Research Reports

CASE CHARACTERISTICS OF SEGREGATED OFFENDERS IN FEDERAL CORRECTIONS

by
Laurence L. Motiuk and Kelley Blanchette
Research Branch
Correctional Service Canada
March, 1997

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to express our sincere thanks to several people who assisted us in this study. Barbara Fitzpatrick was very helpful in providing a listing of candidates for the study and deserves considerable thanks. Mark Nafekh assisted us directly with both the management of data and conducting analyses.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston (1996) had underscored the fact that the correctional practice of segregating offenders be administered in compliance with the law and monitored closely. Moreover, it was strongly recommended that a policy review on the use of administrative segregation be pursued. Consequently, the Correctional Service of Canada launched a Task Force on Administrative Segregation. While the Task Force examined a broad range issues related to administrative segregation, this descriptive study attempts to enhance our knowledge of the nature and characteristics of segregated offenders in federal corrections.

The present investigation began with a listing of federally sentenced offenders in administrative segregation. The Offender Management System was used to identify a group of segregated (voluntary and involuntary) and non-segregated offenders for comparative purposes. As of November 9, 1996, a total of 799 offenders were located in segregation (45.2% voluntary and 54.8% involuntary). The majority of segregated offenders were male (99.2%). There were 6 (less than 1%) cases of a female offender for whom an involuntary segregation was listed.

A breakdown of segregated offenders by region revealed for the Atlantic 7.7%, Quebec 41.8%, Ontario 23.4%, Prairie 17.2% and Pacific 9.9%. While the majority of offenders in segregation were between 30 and 49 years of age (55.8%), a large proportion was under 30 (41.3%). Albeit the average age of offenders in segregation was 32.2 years old, the oldest segregated offender was 71 years old and the youngest was 18 years old. No significant difference in average age was found between offenders who were placed in voluntary (Mean = 32.3 years, Range = 19 to 60) and involuntary (Mean = 32.2 years, Range = 18 to 71) segregation.

Case-specific information was available from the Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) process for 678 segregated offenders. The OIA process collects comprehensive information on each offender's criminal and mental health history, social situation, education and other factors relevant to determining criminal risk and identifying offender needs. Additional information was obtained from available Statistical Information on Recidivism (SIR) scales (used to assess risk of re-offence) and Custody Rating Scales (which assesses for initial security level placement). While this information provides a basis for determining the offender's institutional placement and for establishing a correctional plan, it can also be used to produce detailed profiles of various segments of the offender population.

The design of the study also involved random selection of a comparison group of non-segregated offenders in Correctional Service of Canada’s institutions. These groups were used to make comparisons on wide variety of case-specific variables. After comparisons were made between 'segregated' and 'non-segregated' offender groups, we tested for significant differences between ‘voluntary’ and ‘involuntary’ segregated offenders.

The results of this descriptive study are organized into five sections: 'Criminal History Background’, 'Risk/Need Levels’, SIR Risk Groupings’, ‘Custody Rating Scale Designations’, ‘Case Need Domain Level Ratings’ as well as 'breakdowns of each case need (seven altogether) domain’s indicators’. Statistical tests for significance are presented with respect to 'segregated' versus 'non-segregated’ offenders and 'voluntary’ versus ‘involuntary’ segregated offenders'.

Statistical analyses revealed that segregated offenders had more prior involvements with the criminal justice system than their non-segregated counterparts. This was true for both young offender (59% and 41%, respectively) and adult offender (90% and 84%, respectively) histories. Segregated offenders were found to be twice as likely as non-segregated offenders to have been in segregation for disciplinary reasons on previous prison terms. Interestingly, segregated offenders were no more likely than non-segregated offenders to have a sex offence history, current or past (22% and 26%, respectively).

Given their criminal history background, it was not surprising to find that segregated offenders were found to be assessed at admission (by OIA) as higher-risk and higher-need cases when compared to non-segregated offenders. This is consistent with the SIR scale findings which found that segregated offenders were nearly twice as likely to be in the ‘very poor risk’ category as their non-segregated counterparts (45% versus 23%). On the other hand, over three times the proportion of non-segregated offenders were found to be in the ‘very good’ risk group relative to those in segregation (29% versus 9%, respectively). Interestingly, there were no significant between-group differences found between segregated and non-segregated offenders in relation to Custody Rating Scale designation. However, this later finding may simply be an artifact of the segregation group being composed of both voluntary and involuntary cases who were well beyond their initial penitentiary placement.

A review of the segregated and non-segregated offender case need level ratings found significant differences in six of the seven need domains assessed by OIA at admission. Segregated offenders were found to have more difficulties than non-segregated offenders in the following need areas: employment, associates and social interaction, substance abuse, community functioning, personal/emotional orientation and attitude. Only for the need domain of marital/family problems were no significant differences found between segregated and non-segregated offenders.

A closer look at the individual indicators for each need domain revealed some interesting patterns. In relation to educational background, segregated offenders were more likely to have less than grade 10 than non-segregated offenders (two-thirds and about one-half, respectively). Four-fifths of the segregated offenders had been unemployed at the time of their current offence, and more than 85% were found to have been unstable in their employment pattern. In terms of occupation, nearly two-thirds of the segregated offenders lacked a skill area/trade/profession.

A review of marital/family domain indicators found that most of the segregated offenders were single at the time of their current admission (72%) and had no parenting responsibilities (62%). It is noteworthy that segregated offenders were more likely than non-segregated offenders to have experienced more negative sibling and other(s) relations during their childhood.

Under the domain of associates and social interaction, segregated offenders were found more likely than non-segregated offenders at time of admission to have been socially isolated, associate with substance abusers, have many criminal acquaintances and mostly criminal friends, been easily influenced by others and have had difficulty communicating with others.

The substance abuse histories recorded at admission for segregated offenders revealed that they were more likely than non-segregated offenders to have abused alcohol (69.3% versus 58.5%), began drinking at an early age (55.5% versus 45.4%), abused drugs (81.4% versus 62.2%) and began using drugs at an early age (61.8% versus 39.7%). It would appear from the results that for segregated offenders, as a group, drug use prior to admission had been interfering with most aspects of their lives relative to their non-segregated counterparts.

