COMMISSIONER'S DIRECTIVE

Review of Offender Security Classification

Policy Bulletin 202

Annex A - Content Guidelines for Security Reclassification Assessment for Decision

OBJECTIVES

1. To protect public safety by ensuring offenders continue to be placed to an institution at the appropriate level of security throughout their sentence.

2. To assign to each offender a minimum, medium or maximum security classification based on the application of the Security Reclassification Scale or Security Reclassification Scale for Women and assessment of other relevant factors, to ensure ongoing review and reclassification as required.

AUTHORITIES

3. Corrections and Correctional Release Act (CCRA):
s. 30 - Security Classification

Corrections and Correctional Release Regulations (CCRR):
s. 17-18, Part 1 - Security Classification

CROSS-REFERENCES

4. CD 006 - Classification of Institutions
CD 710 - Institutional Supervision Framework
CD 710-2 - Transfer of Offenders

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

5. Institutional Heads are responsible for authorizing an offender's security classification. This authority may be delegated to the Deputy Warden except in those cases where the security classification is related to a transfer decision and/or involves an offender serving a life sentence for first or second degree murder who is currently classified as maximum security.

6. For women offenders, the decision authority remains with the Warden/Kikawinaw.

7. The Institutional Head/Deputy Warden must provide a specific rating in relation to "institutional adjustment", "escape risk" and "public safety" in every Offender Security Level (OSL) final decision.

8. The Institutional Head is responsible to ensure compliance in relation to accuracy and timely completion of the security reclassification scale (SRS) or Security Reclassification Scale for Women (SRSW) and corresponding OSL.

9. In all cases where a security classification is assigned or revised, the Institutional Head or delegated Deputy Warden is responsible for ensuring the offender is provided with reasons as well as the information considered in making the decision, in writing within five (5) working days of the assignment. The offender will be advised, at the same time, of his/her right to seek redress using the institutional grievance process (CD 081).

10. The caseworker's immediate supervisor is responsible for reviewing, quality controlling and providing a documented recommendation for all security reclassification decisions in a timely manner.

11. The institutional Parole Officer/Primary Worker is responsible for completing the annual security classification reviews and documenting the results in an Assessment for Decision.

12. In addition to annual reviews or reviews completed every two years, the institutional Parole Officer/Primary Worker is responsible for reviewing an offender's security classification when there is reason to believe that a change in their security classification may be required, regardless of the offender's current security classification, because of a significant event that occurs before the next review and affects the offender's risk.

13. All staff are responsible for observing and monitoring the activities and behaviours of offenders and documenting this information on an Officer's Statement/Observation Report (CSC/SCC 0875) and/or in a Casework Record to ensure all information is considered in the determination of an offender's security level.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION REVIEW TIMEFRAMES

14. Except in the cases of those offenders with a minimum security classification and offenders serving a minimum life sentence for first or second degree murder, who were admitted by warrant of committal on or after February 23, 2001, a systematic review of security classification, including application of the SRS or SRSW, will be completed at least once per year.

15. For male offenders serving a minimum life sentence for first or second degree murder who are classified as maximum or medium security, the SRS reviews will occur every two years from the date of the first such review.

16. For women offenders assessed as maximum security, a review of the security classification will be completed every six months.

17. For offenders classified as minimum security, a review of security classification is completed when there is a reason to believe that a change may be required.

18. The security classification of each offender will be reviewed to confirm or make a change to the inmate's security classification prior to making a recommendation for any decisions (e.g. transfer, temporary absence, work release or parole) by the staff member responsible for the case preparation for that decision.

19. Receipt of any new information significantly affecting the offender's Correctional Plan and potentially resulting in a change in risk will result in an immediate review of security classification.

20. If as a result of any review, it is decided to change the offender's security classification, an SRS or SRSW will be completed.

SECURITY RECLASSIFICATION SCALE (SRS) AND SECURITY RECLASSIFICATION SCALE FOR WOMEN (SRSW)

21. The Security Reclassification Scale (SRS) and Security Reclassification Scale for Women (SRSW) are research-based tools developed to determine the most appropriate level of security at key points throughout an offender's sentence. (This does not include intake or re-admission, in which case the Custody Rating Scale is to be used. At all other times the SRS/SRSW will be used.)

