Structured Intervention Units Implementation Advisory Panel Update #3-2023
Structured Intervention Units and Indigenous Prisoners

March 10, 2023

Introduction

In November 2019, amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) established by Bill C-83 came into force, implementing new Structured Intervention Units (SIUs) and abolishing the use of administrative and disciplinary segregation in all federal correctional institutions.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness established the Structured Intervention Units Implementation Advisory Committee in 2019 as part of the Government's efforts to provide accountability and transparency of the operationalization of SIUs. The Advisory Panel mandate is to provide non-binding recommendations to the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), and advice and reports to the Minister on its views as to whether the SIUs are being implemented as intended by the legislation.

The over-representation of Indigenous people in federal corrections has been a concern for many years. In this update, we examine several issues related to Indigenous prisoners' experiences with Correctional Service Canada's (CSC) Structured Intervention Units (SIUs) established in 2019 as a replacement for segregation. Many of the issues discussed are related to more general challenges associated with the operation of SIUs above and beyond their special impact on Indigenous prisoners. But as we point out, there are clearly some issues that relate specifically to Indigenous men and women in CSC facilities.

Describing the Population

A starting point for understanding the experience of Indigenous people in SIUs might be to compare their numbers in Canadian society more generally to their placement in CSC penitentiaries and the SIUs.

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) makes it quite clear that SIUs should be used sparingly. A prisoner can be transferred to an SIU “only if the staff member is satisfied that there is no reasonable alternative [to the SIU] (S. 34(1)). Furthermore, the stay in the SIU “is to end as soon as possible” (S. 33).

As noted in our First Annual Report, it is estimated that about 4.2% of Canadian adults are Indigenous people. On 1 January 2023, there were 180 people in SIU cells, 79 (43.9%) of whom were Indigenous. Overall, on that same day, “only” 32.4% of all federal prisoners were Indigenous. In other words, a higher proportion of Indigenous people were in SIUs than were in ordinary cells. (See Table A. Additional data are available in Appendix Tables 1 and 8.^{Footnote 1})

The over-representation of Indigenous people in SIUs can also be examined by looking at admissions into SIU cells over time. Looking across the three years for which we have complete data on SIU admissions, we see very similar findings: Indigenous people make up a high proportion (40% or more) of those transferred to SIUs in each year (2020, 2021, 2022). There's no indication of any improvement on this measure (see Appendix Table 2).

Indigenous prisoners in both the mainstream population and in SIUs tend to be younger than non-Indigenous prisoners. For example, on the most recent census count day for which we have data (1 January 2023), 26.2% of Indigenous prisoners in the general population were 29 or younger while 17.6% of non-Indigenous prisoners in the general population were that young. Furthermore, the SIU prisoners tend to be younger than that the general population, and, again, within the SIU population, Indigenous prisoners were younger than non-Indigenous prisoners. While 38% of Indigenous prisoners in SIU cells were 29 or younger, 31.7% of non-Indigenous prisoners in SIU cells were that young. (See Appendix Table 3).

Not surprisingly, SIU prisoners are disproportionately classified as being maximum security compared to those who, on 1 January 2023, were not in an SIU. Of those in an SIU on 1 January 2023, 80.3% were classified as being maximum security (compared to 13.7% for all CSC prisoners; see Appendix Table 4)

Given that SIUs are supposed to be used only when there is 'no reasonable alternative' (CCRA 34(1)), this is hardly a surprising finding. One might expect that if a person were classified below maximum security, they might be reclassified as maximum (and moved to a maximum security unit) before contemplating a transfer to an SIU cell.