Upon examination of community functioning indicators, it was found that segregated offenders were more likely than non-segregated offenders at admission to have had unstable accommodation and financial difficulties.

The review of personal/emotional orientation indicators at admission showed that segregated offenders were more likely than non-segregated offenders to have experienced a wide array of cognition problems (such as difficulties solving interpersonal problems, unable to generate choices, unaware of consequences, unrealistic goal setting, disregard for others, socially unaware, impulsive, incapable of understanding the feelings of others, narrow and rigid thinking). Other problems encountered by segregated offenders relative to their non-segregated counterparts were: being poor at conflict resolution, having low frustration tolerance, hostile, thrill-seeking, non-reflective and manipulative. It is noteworthy that segregated offenders were found to be as likely as non-segregated offenders at admission to have been diagnosed as disordered, either in the past or currently, been prescribed medication, either in the past or currently, been hospitalized and having received outpatient services.

Finally, a descriptive profile of segregated offenders was provided in relation to attitude indicators. The analyses conducted on the attitude domain clearly indicated that segregated offenders when compared to non-segregated offenders held more negative attitudes towards the law, courts, police, corrections, community supervision and rehabilitation. In addition, they were found to be more likely to view interpersonal relations as having no value, be disrespectful of personal belongings, lack direction and be non-conforming.

As mentioned previously, we also tested for significant differences between ‘voluntary’ and ‘involuntary’ segregated offenders. Surprisingly, we could find very few variables which distinguished them apart. Voluntary segregated offenders were more likely than their involuntary counterparts at admission to have previously served provincial terms (86% versus 77%), have a sex offence history (27% versus 18%) and to have been often victimized in social relations (30.2% versus 18.5%).

In sum, the study yielded comprehensive information on the federal segregated offender population. While the findings of this study may be limited only to federally sentenced offenders in segregation, it was learned that this group of offenders could be characterized by the presence of "static" risk factors (such as previous exposure to the criminal justice system) and the presence of a wide array of "dynamic" risk factors (such as poor education, skills deficits, family dysfunction, antisocial attachments and isolation, chemical dependencies, a host of thinking problems and procriminal attitudes).

The abundance of case-specific factors which set segregated offenders apart from non-segregated offenders points to a need for identifying them at the earliest possible moment in their sentence as "at-risk". This would provide the opportunity for proactive interventions related to a unique set of behaviours, attitudes and circumstances that appear to be clearly related to eventual placement in administrative segregation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
I. INTRODUCTION
II. METHODOLOGY
    Instruments
    Sample
III. RESULTS

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Selected Criminal History Background Indicators of Segregated and Non-segregated Offenders
Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Risk/Needs Levels for Segregated and Non-Segregated Offenders at Admission
Table 3. Percentage Distribution of SIR Risk Groups for Segregated and Non-segregated Offenders
Table 4. Percentage Distribution of Custody Rating Scale Designations for Segregated and Non-segregated Offenders
Table 5. Percentage Distribution of Case Need Levels for Segregated and Non-segregated Offenders at Admission
Table 6. A Breakdown of Selected Employment Indicators as Assessed by the Offender Intake Assessment Process
Table 7. A Breakdown of Selected Marital/Family Indicators as Assessed by the Offender Intake Assessment Process
Table 8. A Breakdown of Selected Associates/ Social Interaction Indicators as Assessed by the Offender Intake Assessment Process
Table 9. A Breakdown of Selected Substance Abuse Indicators as Assessed by the Offender Intake Assessment Process
Table 10. A Breakdown of Selected Community Functioning Indicators as Assessed by the Offender Intake Assessment Process
Table 11. A Breakdown of Selected Personal / Emotional Orientation Indicators as Assessed by the Offender Intake Assessment Process
Table 12. A Breakdown of Selected Attitude Indicators as Assessed by the Offender Intake Assessment Process

Introduction

A Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston (1996) had underscored the fact that the correctional practice of segregating offenders be administered in compliance with the law and monitored closely. Moreover, it was strongly recommended that a policy review on the use of administrative segregation be pursued. Consequently, the Correctional Service of Canada launched a Task Force on Administrative Segregation. While the Task Force mandate was to examine a broad range issues related to administrative segregation, this descriptive study attempts to enhance our knowledge of the nature and characteristics of segregated offenders in federal corrections.

METHODOLOGY

The present investigation compared segregated offenders to inmates in the general prison population on a variety of static and dynamic criteria: criminal history risk variables (including Statistical Information on Recidivism scores), Custody Rating Scale (CRS) designations, overall risk/need levels, and case need indicators/levels in seven target need domains. Multiple comparisons were also performed to examine between-group differences among individual case need indicators within each need domain. Subsequent analyses compared those placed voluntarily in segregation to their involuntary segregated counterparts.

Instruments

All data was extracted through OMS, and case-specific information was derived from the Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) process. Briefly, the OIA process collects comprehensive information on each offender’s criminal and mental health history, social situation, education, and other factors relevant to determining criminal risk and identifying offender needs.

Case-specific identification of each offender’s criminogenic needs was derived from the Case Needs Identification and Analysis (CNIA) portion of OIA. The CNIA considers a wide variety of aspects relevant to the offender’s personal background and life situation. Data are clustered into seven target domains, with multiple indicators for each: employment (35 indicators), marital/family (31 indicators), associates/social interaction (11 indicators), substance abuse (29 indicators), community functioning (21 indicators), personal/emotional orientation (46 indicators), and attitude (24 indicators). Using CNIA, offenders are rated on each target domain along a four-point continuum. Classifications reflect the degree of need, ranging from "factor seen as asset to community adjustment" (not applicable to substance abuse and personal/emotional orientation) to "no need for improvement", to "some need for improvement", to "considerable need for improvement".

The Statistical Information on Recidivism (SIR) score provides an estimate of the probability that an individual will re-offend within three years after release. Each offender's total score on the SIR scale is a simple summation of item scores, with total scores ranging from -30 (very poor risk) to +27 (very good risk). This scale is reported to accurately predict release outcome for male offenders (Hann & Harman, 1988; Motiuk & Porporino, 1989), and has proven to be somewhat indicative of release risk for females, though its value is considerably less than that for males (Blanchette, 1996; Hann & Harman, 1989).