22. Security reclassifications will be based on the results of the Security Reclassification Scale or Security Reclassification Scale for Women, clinical judgement of experienced and specialized staff and where required, psychological assessments. The Parole Officer/Primary Worker will indicate in the Assessment for Decision that the SRS or SRSW result is being used.

23. The final assessment must address both the actuarial score and clinical factors. In the overall assessment of risk, clinical judgment will normally be anchored by the results of the Scale used. Where variations occur (i.e. the actuarial measure is inconsistent with the clinical appraisal), it is important that the assessment specify why this is the case. The final assessment will conform to section 18 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, by setting out the analysis under the three headings of institutional adjustment, escape risk and risk to public safety.

24. In determining the security classification of Aboriginal offenders, staff will be sensitive to the spirit and intent of the Gladue decision and will take into consideration the following factors:

1. history of dislocation such as residential school experience or family history of residential school experience;
2. unemployment due to a lack of opportunity or options;
3. lack or irrelevance of education;
4. history of substance abuse;
5. history of systemic and direct discrimination;
6. history of previous experience involving restorative/community based sanctions;
7. history of participation in Aboriginal traditional teachings, ceremonies and activities;
8. history of living on or off reserves.

APPLICATION OF THE SRS / SRSW

25. Any security reclassification will be determined primarily by using the SRS or SRSW which take into consideration the following factors as required by section 17 of the CCRR:

1. the seriousness of the offence committed by the offender;
2. any outstanding charges against the offender
3. the offender's performance and behaviour while under sentence;
4. the offender's social, criminal and, where available, young offender history;
5. any physical or mental illness or disorder suffered by the offender;
6. the offender's potential for violent behaviour and,
7. the offender's continued involvement in criminal activities.

26. The SRS and SRSW were validated for review periods of 9 to 12 months and should be used with caution for review periods of shorter duration. It is important to recognize that the length of the period under review (time at risk) can significantly affect the risk rating. If the time period under review is too short, the actuarial tools (SRS/SRSW) will most often underestimate the security risk rating.

27. The Scales will be completed by assigning scores to 15 factors in the SRS and 9 factors in the SRSW that assess the offender's security risk and in-custody performance. The scales provide numerical "cut-off levels" which determine a minimum, medium or maximum rating. Override provisions are incorporated in the scales as a means to address factors that may compel the transfer of an offender to a security level that does not conform to the one obtained through the assessment of factors.

INCREASING SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF WOMEN OFFENDERS TO MAXIMUM SECURITY

28. Normally, women offenders are not involuntarily transferred to institutions of a higher security level because they usually remain within the same institution.

29. In cases where women offenders are being moved to a maximum security unit within the same institution, the Primary Worker must:

1. complete a Notice of Recommendation of Reclassification to Maximum Security (CSC/SCC 1319) form with details of the incident(s) which prompted the recommendation for the move including where it occurred, when it occurred, against whom it occurred, the extent of injury or damage which resulted, the evidence or proof of its occurrence, and any further relevant information which may elaborate on the incident(s) Where sensitive information exists which cannot fully be shared, provide the offender with a gist (refer to CD 701 - Information Sharing);
2. advise the offender, in writing, of her right to legal counsel without delay. Without delay means immediately unless there are compelling circumstances preventing immediate action and in those circumstances the delay cannot be more than 24 hours;
3. meet with the offender to explain the reasons for the proposed move and give her an opportunity to respond to the move, in person or, if the offender prefers, in writing. Where the offender responds in person, document her response in the Offender Management System (OMS) in a "Casework Record - Rebuttal";
4. provide the offender two working days to prepare a rebuttal to the proposed move to maximum security. Institutional Heads can grant an extension of up to ten working days for the offender to submit the rebuttal. The Institutional Head will decide about the extension within one working day of receiving the request;
5. forward the offender's response to the appropriate decision-maker (refer to Annex "A" of CD 710-2), along with a copy of the CPPR (if a new one is required) and Assessment for Decision. The Notice of Recommendation of Reclassification to Maximum Security will be imported into the Assessment for Decision. If the reasons for the move are detailed enough in the Notice, there is no need to repeat the same information in the body of the report. A reference to the Notice would be sufficient. Complete an Assessment for Decision within two working days following the move of the offender; and;
6. give the offender written notice of the final decision and the reasons for the decision, via the CSC Board Review/Decision Sheet, and provide her with copies of the CPPR and Assessment for Decision, at least two working days before the move, unless the offender consents to a shorter period or waives the two-day period on the Notice of Recommendation of Reclassification to Maximum Security. The preceding documents will be provided to the offender within five working days of the decision being made if the final decision is not to move the offender to the maximum security unit.

