Task Force Report on Administrative Segregation

F. CSC’s Ability to Address Procedural Compliance Issues

(a) Background

The Task Force concluded that immediate improvements were necessary to ensure CSC moved quickly to full legal compliance. It was equally clear that CSC had to review its own policies and procedures, and constructively engage staff members and managers, if the objective of 100-percent legal and policy compliance was to be achieved and maintained over time. The Task Force believes that the goal of 100 percent compliance, 100-percent of the time, as articulated by the current Commissioner, is the only acceptable goal for an organization which exercises such strong controls over the liberty of individuals.

The Task Force, with the full support of all levels of CSC, launched several initiatives to remedy all non-compliance issues. First, the Task Force requested that all assessed institutions submit detailed action plans outlining the steps undertaken to correct all compliance issues.

Second, the Task Force initiated steps to ensure that OMS reflected documentation requirements specified in the law. This action provided the necessary support to staff to document decisions taken at key stages in the administrative segregation review process. Third, the Task Force issued an administrative segregation process checklist and a segregated inmates’ placement handbook. Fourth, the Task Force and CSC Legal Services answered all questions raised by institutions, and issued a consolidated document entitled "Administrative Segregation: Answers To Most Frequently Asked Questions".

These efforts were augmented by the efforts of all Regional Headquarters which conducted their own training sessions, pre-audits, and discussion sessions to assist the institutions in understanding and complying with the law and CSC policies. In light of the amount of work undertaken, the Task Force acknowledges that staff members and managers of all levels of CSC worked hard in their collective effort to remedy these compliance shortcomings and to reassess their respective views of the legal purpose of administrative segregation.

(b) Formal Audit

During phase two, a comprehensive legal compliance audit was conducted by the Task Force. The purpose of the audit was to ensure that the operation of segregation units was in compliance with basic legal procedural requirements, and that all compliance issues identified during the preliminary assessment had been addressed.

It should be noted that the audit instrument was designed to determine the extent to which basic procedural steps, outlined in the law, were followed. This included the placement of inmates in administrative segregation; the conduct of one-, five-, thirty- and sixty-day reviews; provisions of notification and disclosure of information to inmates three days prior to their reviews; the provision of one hour of daily exercise; and daily visits by the institutional head or designate and daily visits by health care staff.

The Task Force must stress that the audit instrument was not specifically designed to assess the effectiveness of the reintegration process of segregated inmates into less restrictive correctional environments.

Institutions were provided with an ample opportunity to assess their procedural deficiencies and, with support, to take corrective action in advance of the formal compliance audit.

Action plans were developed as a result of the preliminary assessment. Procedural checklists and clarifications were provided by the Task Force to assist institutions in the review of their procedures. The institutions had access to the audit instrument well in advance of the audit to ensure that they clearly understood the audit criteria and the methods that would be used to collect the data needed to complete the audit.

The following observations were drawn from the results of the audit.

1. Substantial progress was achieved by a majority of institutions in correcting the deficiencies identified during the preliminary assessment. In particular, regional institutions for women offenders and the Prison for Women demonstrated that they have a process in place to ensure compliance with the law when and if segregation is used. This was also true for all assessed minimum security institutions, five medium security institutions, and one maximum institution.
2. The remaining institutions still showed some deficiencies, particularly in complying with procedures that ensure inmates are notified and provided with sufficient documentation to make effective representations at the five-day review; and completing logs that provide a record of daily visits by the institutional head and by health care staff. Overall, these deficiencies occurred in a minority of the files reviewed. Nevertheless, Wardens were asked to respond to these deficiencies and ensure that action had been taken to correct them.
3. The Task Force was particularly concerned with deficiencies identified in three medium security institutions and three maximum security institutions. Detailed action plans were developed to ensure that corrective action was immediately taken and that a second compliance audit was conducted in March to ensure full compliance with the law.

Regional Deputy Commissioners were asked to follow-up with individual institutions to ensure that responses to all action plans were in place and that audits were conducted in selected institutions to ensure that they achieved full compliance.

The results of the audit can be viewed from a number of perspectives. From the perspective of where CSC was when the Task Force was established in June 1996, there has been significant positive change in the extent of CSC’s compliance with the law, an achievement in which the Service can take justifiable pride. At the time of the initial assessment, procedural compliance shortcomings were significant and systemic across all regions and in almost every aspect of the administrative segregation process. The compliance audit revealed an overall pattern of compliance. From another perspective, the fact that the compliance audit revealed less than 100 percent compliance in all institutions is a concern.

It must be remembered that the audit was preceded by an extensive process of identifying problem areas and clarifying outstanding questions regarding the interpretation of law and policy. In addition, pre-audits were performed to assess readiness for the formal compliance audit, and a delay of two months from the original audit dates was granted to provide more time for corrective action. It should have been possible, and this was the Task Force’s expectation, that all institutions would have been able to achieve 100-percent compliance with the basic procedural requirements of the law.

As noted, some of the areas of non-compliance were technical in nature and easily remedied. Others were more serious. The fact that non-compliance spanned a number of areas in the administrative segregation review process in several of the institutions is a cause for concern, especially in maximum-security institutions where intrusiveness can be the most severe.

In sum, the results of the compliance audit can be viewed from different perspectives. On the one hand, CSC has demonstrated that, given the necessary corporate will, leadership, and resources, it can significantly improve its ability to comply with the basic procedural requirements of the law. On the other hand, considering the scope of the compliance audit, which was directed only to compliance with the basic procedural requirements of the law, and the fact that it was conducted at a time when full attention was being given to the issue of segregation, CSC’s performance falls short of full compliance.

Since CSC’s focus could easily shift to other areas in the future, the Task Force believes it critical that mechanisms be put in place to ensure that recent progress is sustained. Consequently, the Task Force recommends that a Segregation Advisory Committee be created with membership from inside/outside CSC to continue to shape an effective and compliant administrative segregation process within a fixed time frame.

This action, coupled with other recommendations related to an enhanced segregation review process and experimentation with independent adjudication, will contribute to public confidence that CSC is maintaining its corporate commitment to respect the "Rule of Law".