The Custody Rating Scale (CRS) is a security classification tool, through which offenders are designated as either ‘maximum’, ‘medium’, or ‘minimum’ security. The CRS consists of two independently-scored subscales: the Institutional Adjustment subscale (five items), and the Security Risk subscale (seven items). Potential scores range from 0 to 186 points on the former, and from 17 to 190 points on the latter. As scores increase on either subscale, a higher security classification is predicted. Cutoff values of the CRS are designed such that classification renders 15% of offenders as minimum-security, 73% as medium-security, and 12% as maximum-security. Recent research has demonstrated the CRS to be a reliable and valid classification tool with practical utility for both male and female offenders (Luciani, Motiuk, & Nafekh, 1996).

Sample

Correctional Service of Canada’s Offender Management System (OMS; an automated database) was used to identify all federal inmates in segregation. As of the start date of the present investigation (November 9, 1996), a total of 799 offenders were located in segregation. Of those, 45.2% were placed voluntarily in segregation, and the remainder (54.8%) were involuntary segregated offenders. A random selection of 799 non-segregated inmates in CSC’s institutions was compiled for comparison.

The average age of segregated offenders was 32.2; with the oldest being 71 years old, and the youngest 18 years old. The majority of those in segregation (55.8%) were between 30 and 49 years of age, though the ‘under 30’ age category also accounted for a large proportion (41.3%) of segregated offenders. On average, segregated offenders were younger than their non-segregated counterparts: the mean age for this latter group was 36.2, with a range of 18 to 85. No significant difference in age was found between offenders who were placed in voluntary (mean = 32.3 years, range = 19 to 60) versus involuntary (mean = 32.3 years, range = 18 to 71) segregation.

A breakdown of segregated offenders by region revealed for the Atlantic 7.7%, Quebec 41.8%, Ontario 23.4%, Prairie 17.2%, and Pacific 9.9%. Significant differences emerged in group (segregated vs. non-segregated) by region analyses. Most notably, there were proportionately more segregated offenders in Quebec: Only 26.6% of the non-segregated offenders were incarcerated in that region.

In regards to Aboriginal status, about 13% of the segregated offenders were Aboriginal, compared with 14% of the non-segregated offenders. This difference was not statistically significant.

RESULTS

Criminal History Background

Criminal history background was available through the Criminal Risk Assessment component of OIA. It is based primarily on the criminal history record and provides specific information pertaining to past and current offences. Moreover, any other pertinent details regarding specific risk factors are included in the criminal profile report. These data were available for almost half of the sample, including 332 segregated and 354 non-segregated offenders.

Comparing segregated to non-segregated offenders across 14 criminal history background indicators yielded significant findings in all but one area: sex offence history. Statistical analyses revealed that segregated offenders had more prior involvements with the criminal justice system than their non-segregated counterparts. Their more extensive criminal histories were evident in both youth and adult court. Indeed, almost all of the segregated offenders (96%) had one or more prior involvements with the criminal justice system. Results of these analyses are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Selected Criminal History Background Indicators of Segregated and Non-segregated Offenders

	Segregated offenders (n=332)		Non-segregated offenders (n=354)
	#	%	#	%
Previous Youth Court ***	193	59%	142	41%
Community Supervision ***	140	44%	106	31%
Open Custody ***	123	39%	72	21%
Secure Custody ***	133	42%	71	21%
Previous Adult Court *	297	90%	298	84%
Community Supervision *	264	80%	253	72%
Provincial Terms ***	267	81%	241	68%
Federal Terms *	138	42%	115	33%
Total (Youth and/or Adult) ***	318	96%	312	88%
Previous: Segregation (disciplinary) ***	142	47%	79	24%
Previous: Escape/UAL ***	128	39%	83	24%
Previous: Failure on Conditional Release ***	178	54%	130	37%
Previous: < 6 Mo. Since Last Incarceration ***	126	38%	73	21%
Previous: Sex Offence History (includes current)	71	22%	91	26%

Note: * p< .05; *** p<.001

Not surprisingly, segregated offenders were significantly more likely to have been place in segregation, for disciplinary reasons, on previous prison terms. It’s also noteworthy that segregated offenders were more likely to have had a history of escape or of being unlawfully at large.

To verify whether segregated offenders differ on criminal history variables by type (voluntary vs. involuntary), a second series of statistical analyses were performed. Results showed no significant between-group differences, save for sex offence history, and previous (adult) provincial terms of incarceration.

While 86% of the voluntary segregated offenders had previously been incarcerated provincially, this was true for only 77% of their involuntary segregated counterparts. Voluntary segregated offenders were also more likely to have current or previous sex offences than their involuntary counterparts (27% and 18%, respectively). Both of these between-group comparisons were significant at p<.05. For all other selected criminal history background indicators, data for the ‘segregated’ group in Table 1 is representative of both voluntary and involuntary offenders in segregation.

Risk/Need Levels

At admission, global ratings of criminal risk and case need levels (either ‘low’, ‘medium’ or ‘high’) are obtained for each offender. These risk/need ratings are accomplished through OIA, and is considered for a variety of criteria, such as institutional placement, correctional management and supervision. These data were available for most of the sample: 678 segregated offenders, and 702 non-segregated offenders.

Given the more extensive criminal histories of the segregated offenders relative to their non-segregated counterparts, it was not surprising to find that segregated offenders were designated at admission to be higher risk and higher need. In fact, a full 60% of segregated offenders (compared with 47% of their non-segregated counterparts) were designated ‘high’ on both risk and need. A Percentage distribution of risk/need levels for both groups is reported in Table 2.