COMPLETING AND LOCKING THE SCALE

Commissioner,

Original signed by
Keith Coulter

ANNEX A

CONTENT GUIDELINES FOR SECURITY RECLASSIFICATION ASSESSMENT FOR DECISION (THIS IS NOT A TEMPLATE.)

The final assessment must address both the actuarial score and clinical factors. In the overall assessment of risk, clinical judgment will normally be anchored by the results of the Scale used. Where variations occur (i.e. the actuarial measure is inconsistent with the clinical appraisal), it is important that the assessment specify why this is the case. The final assessment will conform with section 18 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations , by setting out the analysis under the three headings of institutional adjustment, escape risk and risk to public safety.

INSTITUTIONAL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS – Consider the seriousness and recency of each factor, as well as any progress made to mitigate any concerns.

Violent Incidents

1. degree of violence, harm caused
2. use of weapon
3. inmate's role in the incident(s)

Disciplinary Convictions

1. nature and circumstances
2. pattern

Continuation of Criminal Activities

1. preventive security information
2. security reports
3. police information which indicates/suggests that the inmate continues to be involved in criminal activities (e.g., drugs, other contraband, sexual assault, conspiracy, etc.)

Administrative Interventions

1. pattern of disruptive behaviour
2. history of transfers to higher security
3. placement in segregation because of disruptive behaviour
4. history of transfers or admissions to administrative segregation for protection reasons

Behaviour and Program Participation

1. disruptive effect on the good order of the institution
2. level of cooperation in addressing the dynamic factors identified in the Correctional Plan
3. level of participation in institutional work or personal development programs
4. mental health concerns causing adjustment problems (e.g. non-compliance with medication, etc.)
5. physical health concerns causing adjustment problems (e.g. contagious disease, etc.)
6. socio-cultural factors indicating a requirement for special intervention on an ongoing basis (e.g., female offender, Aboriginal offender or other visible minority)
7. special needs (e.g., protection, mental or physical health concerns, suicidal tendencies, etc.)

Institutional Adjustment Rating

Based on the individual adjustment factors and any other relevant considerations, assign a rating of either low, moderate or high:

Low – The inmate has demonstrated:

1. a pattern of satisfactory institutional adjustment; no special management intervention is required;
2. the ability and motivation to interact effectively and responsibly with others, individually and in groups, with little or no supervision;
3. motivation towards self-improvement by actively participating in a Correctional Plan designed to meet his or her dynamic factors, particularly those relating to facilitating his or her reintegration into the community.

Moderate – The inmate has demonstrated:

1. some difficulties causing moderate institutional adjustment problems and requiring some management intervention;
2. the potential to interact effectively with others, individually and in moderately structured groups, but needs regular and often direct supervision;
3. an interest and active participation in a Correctional Plan designed to meet his/her dynamic factors, particularly those which would lead to a transfer to a less structured environment and ultimately, to his or her reintegration into the community.

High – The inmate has demonstrated:

1. frequent or major difficulties causing serious institutional adjustment problems and requiring significant/constant management intervention;
2. a requirement for a highly structured environment in which individual or group interaction is subject to constant and direct supervision;
3. an uncooperative attitude toward institutional programs and staff and presents a potentially serious management problem within an institution.

ESCAPE RISK FACTORS – Consider the seriousness and recency of each factor, as well as any progress made to mitigate any concerns.

