitude Towards the Rigour of the Law and CSC Policies

The findings of the preliminary assessment (Phase 1) confirmed Madame Justice Arbour’s findings that CSC did not fully appreciate the obligation to rigorously comply with legislative and policy provisions in its management of administrative segregation. Overall, CSC staff members and managers demonstrated a casual attitude towards the rigorous requirements of the law, both in terms of their understanding of the law and their sense of being bound by it.

The compliance shortcomings that were observed were both systemic and significant. The Task Force recorded the following:

• Formal documentation indicated that CSC had segregated inmates for reasons that did not meet legislative criteria. For example, some inmates were segregated for longer periods of time because they were awaiting the availability of cell space in the general inmate population or a transfer to another institution. It was found, on occasion, that segregation had been used as punishment.
• Time frames governing the one hour of daily exercise, the three-day written disclosure notice, and the five- and thirty-day hearings, were more likely to be seen as "guidelines" than mandatory regulatory provisions requiring compliance.
• Inmates were not well informed of their legal rights and privileges with respect to administrative segregation procedures and conditions of confinement.
• CSC was not sufficiently aware of Aboriginal rights under the law, such as access to Spiritual Leaders and Elders, Native Liaison Workers, sacred and cultural items, and spiritual ceremonies (e.g. sweat lodges).
• CSC provided insufficient access to programs and recreational activities, and its policy regarding access to personal effects was inconsistently applied across regions.
• CSC often failed to keep accurate records of all events concerning the administrative segregation of inmates, and, as a result, often failed to demonstrate legal compliance. This problem was compounded by information collection and management deficiencies relating to OMS.

In the opinion of the Task Force, the above compliance issues provided sufficient evidence of a casual attitude toward the demands of the law by CSC staff members and managers to justify Madame Justice Arbour’s assertion that CSC has a culture that does not respect the "Rule of Law". That is not to say that CSC staff members and managers went out of their way to act in violation of the law; but it is to say that they did not go sufficiently out of their way to ensure full understanding of and compliance with it. The Task Force concluded that review mechanisms required to ensure legal compliance and to support effective decision-making were not in place.

(b) Effectiveness Issues

Effectiveness means more than compliance to basic procedural requirements defined by the CCRA, CCRR and CSC policies. It includes ensuring that the intent of the law, as stated in the CCRA, CCRR and CSC policies, is followed, i.e. that administrative segregation is used only when no other alternative can be found, and release from administrative segregation must occur at the earliest possible opportunity to the least restrictive correctional environment possible.

In addition to procedural compliance issues, the Task Force observed that:

• institutional alternatives to the use of segregation were not being fully explored; reintegration plans that supported timely release from administrative segregation were not promptly developed and not sufficiently detailed;
• options for reintegration were usually limited to transfers away from the institution - a process that was administratively cumbersome, lengthy, and often not successful with respect to inter-regional transfers; and
• most regional reviews were not providing appropriate solutions for reintegration.

The Task Force believes that these effectiveness issues resulted in inmates being segregated for unnecessarily long periods of time.

(c) The Purpose of Administrative Segregation is Misunderstood

The Task Force found that the purpose of administrative segregation, as outlined in the CCRA, was not sufficiently well understood by CSC personnel. Under the CCRA, any decision to place or maintain an inmate in administrative segregation can be justified only if there are reasonable grounds to believe that one of the following three conditions exists, and only then as a last resort after all other options have been considered and no reasonable alternative to administrative segregation exists:

1. the inmate (i) has acted, has attempted to act or intends to act in a manner that jeopardizes the security of the penitentiary or the safety of any person, and (ii) the continued presence of the inmate in the general inmate population would jeopardize the security of the penitentiary or the safety of any person;
2. the continued presence of the inmate in the general inmate population would interfere with an investigation that could lead to a criminal charge or a charge, under subsection 41(2), of a serious disciplinary offence; or
3. the continued presence of the inmate in the general inmate population would jeopardize the inmate’s own safety.

These three criteria for segregation are not punitive, but preventive in nature. In essence, the grounds for placement in and continuance of administrative segregation were designed to allow CSC to prevent altercations, harm, or interference with certain investigations. These provisions were not intended to be used to circumvent the inmate disciplinary provisions, the only punitively-oriented statutory provisions in the CCRA. Since administrative segregation is not a punitive process, segregated inmates must be given the same rights, privileges and conditions of confinement as the general inmate population except for those that can only be enjoyed in association with other inmates, and that cannot reasonably be provided because of the limitations specific to the administrative segregation area, or because of security requirements.

The Task Force came to the conclusion, based on several observations, that the perception of CSC personnel regarding the use of administrative segregation, does not match the principles outlined in the law and the Mission. For example, as mentioned earlier, the Task Force found that CSC segregated inmates for reasons that did not meet the legislative criteria (e.g. waiting for cell space or for a transfer to another institution).

In addition, from the Task Force`s discussion with staff members and managers on the issue of offenders who voluntarily request to be segregated, it became apparent that the purpose of administrative segregation was misunderstood by CSC personnel. The problems associated with managing protective custody offenders are well known to CSC, which has expended great efforts trying to bring the number of protective custody cases under control. One of the deeply held beliefs of staff members and managers is that if CSC makes it too "comfortable" for offenders in administrative segregation, inmates will "check in" in increasing numbers. The corresponding strategy to combat this problem is to limit how "comfortable" CSC makes it for protective custody (voluntarily segregated) inmates. The Task Force found that this deeply held belief, common to all levels of the CSC, places personnel in conflict with one of the basic principles of the law and the Mission. A strong historical bias exists against providing offenders access to programs or privileges in segregation units.

When one considers the large (and growing) proportion of segregated offenders that are voluntarily requesting to be segregated, it is easy to understand the concerns of operational personnel. However, as conscious as one might be of the problem of managing protective custody offenders, the law is clear in terms of their rights, privileges, and conditions of confinement while segregated. The growing proportion of voluntarily segregated inmates suggests that the management of this population is an issue that CSC has to re-examine in the context of a less restricted environment in the institution, and therefore outside the legal and policy procedures imposed by administrative segregation.