Table 2 Percentage Distribution of Risk/Need Levels for Segregated and Non-segregated Offenders at Admission

	Segregated offenders		Non-segregated offenders
RISK/NEED LEVEL:	(678)	%	(702)	%
Low-risk/Low-need	11	1.6%	19	2.7%
Low-risk/Medium-need	9	1.3%	28	4.0%
Low-risk/High-need	6	0.9%	3	0.4%
Sub-total	26	3.8%	50	7.1%
Medium-risk/Low-need	3	0.4%	13	1.9%
Medium-risk/Medium-need	88	13.0%	136	19.4%
Medium-risk/High-need	119	17.6%	91	13.0%
Sub-total	210	31.0%	240	34.3%
High-risk/Low-need	2	0.3%	4	0.6%
High-risk/Medium-need	33	4.9%	78	11.1%
High-risk/High-need	407	60.0%	330	47.0%
Sub-total	442	65.2%	412	59.5%

Note: *** p< .001

Narrowing the focus to only segregated offenders, voluntary inmates were compared to involuntary inmates on the above risk/need criteria. As with the criminal history data, results showed no significant between-group differences on risk/need levels at admission. Thus, once again, the data contained in the above table for ‘segregated’ offenders is representative of both voluntary (n = 309) and involuntary (n = 369) segregated inmates.

SIR Risk Groupings

As mentioned, the SIR scale score provides an estimate of the probability that an individual will reoffend within two years after release. Although the potential range of scores is from -30 (very poor risk) to +27 (very good risk), the continuum of scores can also be clustered into five risk categories: very poor risk (-30 to -9), poor risk (-8 to -5), fair risk (-4 to 0), good risk (+1 to +5), and very good risk (+6 to +27). For analyses used in the present investigation, SIR scores were clustered into the five risk categories, and segregated offenders were compared to their non-segregated counterparts. Results are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Percentage Distribution of SIR Risk Groups for Segregated and Non-segregated Offenders

Risk Grouping ***	Segregated offenders		Non-segregated offenders
	#	%	#	%
Very Poor	271	45%	123	23%
Poor	105	18%	90	17%
Fair	107	18%	89	17%
Good	62	10%	71	14%
Very Good	53	9%	151	29%
TOTAL	598		525

Note 1: *** p< .001

Note 2: Sex offenders and homicide offenders, as a group, score favorably on this scale as they are considerably older than the general prison population and typically have had less exposure to the criminal justice system.

In accordance with their more extensive criminal histories and higher risk/need levels (as designated by OIA), segregated offenders were about twice as likely to be classified as ‘very poor’ risk. Moreover, while only 9% of those in segregation scored in the ‘very good’ risk range, this was true for about one-third of the non-segregated population.

Of the 598 segregated offenders with available SIR data, 335 of them were involuntary, and 263 were voluntary. Analyses comparing SIR risk groupings for these two groups of segregated offenders yielded no significant findings. More specifically, exactly 45% of each group were classified as ‘very poor’ risk, and exactly 9% of each group were classified as ‘very good’ risk.

Custody Rating Scale Designations

As previously mentioned, the Custody Rating Scale (CRS) is a security classification tool, which designates offenders as either ‘maximum-’, ‘medium-’, or ‘minimum-security’. Analyses comparing segregated to non-segregated offenders on CRS designations yielded the results located in Table 4.

Table 4 Percentage Distribution of Custody Rating Scale Designations for Segregated and Non-segregated Offenders

Security Level	Segregated offenders		Non-segregated offenders
	#	%	#	%
Minimum	41	11%	42	14%
Medium	278	74%	223	76%
Maximum	56	15%	28	10%
TOTAL	375		293

As indicated in Table 4, about three-quarters of each (segregated and non-segregated) group were designated as medium-security. Although segregated offenders were more likely to be classified maximum-security, and non-segregated offenders were more likely to be classified as minimum-security, these differences were not statistically significant.

Not surprisingly, there were also no significant between-group differences found in analyses comparing voluntary to involuntary segregated offenders. Fifteen percent of each group were designated by the CRS as maximum-security. The medium-security designation comprised 72% and 76% of the voluntary and involuntary segregated offenders, respectively. Finally, the minimum-security category classified 13% and 9% of the voluntary and involuntary segregated offenders, respectively.

Case Need Domain Level Ratings

As mentioned, the CNIA component of the OIA process involves the identification of ea

ch offender’s criminogenic needs. Overall case need levels in the seven target domains are ranked along a four-point continuum, ranging from ‘asset to community adjustment’, to ‘considerable need for improvement’. These data were available through OIA for the majority of the sample: 727 segregated offenders, and 687 non-segregated offenders. We used these data in chi-square analyses to determine between-group differences in the seven need domains. Results are presented in Table 5.

Table 5 Percentage Distribution of Case Need Levels at Admission

	Segregated offenders		Non-segregated offenders
NEED LEVEL: Domain	(727)	%	(687)	%
NEED LEVEL AN ASSET:
Employment***	21	3.1%	59	8.1%
Marital/Family	31	4.5%	49	6.7%
Associates***	16	2.3%	59	8.1%
Substance Abuse***	-	-	-	-
Community Functioning***	13	1.9%	56	7.7%
Personal/Emotional***	-	-	-	-
Attitude***	33	4.8%	61	8.4%
NEED LEVEL NO DIFFICULTY:
Employment	56	8.2%	116	16.0%
Marital/Family	148	21.5%	179	24.6%
Associates	85	12.4%	141	19.4%
Substance Abuse	92	13.4%	177	24.4%
Community Functioning	126	18.3%	192	26.4%
Personal/Emotional	30	4.4%	67	9.2%
Attitude	107	15.6%	195	26.8%
NEED LEVEL SOME DIFFICULTY:
Employment	242	35.2%	296	40.1%
Marital/Family	252	36.7%	251	34.5%
Associates	240	34.9%	305	42.0%
Substance Abuse	131	19.1%	141	19.4%
Community Functioning	298	43.4%	324	44.6%
Personal/Emotional	137	19.9%	171	23.5%
Attitude	183	26.6%	213	29.3%
NEED LEVEL CONSIDERABLE DIFFICULTY:
Employment	68	53.6%	256	35.2%
Marital/Family	256	37.3%	248	34.1%
Associates	346	50.4%	222	30.5%
Substance Abuse	464	67.5%	409	56.3%
Community Functioning	250	36.4%	155	21.3%
Personal/Emotional	520	75.7%	489	67.3%
Attitude	364	53.0%	258	35.5%

Note:*** p< .001

As indicated in Table 5, there were significant between-group differences (p<.001) in six of the seven need domains, as assessed by OIA. Although both groups exhibited substantial difficulty in most need areas, these problems were more marked for the segregated offenders. Statistically significant differences emerged in: employment, associates, substance abuse, community functioning, personal/emotional orientation, and attitude. Although segregated offenders were about five percent more likely to have ‘some’ or ‘considerable’ difficulty in the marital/family domain, this difference was not statistically significant.

