csc crest
spacer
 
spacer
 
spacer
 
spacer
spacer
 
spacer
 
spacer
 
spacer
  Resources
spacer
  Featured Sites
 

Receive e-mails about correctional topics
Receive e-mails about correctional topics
government logo  skip top nav
Français 
Contact Us  Help  Search Canada Site
Home Page  What's New  Research Publications  Careers
Correctional Service of Canada

 

Number - Numéro:
006
Date:
2004-11-19

COMMISSIONER'S DIRECTIVE

CLASSIFICATION OF INSTITUTIONS

Issued under the authority of the Acting Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada

PDFPDF


Policy Bulletin 183


Policy Objectives |  Classification of Institutions |  Classification within Institutions  |  Inmate Behaviour |  Security Requirements |  Minimum Security Institutions |  Medium Security Institutions |  Maximum Security Institutions  |  Special Handling Units  |  Annex A - Security Classification of the Service's Institutions  ]

POLICY OBJECTIVES

1. To create environments in which:

  1. the development and/or maintenance of responsible behaviour by inmates is fostered while control and supervision strategies are imposed to the extent necessary;
  2. constructive interaction between staff and inmates and among inmates is fostered to the extent that the environment remains safe for staff, inmates and the public;
  3. programs and activities designed to meet the needs of the inmate population can be delivered; and
  4. community resources are utilized to the maximum extent possible.

CLASSIFICATION OF INSTITUTIONS

2. The Service shall classify its institutions, with the exception of community offices, as minimum security, medium security, maximum security, maximum security (special handling unit) and multiple level security. Community Correctional Centres are classed as minimum security, but due to their role in the community they are not required to conform to all minimum security standards. The institutions and their classifications shall be set out in Annex A of this directive.

3. The Deputy Commissioner of the region shall review annually the security levels of the institutions to ensure that they are consistent with the regional inmate population profile.

CLASSIFICATION WITHIN INSTITUTIONS

4. Institutions may be operated as multi-level institutions as directed by the Commissioner or if they are remote from other regional institutions. Within these institutions, distinctions may be made between programming and privileges extended to the different security levels.

INMATE BEHAVIOUR

5. At all security levels, inmates are expected to abide by the established rules and regulations of the Service and the institution, and to respect the rights of others such that their behaviour does not impact negatively upon the security and liberty of others.

6. Behavioural norms define expected behaviour for inmates at each security level. The degree to which individual behaviour compares to these expectations suggests to staff the need for appropriate intervention strategies designed to motivate the inmate to change his or her behaviour. In some circumstances, these strategies may include transfer to a more appropriate security level.

SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

7. Security measures in place at any institution shall reflect the degree of control required to maintain the good order of the institution and to protect staff, inmates and the public.

MINIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTIONS

Objectives

8. The minimum security institution will:

  1. contain those inmates who pose limited risk to the safety of the community by minimally restricting their freedom of movement, association and privileges; and
  2. facilitate the delivery of a program and activity base designed to motivate inmates to maintain continued responsible behaviour in an open, community-oriented environment.

Behavioural Norms

9. Minimum security inmates should:

  1. demonstrate the desire and ability to interact effectively and responsibly with others, individually and in groups, with little or no supervision; and
  2. demonstrate a high level of motivation towards self-improvement by actively participating in a program plan designed to meet their individual needs, particularly those relating to facilitating their reintegration into the community.

Security

10. The perimeter of a minimum security institution will be defined but not directly controlled. Inmate movement and association will be regulated but with little or no staff supervision. Arms will not be retained in the institution.

MEDIUM SECURITY INSTITUTIONS

11. The medium security institution will:

  1. contain those inmates who pose a risk to the safety of the community in an environment which promotes and tests responsible, socially-acceptable behaviour through moderately restricted freedom of movement, association and privileges; and
  2. facilitate the delivery of a program and activity base designed to motivate inmates to adopt continued responsible behaviour within the limits of a closed environment.

Behavioural Norms

12. Medium security inmates should:

  1. demonstrate the desire and the ability to interact effectively with others, individually and in moderately structured groups, while subject to regular, and often direct, supervision; and
  2. demonstrate an interest in and an active participation in a program plan designed to meet their individual needs, particularly those which would lead to placement in a less structured environment and ultimately, their reintegration into the community.

Security

13. The perimeter of a medium security institution will be well-defined, secure and controlled. Inmate movement and association will be regulated and generally supervised. Although arms will be retained in the institution, they will not normally be deployed within the perimeter.

MAXIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTIONS

Objectives

14. The maximum security institution will:

  1. contain the negative behaviour of those inmates who pose serious risk to staff, inmates and the community by restricting movement, association and privileges; and
  2. facilitate the delivery of a program and activity base designed to motivate inmates to change their behaviour to that which is acceptable in a less-structured environment.

