Figure from:Do Independent External Decision Makers Ensure that "An Inmate's Confinement in a Structured Intervention Unit Is to End as Soon as Possible"? [Corrections and Conditional Release Act, Section 33] 1

See full PDF downloadDownload figure

Data: all SIU stays that started before 1 Oct 2020. 55 of the 1,979 stays had not yet ended — for those stays an end date of 30 Nov 2020 was used since we had cases sent to IEDMs on or before that date. Total number of days in SIU * Flag for whether or not the stay was sent to be reviewed by an IEDM Crosstabulation — Table 12 Data: all SIU stays that started before 1 Oct 2020. 55 of the 1,979 stays had not yet ended — for those stays an end date of 30 Nov 2020 was used since we had cases sent to IEDMs on or before that date. Total number of days in SIU * Flag for whether or not the stay was sent to be reviewed by an IEDM Crosstabulation

Related Figures (11)

Table 1: Population characteristics of SIU stays that received one or more IEDM review related to length of stay (s.37.8) For each stay that was reviewed, we had the date — or dates in the event of multiple reviews — when the IEDM was notified that a review under section 37.8 of the CCRA was to be carried out. For each of the 265 stays, the first time the IEDM was notified that a review under section 37.8 was to be carried out should be roughly 60 days into the stay. Generally, we do see most cases being referred to IEDMs around that time — 74.3% of stays were referred between 55-62 days into the stay. Day “67” seems to have some special significance with 40 referrals made that day (Table 2). This is, perhaps, the normal “outside” limit based on

Number of days into SIU stay until case is referred to an IEDM to review re:length of stay Table 2: Number of days till the first IEDM review (s.37.8)

Is there a mental health need flag at start of SIU stay? * Number of reviews for each stay Crosstabulation Racialized Status: Also of concern was that there was a significant relationship between the number of reviews and the ethnicity of the person — Black people were significantly more likely to have additional reviews. Roughly 45% of Black people had two or more reviews compared to 32% of white people, 22% of Indigenous people and 29% of everyone else (Table 5). This suggests that Black people may be staying longer in SIUs than others and that the IEDMs oversight through this review process is not correcting this disparity. Mental Health Flag: It was surprising to see that there was no significant relationship between the number of reviews a stay had and whether or not there was a mental health need flag associated with the SIU stay. Said another way, among cases that had already been in the SIU for at least roughly 60 days (thus triggering an IEDM review), those with mental health needs were not removed more quickly through this process than those without any mental health needs — 10%-11% of each group had three or more reviews. It appears that the mental health of an individual — or this mental health flag used by CSC — does not play a significant role in determining whether the SIU is an appropriate place for an individual to remain.

Ethnicity * Number of reviews for each stay Crosstabulation For the 265 SIUs stays reviewed, we have the total length of time in SIUs. If the stay had not yet ended (44 of the 265 stays had not yet ended), an end date of 13 December 2020 was used’. All cases obviously have been in for close to 60 or more days — but one sees that 28.6% of Black prisoners have been in for 181 days (roughly 6 months) or more compared to 14.6% of whites and 7.5% of Indigenous people (Table 6).

Ethnicity * Total days in SIU -- up until 13Dec2020 if still in Crosstabulation

Ethnicity * Total days in SIU (up to 13Dec2020 if still in) Crosstabulation 2020 if the stay had not yet ended). 27% of Black prisoners have stays that are over 60 days, compared to 19%-21% of all other groups (Table 7).

Chi-square=41.63, df=15, p<.001 Ethnicity * Total days in SIU (up to 13Dec2020 if still in) Crosstabulation N’s from those reported in our previous reports. We should point out that in our experience, minor errors (e.g., dates that make no sense, duplicate entries) like the ones we found are very common in administrative data and should not be seen as reflecting badly on CSC. Perhaps most importantly though, none of the minor errors we found made any difference whatsoever to any of the conclusions that can be drawn from the data.

Two other outcomes would seem to suggest that there was, no longer, a dispute between the prisoner anc the CSC: decision was moot (N=8) and the prisoner had been transferred out before the decision had been made (N=115). One could argue then, that of the 380 reviews with outcomes, IEDM decisions were rendered in 68% — 33 decisions to remove and 224 decisions to remain. Another way of looking at these data would be to recognize that there were, essentially, two outcomes from these decisions: 1) the prisoner (unambiguously) is to remain in the SIU (224 decisions) or 2) the prisoner should be, or already had been, removed (33 + 115 = 148) or the decision is moot (8). We had these outcomes linked to anonymized individual IEDMs. Table 10 shows that there is significant variation across IEDMs in those two outcomes. Looking across the 12 IEDMS, one sees a low of 37.5% of decisions that the person should remain in (IEDM #8) up to over 75% of decisions that the person should remain in (IEDM #6 and #11).

IEDM decision * number of days in SIU from the date the file was REFERRED to the IEDM to leaving the SIU We expect that most people would probably think that if the decision is to release the person, the release may happen sooner than if the decision is to remain in. That is not the case (Table 14). 30% (N=8) of those who the IEDM decided should be removed were released within 30 days whereas for those where the IEDM decided the stay should continue, 26% (N=13) were released within 30 days. More perplexingly, 26.9% (N=7) of those who the IEDM decided should be removed were released more than 61 days after referring the case to the IEDM. That stands in contrast to the group who the IEDM decided should remain in — only A% (N=2) remained in past 61 days (Table 14). It should be pointed out that if a decision is made to remove a prisoner from the SIU, the timing of the transfer depends on where CSC intends to transfer the prisoner. Guidelines 711-1 is very clear: “Where the decision-maker approved an inmate’s transfer out of an SIU to a mainstream population at the same site, the transfer will be effected immediately” (paragraph 66). However, if, at the time that CSC decides to remove the prisoner from the SIU, CSC decides that the prisoner should go to a different institution, the timeline is essentially unspecified and unreviewable: “Where an SIU inmate is approved for a transfer to another institution, but the inmate cannot be immediately physically transferred, they will remain in the SIU until the transfer can be effected” (Paragraph 69). Of course, after being approved to be transferred to another institution, CSC could, in the end, decide that the person should be transferred to the mainstream population of the same institution in which the SIU is located. In this case, the prisoner would stay in the

Лучший частный хостинг