Of the case need data available for segregated offenders, 313 cases were voluntary, and 374 cases were involuntary. Statistical analyses comparing these two groups on case need levels across the seven target areas revealed no significant differences. As such, once again the data presented for the ‘segregated’ group in Table 5 is representative of both voluntary and involuntary segregated offenders.

Breakdowns of Case Need Domain Indicators

i) Employment. For a comprehensive assessment of the employment need domain, the OIA process uses 35 specific indicators. While analyses indicated significant differences between segregated and non-segregated offenders in overall level of need in this area, micro-level analyses were necessary to determine the exact nature of these differences. Thus, multiple comparisons were performed to compare groups across each of the 35 need indicators in this domain. A full listing of the education/employment indicators is located in Appendix A. Thirteen of the 35 comparisons in the employment domain yielded significant between-group differences. A breakdown of the indicators that significantly differed between segregated and non-segregated offenders is reported in Table 6.

Table 6 A Breakdown of Selected Employment Indicators as Assessed by the Offender Intake Assessment Process: Segregated and Non-Segregated Offenders

Employment indicators	Segregated offenders	Non-segregated offenders
Has less than grade 8 **	31.3%	21.3%
Has less than grade 10 **	64.4%	53.0%
Has concentration problems *	41.4%	33.4%
Lacks a skill area/trade/profession *	66.9%	57.5%
Dissatisfied with skill area/trade/profession *	46.8%	38.9%
Unemployed at time of arrest ***	80.5%	65.8%
Unemployed 90% or more ***	48.0%	29.7%
Unemployed 50% or more ***	78.3%	61.4%
Has an unstable job history ***	86.4%	73.0%
No employment history **	20.6%	12.3%
Lacks initiative *	34.1%	26.4%
Has been fired from a job ***	35.8%	24.2%
Has participated in employment programs *	31.1%	24.4%

Note: * p< .05; ** p<.01; *** p < .001

It is noteworthy that in every case where between-group differences were found, segregated offenders showed more problems than their non-segregated counterparts. While about two-thirds of segregated offenders had less than grade 10 education, this was true for only 53% of non-segregated inmates. Moreover, about 81% of segregated offenders were unemployed at the time of their arrest, and 85% had an unstable job history.

In comparing voluntary to involuntary segregated offenders across the 34 need indicators for the employment domain, no significant between-group differences were found. This is not surprising, considering that the overall level of need in the employment area was about the same for both groups. Thus, data located in the column for ‘segregated’ offenders in Table 6 is representative of both voluntary and involuntary segregated inmates.

ii) Marital / Family. A complete listing of marital / family indicators as assessed by OIA is located in Appendix B. Although statistical techniques showed no difference between segregated and non-segregated offenders on overall level of need in the marital / family domain, multiple comparisons rendered some significant findings: these are presented in Table 7.

Table 7 A Breakdown of Selected Marital/Family Indicators as Assessed by the Offender Intake Assessment Process

Marital/Family	Segregated offenders	Non-segregated offenders
Childhood lacked family ties *	36.5%	28.9%
Sibling relations negative during childhood **	19.3%	11.9%
Other relative(s) relations negative during childhood ***	19.0%	9.1%
Family members involved in crime *	45.4%	36.6%
Currently single ***	71.7%	57.3%
Has been married/common law in the past *	70.3%	78.0%
Money problems affect relationship(s) past/present *	24.3%	32.3%
Communication problems affects the relationship(s) *	35.1%	44.2%
Has no parenting responsibilities ***	61.8%	45.9%
Has been arrested for incest *	1.5%	4.8%

Note: * p< .05; ** p<.01; *** p < .001

Surprisingly, not all differences in this target domain showed the segregated offenders as having more needs than their non-segregated counterparts. It is interesting to note, however, that in indicators targeting childhood/ family of origin, the segregated offenders clearly have more problems. However, it appears that in adult relationships (e.g., money, sexual, parenting issues), it is the non-segregated offenders that appear to have more difficulty. There is good possibility that this is reflective of a higher tendency for non-segregated offenders to be involved in marital or common-law relationships.

Analyses also compared voluntary segregated offenders to their non-voluntary counterparts across each of the 31 indicators in the marital / family domain. Only one indicator showed a significant between-groups difference: ‘supervises child improperly’. This item was characteristic of 10.5% of involuntary segregated offenders, and only 3.8% of the voluntary segregated offenders.

iii) Associates/ Social Interaction. A complete listing of the Associates/Social Interaction indicators is located in Appendix C. Eight of the 11 indicators in this domain showed significant differences between segregated and non-segregated offenders. Again, in each case, the segregated offenders displayed more need than their non-segregated counterparts. These data are presented in Table 8.

Table 8 A Breakdown of Selected Associates/ Social Interaction Indicators as Assessed by the Offender Intake Assessment Process

Associates / Social Interaction	Segregated offenders	Non-segregated offenders
Socially Isolated *	31.9%	25.1%
Associates with substance abusers **	78.7%	68.1%
Many criminal acquaintances ***	74.4%	60.1%
Mostly criminal friends ***	59.0%	37.8%
Resides in a criminogenic area **	34.1%	23.0%
Unattached to any community groups **	70.5%	61.0%
Easily influenced by others **	58.2%	47.5%
Has difficulty communicating with others *	36.5%	28.0%

Note: * p< .05; ** p<.01; *** p < .001

Those in segregation were more likely (at admission) to have been socially isolated, to associate with substance abusers, to have many criminal acquaintances and friends, to reside in a criminogenic area, and to be unattached to any community groups. Moreover, they were characterized by communication problems with others, and to be easily influenced by others. These latter two characteristics are especially problematic when paired with other needs such as the presence of criminal/substance abusing friends and associates.