Behavioural Norms

15. Maximum security inmates should:

  1. demonstrate a willingness to interact effectively, individually and in highly structured groups, while subject to constant and direct supervision; and
  2. demonstrate, through participation, their acceptance of a program plan designed to meet their individual needs, particularly those which would lead to a placement in a less structured environment.

Security

16. The perimeter of a maximum security institution will be well-defined, highly secure and controlled. Inmate movement and association will be strictly regulated and directly supervised. Arms will be retained in the institution and may be deployed within the perimeter.

SPECIAL HANDLING UNITS

Objectives

17. The special handling unit will:

  1. contain those inmates who pose a serious and persistent risk to the safety of staff or inmates in a maximum security environment by restricting all movement and association to the level deemed necessary for each inmate; and
  2. provide to the extent feasible, a program and activity base designed to encourage inmates to change their behaviour to that which is acceptable in a maximum security environment.

Behavioural Norms

18. Special handling unit inmates should:

  1. behave in a non-violent and non-threatening manner while subject to constant control; and
  2. demonstrate, through their behaviour, a capacity and willingness to follow a program plan designed to lead to a placement in a maximum security environment.

Security

19. The perimeter of a special handling unit will be well-defined, highly secure and strictly controlled. Inmate movement and association will be strictly regulated and rigidly controlled. Arms may be deployed within the perimeter.

Acting Commissioner,

Original signed by :
Don Head


ANNEX A
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THE SERVICE'S INSTITUTIONS

The names and security classifications of the Service's institutions are listed below by region.

ATLANTIC REGION
Name Security Classification
Institutions
Atlantic
Dorchester
Nova Institution for Women
Shepody Healing Centre
Springhill
Westmorland
Community Correctional Centres
Carlton Annex Community Correctional Centre
Carlton Community Correctional Centre
Newfoundland and Labrador Community Correctional Centre
Parrtown Community Correctional Centre

Maximum
Medium
Multi-level
Multi-level
Medium
Minimum

Minimum
Minimum
Minimum

Minimum

 

QUEBEC REGION
Name Security Classification
Institutions
Archambault
Federal Training Centre
Regional Mental Health Centre
Regional Reception Centre 1
Cowansville
Donnaconna
Drummond
Joliette Institution
LaMacaza
Leclerc
Montée Saint-François
Port-Cartier
Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines
Community Correctional Centres
Hochelaga Community Correctional Centre
Laferrière Community Correctional Centre
Marcel Caron Community Correctional Centre
Martineau Community Correctional Centre
Ogilvy Community Correctional Centre
Sherbrooke Community Correctional Centre

Medium
Minimum
Multi-level
Maximum
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Multi-level
Medium
Medium
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum

Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum

1 Includes Special Handling Unit

 

ONTARIO REGION
Name Security Classification
Institutions
Bath
Beaver Creek
Collins Bay
Fenbrook Institution
Frontenac
Grand Valley Institution for Women
Isabel McNeill House
Joyceville
Kingston Penitentiary
Millhaven
Pittsburgh
Regional Treatment Centre
Warkworth
Community Correctional Centres
Hamilton Community Correctional Centre
Keele Community Correctional Centre
Portsmouth Community Correctional Centre

Medium
Minimum
Medium
Medium
Minimum
Multi-level
Minimum
Medium
Maximum
Maximum
Minimum
Multi-level
Medium

Minimum
Minimum
Minimum

 

PRAIRIES REGION
Name Security Classification
Institutions
Bowden
    Bowden Annex
Drumheller
    Drumheller Annex
Edmonton
Edmonton Institution for Women
Grande Cache
Grierson Centre
Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge
Pê Sâkâstêw Centre
Regional Psychiatric Centre
Riverbend
Rockwood
Saskatchewan Penitentiary
Stony Mountain
Willow Cree Healing Lodge
Community Correctional Centres
Oskana Community Correctional Centre
Osborne Community Correctional Centre

Medium
  Minimum
Medium
  Minimum
Maximum
Multi-level
Minimum
Minimum
Multi-level
Minimum
Multi-level
Minimum
Minimum
Multi-level
Medium
Minimum

Minimum
Minimum

 

PACIFIC REGION
Name Security Classification
Institutions
Ferndale
Fraser Valley Institution
Kent
Kwìkwèxwelhp Healing Village
Matsqui
Mission
Mountain
Pacific Institution
Regional Treatment Centre
William Head
Community Correctional Centres
Chilliwack Community Correctional Centre

Minimum
Multi-level
Maximum
Minimum
Medium
Medium
Medium
Multi-level
Multi-level
Minimum

Minimum

 


Table of Contents

top