PACC Committee Report

 Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has the honour to present its

The Standing Committee on Public Accounts has considered Chapter 35 of the December 1997 Report of the Auditor General of Canada (Follow-up of Recommendations in Previous Reports - Correctional Services - Custody of Inmates) and the Committee has agreed to report the following:

In his 1994 Report, the Auditor General presented the results of his audit of Correctional Services Canada’s (CSC or the Service) activities with relation to the custody of inmates. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts held hearings on the audit results and presented its 13^th Report containing observations and recommendations to the House of Commons on 15 June 1995. Correctional Service Canada’s response to both the Auditor General’s Report and the Committee’s Report was generally positive.

Subsequently, the Auditor General conducted a follow-up review of the progress made by CSC in implementing both his and the Committee’s recommendations. The results of this follow up were presented in Chapter 35 of his December 1997 Report.

The way in which CSC manages custody of inmates in Canada’s penitentiaries has a profound impact on Canadian society and involves the safety of individuals, communities, those who work in the prison system, and those who are incarcerated within it. As a consequence of this and of Committee’s past interest, the Committee decided to examine the results of the Auditor General’s follow-up review. Accordingly on 2 April 1998 it met with Mr. L. Denis Desautels, the Auditor General of Canada, Dr. Maria Barrados, Assistant Auditor General, and Mr. Robert Chen, Director of Audit Operations, from the Office of the Auditor General. Mr. Ole Ingstrup, Commissioner, and Ms. Lynn Balice, Director, Ministerial Liaison, represented Correctional Service Canada.

The Committee learned that Correctional Service Canada has carried out a number of initiatives in response to the Committee’s recommendations and those of the Auditor General. In terms of accommodation planning, the Service’s response was appropriate. In accordance with recommendations, it has begun to use cost-benefit analysis when it evaluates future accommodation projects. It now incorporates double-bunking and shared-accommodation strategies in its accommodation planning. It has also appointed a full-time senior executive responsible for all functions that are related to accommodation. The Committee welcomes the progress made in these areas.

Progress with regard to security classification, however, has not been all that was hoped for. Security classification is a vital part of what the Service does and takes place in two steps. When an offender is taken in to the system, he or she is assessed using the Service’s Custody Rating Scale (CRS) to determine level of risk they pose to security. Subsequent to this initial assessment, the inmate is reclassified on an annual basis using the Service’s Security Classification Review.

The information generated by these assessments is used to assign the inmate to either a maximum-, medium-, or minimum-security facility. If the assessment is not exact, the inmate may be assigned to an institution with a higher degree of security than is necessary. This results in higher incarceration costs. If the reverse happens and a high-risk offender is assigned to a lower-security institution, then public safety is put at risk. Occasionally, an inmate may be deliberately accommodated in a facility that does not match his or her assessment. This is known as an ‘override’ and may happen for a legitimate reason such as a desire to house the inmate close to his or her family. At other times, however, overrides can occur without a legitimate reason. When overrides exceed 15 to 20 percent, it is commonly agreed that management must decided whether the method of security assessment needs to be changed or if staff need additional training.

Although CSC has made improvements, the Auditor General reported that a 1996 study by the Service found a 26 percent override rate. Only about half of the overrides were for legitimate reasons. Despite the Committee’s recommendation that the Service monitor overrides regularly, CSC was unable to report the number of and reasons for overrides until December 1997. Mr. Ingstrup told the Committee that in its first monitoring report covering the period ending 22 February 1998, the Service found that 53% of the time, its officers were overriding the Scale to place inmates in medium –security institutions when they had been classified as maximum-security.

The Commissioner argued, however, that the high rate of overrides occurred because the Custody Rating Scale did not reflect reality. Correctional staff were thus obliged to override some of the ratings produced by the Scale in order to ensure that inmates were assigned to the correct facilities. No increase in the rate of escape, he asserted, proved that decisions to override the Scale were appropriate. In addition, the Commissioner asserted that overriding the Scale had not resulted in problems in the correctional institutions. Based on these conclusions CSC is adjusting the Scale to bring it into line with reality and expects to complete this work sometime in 1998.

In addition, the Service estimates that it will only be able to implement new, more objective, reclassification methodology --- currently being tested --- by the end of 1998. As a consequence of the changes being made to the CRS and the reclassification instrument, CSC estimates that it should be able to reduce overrides to a rate of 15 percent sometime in 1998. (1700)

Mr. Ingstrup told the Committee that delays in implementing these changes were unacceptable but declined to offer any explanation. (1725) In light of the role played by classification in promoting public safety and keeping costs within reason, the Committee finds these delays regrettable. It therefore recommends:

Furthermore, the Committee recommends:

In its 13^th Report, the Committee expressed its concerns about double bunking. The Committee was therefore pleased to hear the Commissioner state clearly that double occupancy (which includes double bunking) is ‘inappropriate as a permanent accommodation measure within the context of good corrections.’ Contrary to what might be assumed, costs associated with this form of accommodation are higher --- not lower. For example, Mr. Ingstrup agreed that double bunking generally requires increased staffing. (1635) This may also result in the reallocation of funds needed to support programs that facilitate the movement of inmates to lower – security --- and thus lower-cost --- institutions. If transfers are delayed because program requirements have not been met, costs are kept higher than need be. It therefore makes sense in terms of both rehabilitation and cost to eventually eliminate this practice.

Mr. Ingstrup told the Committee that CSC hopes that by implementing some of the Auditor General’s other recommendations the incarcerated population will be lower thus reducing double occupancy or double bunking from the current level of 25 percent. During testimony he indicated that the Service hopes to attain a reasonable level of double occupancy and ‘potentially get rid of double bunking altogether.’ (1610)

The Committee notes that CSC is currently reviewing its accommodation policy and recommends:

At the end of his testimony, the Auditor General indicated that he was quite pleased with the actions taken by Correctional Service Canada. The Committee acknowledges that progress has been made in addressing the concerns and recommendations that it made in 1995. There are, however, several areas in which progress has not been as complete or timely as the Committee would have liked. The Committee expects that Correctional Service Canada will meet the commitments that it has made and will finish the task of improving security classification and accommodation policies. This will result in a penitentiary system that is safer, more efficient, and better able to achieve the correctional goals that have been set for it.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee requests that the Government table a comprehensive response to this Report.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meetings Nos. 26 and 31) is tabled.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN WILLIAMS