As with other need area, analyses rendered little differences between voluntary and involuntary segregated offenders in associates /social interaction indicators. Only one of the 11 comparisons yielded significant results: ‘often victimized in social relations’. About one-third (30.2%) of the voluntary segregated offenders were described as ‘often victimized in social relations’, compared with only 18.5% of the involuntary segregated offenders. The large proportion of voluntarily-segregated offenders with problems in this area is likely a reflection of their ‘voluntary’ status in segregation. More specifically, offenders who are ‘often victimized’ would probably be more likely to voluntarily opt for confinement in segregation.

iv) Substance Abuse. The substance abuse histories recorded at admission revealed that segregated offenders were more likely than non-segregated offenders to have abused alcohol and drugs, and to have began using alcohol/drugs at an early age. In fact, 20 of the 29 indicators showed significant between-group differences. In every case, the segregated offenders had more needs in this domain. A complete listing of the 29 substance abuse indicators as assessed by OIA is located in Appendix D.

Table 9 provides a breakdown of select (statistically significant) substance abuse indicators. It is noteworthy that the most robust findings were in the area of drug abuse, where the vast majority of those in segregation used drugs in social situations, during leisure time, and to relieve stress. Moreover, their drug use caused problems in other areas of their lives, such as social relations, employment, family, health, and law violations.

It’s also worth highlighting that, while segregated offenders were significantly more likely to have participated in substance abuse treatment, there was no real difference in having completed substance abuse treatment. This may signal the need for a different programming protocol for this particular group.

Table 9 A Breakdown of Selected Substance Abuse Indicators as Assessed by the Offender Intake Assessment Process

Substance Abuse	Segregated offenders	Non-segregated offenders
Abuses alcohol **	69.3%	58.5%
Began drinking at an early age **	55.5%	45.4%
Has a history of drinking binges *	53.7%	45.0%
Has combined the use of alcohol and drugs ***	58.7%	42.2%
Drinks to excess during leisure time **	69.3%	58.5%
Abuses drugs ***	81.4%	62.2%
Began using drugs at an early age ***	61.8%	39.7%
Used drugs on a regular basis ***	64.5%	40.3%
Has gone on drug-taking sprees ***	67.8%	41.1%
Has combined the use of different drugs ***	58.1%	38.4%
Uses drugs during leisure time ***	72.0%	52.3%
Uses drugs in social situations ***	69.2%	54.2%
Uses drugs to relieve stress ***	61.0%	44.6%
Drug use interferes with employment ***	42.6%	27.3%
Drug use interferes with marital / family relations ***	51.2%	34.1%
Drug use interferes with social relations ***	47.8%	31.9%
Drug use has resulted in law violations ***	67.2%	44.7%
Drug use interferes with health **	33.3%	24.0%
Prior substance abuse assessments *	47.2%	38.9%
Has participated in substance abuse treatment *	48.9%	41.1%

Note: * p< .05; ** p<.01; *** p < .001

Once again, multiple comparisons of voluntary to involuntary segregated offenders rendered only negligible between-group differences. Of the 29 substance abuse indicators, only one significantly differentiated between these two groups. Specifically, involuntary offenders were significantly more likely to have began drinking at an early age (60.4%) than their voluntary counterparts (48.9%). For all other substance abuse indicators, the percentage distributions for ‘segregated’ offenders in Table 9 are representative of both voluntary and involuntary segregated inmates.

Community Functioning. A complete listing of the 21 community functioning indicators is reported in Appendix E. A series of analyses comparing segregated offenders to their non-segregated counterparts on community functioning indicators yielded significant results for six indicators. Statistically significant results are presented in tabular form below.

Table 10 A Breakdown of Selected Community Functioning Indicators as Assessed by the Offender Intake Assessment Process

Community Functioning	Segregated offenders	Non-segregated offenders
Has unstable accommodation ***	54.0%	37.0%
Residence is poorly maintained *	15.6%	8.7%
Has no bank account ***	62.5%	48.4%
Has no credit *	74.4%	65.4%
Has no collateral *	72.7%	64.6%
Has no hobbies *	36.1%	28.8%

Note: * p< .05; ** p<.01; *** p < .001

Once again, those in segregation were assessed at admission as having more difficulty than their non-segregated counterparts. These data reveal that segregated offenders, as a group, have more problems (at admission) in the areas of accommodation and financial management.

As with the other target domains presented thus far, there was little difference between voluntary and involuntary segregated offenders in community functioning. Multiple comparisons across the 21 community functioning indicators yielded no statistically significant findings. Therefore, the percentage distributions presented for ‘segregated’ offenders in Table 10 are representative of both voluntary and involuntary segregated offenders.

Personal/Emotional Orientation. As mentioned, the OIA process considers 46 personal/emotional orientation indicators in its admission offender evaluation. A complete listing of these is located in Appendix F. Not surprisingly, analyses revealed that segregated offenders have many more needs in this area than their non-segregated counterparts. Table 11 provides percentage distributions for analyses where significant between-group differences were found.

Table 11 A Breakdown of Selected Personal/Emotional Orientation Indicators as Assessed by the Offender Intake Assessment Process

Personal / Emotional Orientation	Segregated offenders	Non-segregated offenders
Feels especially self-important *	25.8%	17.9%
Family ties are problematic *	58.2%	50.0%
Has difficulties solving interpersonal problems **	83.6%	74.9%
Unable to generate choices **	73.2%	62.8%
Unaware of consequences *	59.5%	50.6%
Goal setting is unrealistic **	38.6%	29.0%
Has disregard for others ***	69.5%	57.2%
Socially unaware ***	42.6%	30.1%
Impulsive **	81.4%	72.5%
Incapable of understanding the feelings of others ***	55.5%	37.5%
Narrow and rigid thinking ***	55.5%	38.5%
Poor conflict resolution ***	83.3%	70.8%
Has low frustration tolerance ***	65.0%	50.3%
Hostile ***	42.6%	29.2%
Thrill-seeking **	41.3%	29.7%
Non-reflective ***	65.4%	52.6%
Not conscientious ***	52.7%	38.9%
Manipulative **	60.4%	49.3%

Table 11 reveals that, at admission, the segregated offenders were more likely than non-segregated offenders to have experienced a wide array of cognition problems. These include: difficulties solving interpersonal problems, inability to generated choices, lack of awareness of consequences, unrealistic goal setting, showing disregard for others with an inability to understand others’ feelings, socially unaware, impulsive, and given to narrow and rigid thinking. Moreover, relative to their non-segregated counterparts, segregated offenders are poor at conflict resolution, have low frustration tolerance, and are more hostile, thrill-seeking, non-reflective, and manipulative.