Escape/Attempted Escape

1. from a closed perimeter institution
2. from an open perimeter institution
3. from an escorted temporary absence, work release or fence clearance
4. use of actual or threatened violence in any escapes or attempted escapes
5. previous breaches of trust including failure to return from a UTA

Sentence Status

1. outstanding charges having the potential to increase the probability of escape
2. deportable
3. Crown appeal
4. time to be served before eligibility for UTAs

Other Concerns – unusual circumstances having the potential to increase an inmate's escape risk (e.g., custody battle, problems with significant other, gambling/drug debts, etc.)

Escape Risk Rating

Based on the preceding escape risk factors and any other relevant considerations, assign a rating of either, low, moderate or high:

Low – The inmate:

1. has no recent serious escape and there are no current indicators of escape potential;
2. has no significant history of breaches of trust.

Moderate – The inmate:

1. has a recent history of escape and/or attempted escapes OR there are current indicator(s) of escape potential;
2. is unlikely to make active efforts to escape but may do so if the opportunity presents itself;
3. presents a definite potential to escape from an institution that has no enclosure.

High – The inmate:

1. has demonstrated a pattern of escapes and/or attempted escapes OR there are current indicator(s) of significant potential to escape.

PUBLIC SAFETY FACTORS – Consider the seriousness and recency of each factor, as well as any progress made to mitigate concerns in that area.

Violent Incident(s)

1. history of violent behaviour;
2. degree of violence, harm caused;
3. use of weapon;
4. inmate's role in the incident(s).

Program Participation

1. level and benefit of program involvement (To what extent has the inmate's progress in the Correctional Plan reduced the likelihood of the commission of a violent offence?)

Mental Illness or Disorder

Information (e.g., psychological/psychiatric assessment) which suggests that:

1. mental illness or disorder has not been adequately addressed;
2. may fail to comply with medication prescribed to control the mental illness or disorder.

Other Public Safety Concerns

1. third party or other information suggesting that the inmate will likely commit a serious offence upon release
2. detention/potential detention
3. level of need in any of the dynamic factor areas (e.g., employment, marital/family, associates/social interaction, substance abuse, community functioning, attitude or personal/emotional stability)
4. notoriety likely to invoke a negative reaction from the public, victim(s) or police and/or to receive significant media coverage (sensational crime, major sexual or drug offence, affiliation with organized crime, etc.)

Public Safety Rating

Based on the public safety factors and any other relevant considerations, assign a rating of either low, moderate or high:

Low – The inmate's:

1. criminal history does not involve violence;
2. criminal history involves violence/sexually-related offence(s), but the inmate has demonstrated significant progress in addressing the dynamic factors which contributed to the criminal behaviour and there are no signs of the high risk situations/offence precursors identified as part of the offence cycle (where it is known);
3. criminal history involves violence but the circumstances of the offence are such that the likelihood of reoffending violently is assessed as improbable.

Moderate – The inmate's:

1. criminal history involves violence, but the inmate has demonstrated some progress in addressing those dynamic factors which contributed to the violent behaviour;
2. criminal history involves violence, but the inmate has demonstrated a willingness to address the dynamic factors which contributed to the violent behaviour;
3. there are current indicator(s) of moderate risk/concern.

High – The inmate's:

1. criminal history involves violence and the inmate has not demonstrated any progress in addressing those dynamic factors which contributed to the violent behaviour or a willingness to attempt to address such factors;
2. criminal history involves violence and the inmate has not demonstrated a willingness to address the dynamic factors which contributed to the violent behaviour;
3. there are current indicators of high risk/concern.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

An inmate will be classified as

maximum security where the inmate is assessed by the Service as:

1. presenting a high probability of escape and a high risk to the safety of the public in the event of escape; or,
2. requiring a high degree of supervision and control within the penitentiary;

medium security where the inmate is assessed by the Service as:

1. presenting a low to moderate probability of escape and a moderate risk to the safety of the public in the event of escape; or,
2. requiring a moderate degree of supervision and control within the penitentiary;

minimum security where the inmate is assessed by the Service as:

1. presenting a low probability of escape and a low risk to the safety of the public in the event of escape; and,
2. requiring a low degree of supervision and control within the penitentiary.

Table of Contents