It is noteworthy, however, that segregated offenders were not found to be more likely to have been diagnosed as disordered, either past or currently, to have been prescribed medication, or to have been hospitalized or received outpatient services.

For the 46 pairwise comparisons on voluntary versus involuntary segregated offenders, only one indicator was found to significantly discriminate between groups. About half (47.3%) of the involuntary segregated offenders were assessed as ‘hostile’ at admission, compared to only 35.8% of voluntary segregated offenders. The percentage distribution for ‘segregated’ offenders in Table 11 is otherwise representative of both ‘voluntary’ and ‘involuntary’ segregated offenders.

Attitude. A complete listing of the 24 indicators employed in the OIA is located in Appendix G. The analyses conducted on indicators within the attitude domain clearly indicate that segregated offenders have more needs and problems than their non-segregated counterparts. Indeed, 17 of the 24 indicators significantly differentiated between groups. Discriminating indicators, with percentage distributions for both groups, are presented in Table 12.

Table 12 A Breakdown of Selected Attitude Indicators as Assessed by the Offender Intake Assessment Process

Attitude	Segregated offenders	Non-segregated offenders
Negative towards the law ***	55.6%	40.1%
Negative towards the police ***	51.6%	33.1%
Negative towards the courts ***	47.0%	31.6%
Negative towards corrections ***	42.4%	18.9%
Negative towards community supervision ***	40.6%	23.0%
Negative towards rehabilitation ***	29.8%	19.1%
Employment has no value ***	32.0%	17.7%
Interpersonal relations have no value **	20.1%	11.6%
Basic life skills have no value *	22.0%	15.1%
Personal / emotional stability has no value **	21.7%	13.4%
Elderly have no value **	5.7%	1.5%
Intolerant of disabled persons **	3.5%	0.3%
Disrespectful of personal belongings ***	54.0%	33.1%
Disrespectful of public property ***	44.0%	20.2%
Disrespectful of commercial property ***	49.1%	29.3%
Supportive of instrumental violence *	49.5%	40.4%
Lacks direction **	75.9%	65.9%
Non-conforming **	65.9%	54.9%

Note * p< .05; ** p<.01; *** p < .001

When compared to non-segregated offenders, those in segregation held more negative attitudes towards the law, police, the courts, corrections, community supervision, and rehabilitation. Also as shown in Table 12, they were found to be more likely to view employment, interpersonal relations, personal stability, and elderly people as having no value. Finally, segregated offenders were more likely to be assessed at admission as lacking direction, non-conforming, supportive of instrumental violence, and disrespectful of personal belongings as well as public and private property.

In light of previous results, it was not surprising to find that voluntary and involuntary segregated offenders differed only minimally across attitude indicators. Only one comparison yielded significant results: involuntary segregated offenders were noted to be more negative towards the police (56.5%) than their voluntary segregated counterparts (44.9%).

DISCUSSION

The present investigation has yielded comprehensive information pertaining to the federal segregated offender population. While the findings of this study may be limited only to federally sentenced offenders in segregation, it was learned that this group of offenders could be characterized by the presence of "static" risk factors (such as previous exposure to the criminal justice system) and the presence of a wide array of "dynamic" risk factors (such as poor education, skills deficits, family dysfunction, antisocial attachments and isolation, chemical dependencies, a host of thinking problems and procriminal attitudes).

The abundance of case-specific factors which set segregated offenders apart from non-segregated offenders points to a need for a screening protocol to identify them at the earliest possible moment in their sentence as "at-risk". Such a tool would increase our ability to target those who are likely to experience adjustment difficulties while serving their sentence. In keeping with case management practice, regular reflection on the outputs of ongoing offender risk/need assessments could provide a useful means of monitoring changes among "at-risk" offenders. This would provide the opportunity for proactive interventions related to a unique set of behaviours, attitudes and circumstances that appear to be clearly related to eventual placement in administrative segregation.

REFERENCES

Blanchette, K. (1996). The Relationships between Criminal History, Mental Disorder, and Recidivism Among Federally Sentenced Female Offenders. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Ottawa: Carleton University.

Hann, R., & Harman, W. (1989). Release Risk Prediction: A Test of the Nuffield Scoring System. Ottawa: Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada.

Hann, R., & Harman, W. (1989). Release Risk Prediction: A Test of the Nuffield Scoring System for Native and Female Inmates. Ottawa: Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada.

Luciani, F., Motiuk, L.L., & Nafekh, M. (1996). An Operational Review of the Custody Rating Scale: Reliability, Validity, and Practical Utility. Research Report #R-47. Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.

Motiuk, L., & Porporino, F. (1989). Offender Risk / Needs Assessment: A Study of Conditional Releases (Report No. R-01). Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.

Appendix A

Listing of Education / Employment Indicators as Assessed by the Offender Intake Assessment Process

1. Has less than grade 8
2. Has less than grade 10
3. Has no high school diploma
4. Finds learning difficult
5. Has learning disabilities
6. Has physical problems which interfere with learning
7. Has memory problems
8. Has concentration problems
9. Has problems with reading
10. Has problems writing
11. Has problems with numeracy
12. Has difficulty comprehending instructions
13. Lacks a skill area/trade/profession
14. Dissatisfied with skill area/trade/profession
15. Has physical problems that interfere with work
16. Unemployed at time of arrest
17. Unemployed 90% or more
18. Unemployed 50% or more
19. Has an unstable job history
20. Often shows up late for work
21. Has poor attendance record
22. No employment history
23. Has difficulty meeting workload requirements
24. Lacks initiative
25. Has quit a job without another
26. Has been laid off from work
27. Has been fired from a job
28. Salary has been insufficient
29. Lacks employment benefits
30. Jobs lack security
31. Has difficulty with co-workers
32. Has difficulty with supervisors
33. Prior vocational assessment(s)
34. Has participated in employment programs
35. Completed an occupational development program

Appendix B

Listing of Marital / Family Indicators as Assessed by the Offender Intake Assessment Process

1. Childhood lacked family ties
2. Mother absent during childhood
3. Maternal relations negative as a child
4. Father absent during childhood
5. Paternal relations negative as a child
6. Parents relationship dysfunctional during childhood
7. Spousal abuse during childhood
8. Sibling relations negative during childhood
9. Other relative(s) relations negative during childhood
10. Family members involved in crime
11. Currently single
12. Has been married/common law in the past
13. Dissatisfied with current relationship
14. Money problems affect relationship(s) past/present
15. Sexual problems affect relationship(s) past/present
16. Communication problems affects the relationship(s)
17. Has been a victim of spousal abuse
18. Has been a perpetrator of spousal abuse
19. Has no parenting responsibilities
20. Unable to handle parenting responsibilities
21. Unable to control the child's behaviour appropriately
22. Perceives self as unable to control the child's behaviour
23. Supervises child improperly
24. Does not participate in activities with the child
25. Lacks an understanding of child development
26. Family is unable to get along as a unit
27. Has been arrested for child abuse
28. Has been arrested for incest
29. Prior marital/family assessment(s)
30. Has participated in marital/family therapy
31. Has completed a marital/family intervention program

Appendix C

Listing of Associates / Social Interaction Indicators as Assessed by the Offender Intake Assessment Process

1. Socially Isolated
2. Associates with substance abusers
3. Many criminal acquaintances
4. Mostly criminal friends
5. Has been affiliated with a gang
6. Resides in a criminogenic area
7. Unattached to any community groups
8. Relations are described as predatory
9. Often victimized in social relations
10. Easily influenced by others
11. Has difficulty communicating with others

Appendix D

Listing of Substance Abuse Indicators as Assessed by the Offender Intake Assessment Process

1. Abuses alcohol
2. Began drinking at an early age
3. Drinks on a regular basis
4. Has a history of drinking binges
5. Has combined the use of alcohol and drugs
6. Drinks to excess during leisure time
7. Drinks to excess in social situations
8. Drinks to relieve stress
9. Drinking interferes with employment
10. Drinking interferes with marital / family relations
11. Drinking interferes with social relations
12. Drinking has resulted in law violations
13. Drinking interferes with health
14. Abuses drugs
15. Began using drugs at an early age
16. Used drugs on a regular basis
17. Has gone on drug-taking sprees
18. Has combined the use of different drugs
19. Uses drugs during leisure time
20. Uses drugs in social situations
21. Uses drugs to relieve stress
22. Drug use interferes with employment
23. Drug use interferes with marital / family relations
24. Drug use interferes with social relations
25. Drug use has resulted in law violations
26. Drug use interferes with health
27. Prior substance abuse assessments
28. Has participated in substance abuse treatment
29. Has completed substance abuse treatment

Appendix E

Listing of Community Functioning Indicators as Assessed by the Offender Intake Assessment Process

1. Has unstable accommodation
2. Residence is poorly maintained
3. Has poor self-presentation
4. Has poor hygiene
5. Has physical problems
6. Had dental problems
7. Has dietary problems
8. Difficulty meeting bill payments
9. Has outstanding debts
10. Has no bank account
11. Has no credit
12. Has no collateral
13. Has problems writing
14. Unable to express self verbally
15. Has no hobbies
16. Does not participate in organized activities
17. Unaware of social services
18. Has used social assistance
19. Prior assessment for community functioning
20. Has participated in a community skills program
21. Has completed a community skills program

Appendix F

Listing of Personal / Emotional Orientation Indicators as Assessed by the Offender Intake Assessment Process

1. Feels especially self-important
2. Physical prowess problematic
3. Family ties are problematic
4. Ethnicity is problematic
5. Religion is problematic
6. Gang member
7. Unable to recognize problem areas
8. Has difficulties solving interpersonal problems
9. Unable to generate choices
10. Unaware of consequences
11. Goal setting is unrealistic
12. Has disregard for others
13. Socially unaware
14. Impulsive
15. Incapable of understanding the feelings of others
16. Narrow and rigid thinking
17. Aggressive
18. Assertion problem
19. Copes with stress poorly
20. Poor conflict resolution
21. Manages time poorly
22. Gambling is problematic
23. Has low frustration tolerance
24. Hostile
25. Worries unreasonably
26. Takes risks inappropriately
27. Thrill-seeking
28. Non-reflective
29. Not conscientious
30. Manipulative
31. Has difficulty performing sexually
32. Sexual identity problem
33. Inappropriate sexual preference(s)
34. Sexual attitudes are problematic
35. Low mental functioning
36. Diagnosed as disordered in the past
37. Diagnosed as disordered currently
38. Prior personal / emotional assessments
39. Prescribed medication in the past
40. Prescribed medication currently
41. Past hospitalization
42. Current hospitalization
43. Received outpatient services in the past
44. Received outpatient services prior to admission
45. Past program participation
46. Current program participation

Appendix G

Listing of Attitude Indicators as Assessed by the Offender Intake Assessment Process

1. Negative towards the law
2. Negative towards the police
3. Negative towards the courts
4. Negative towards corrections
5. Negative towards community supervision
6. Negative towards rehabilitation
7. Employment has no value
8. Marital / family relations have no value
9. Interpersonal relations have no value
10. Values substance abuse
11. Basic life skills have no value
12. Personal / emotional stability has no value
13. Elderly have no value
14. Women / men roles are unequal
15. Ethnically intolerant
16. Intolerant of other religions
17. Intolerant of disabled persons
18. Disrespectful of personal belongings
19. Disrespectful of public property
20. Disrespectful of commercial property
21. Supportive of domestic violence
22. Supportive of instrumental violence
23. Lacks direction
24. Non-conforming