In the general population, Indigenous prisoners are slightly more likely to be maximum or medium security and less likely to be minimum than non-Indigenous prisoners. However, when you look at the security classification of those in SIUs on 1 January 2023, one finds that Indigenous prisoners are more likely to have a lower security classification: 27% of the Indigenous prisoners in SIU are classified as medium security compared to 'only' 14.1% of the non-Indigenous prisoners. (See details, Appendix Table 5). Looking at admissions into SIUs from 2020 through 2022, it appears that the lower security classification for Indigenous prisoners in SIUs was due to Prairie region transfers (see details, Appendix Table 6). The portion of prisoners going into the SIU who were classified as “Medium Security” was considerably higher in the Prairie Region than it was elsewhere in Canada, as is the portion of Indigenous prisoners.

Just as there are relatively few women in CSC custodial facilities generally, one finds that there are relatively few women in SIUs. On January 1, 2023, 5% of all CSC prisoners were women. There was, that day, only one woman anywhere in Canada in an SIU – an Indigenous woman. This was not an anomalous day. There was a fairly dramatic drop in SIU stays by women during 2022, when one compares SIU stays that year to those that started in 2020 and 2021. In 2020, 77 women were transferred to an SIU. By 2022, this dropped to 25. (Details are in Appendix Table 7).

When looking closely at the population of SIU transferred women, it becomes clear the reduction in number is due to a disproportionate reduction in non-Indigenous transfers. CSC has virtually ended visits to the SIU by non-Indigenous women prisoners. In 2022 almost all – 24 out of 25 or 96%– of the women who started stays in SIUs were Indigenous women. (See Table A and/or Appendix Table 8). SIUs for women in Canada appear to be kept open almost exclusively for Indigenous women.

Length of time spent in SIU cells and Mental Health

Indigenous prisoners tend to stay in SIUs longer than non-Indigenous prisoners. The difference seems to be fairly constant over time though it may have narrowed in 2022. Across the three years of operation, 62.9% of Indigenous prisoners' stays in the SIUs were for 16 days or more, compared to only 53.8% of the non-Indigenous prisoners' stays (see Table B and/or Appendix Table 9). 

CSC should be especially attentive to the fact that there are three related findings: (1) Indigenous prisoners have longer stays in the SIUs than non-Indigenous prisoners, and, (2) the international research literature would suggest that longer stays in relative isolation (or segregation type units) are associated with an increase in mental health problems, and, (3) Indigenous prisoners are younger across general population and SIUs. If adult populations are known to be adversely affected by exposure to isolation, then vulnerable populations, such as young adults, could be more adversely affected due to immature neurobiology (e.g., frontal cortex development), limited psychological coping skills and inadequate resilience. Moreover, younger prisoners are less apt to have had formal assessment/diagnosis of mental health problems and more apt to be described as having "behavioural" versus mental health problems.

CSC is aware of the research on the negative mental health impacts of segregation-like conditions of confinement and has known or ought to have known that those with long stays in SIUs are more likely to be experiencing mental health challenges. We highlight the association between deteriorating mental health and time in the SIUs in each of the three years in Appendix Table 10.

The concern about harmful effects of isolating conditions of confinement is obviously more salient for those whose stays in the SIU are long (16 days or more). But there are concerns even for short term SIU stays. Indigenous prisoners in SIUs who stayed for 15 days or fewer were more likely than non-Indigenous SIU prisoners to be described by CSC has having high mental health needs, but not getting worse (perhaps because they already had high needs).

For long stay prisoners – those in SIUs for 16 or more days – Indigenous prisoners were more likely than non-Indigenous prisoners to be described as having deteriorated mental health status. (See Table C and/or Appendix Table 11).

Hours Out of Cell

To create a clear distinction between SIUs and the former segregation regime (and to avoid the label of “solitary confinement”), the CCRA requires that prisoners in the SIUs be offered at least four hours out of their SIU cell. This is most important for those with long stays in the SIUs (which, following the U.N. Mandela Rules, we have operationalized as being 16 days or more). At first glance, it appears that Indigenous SIU prisoners are doing better than non-Indigenous prisoners in SIUs in that they are less likely to miss getting most of their “four hours” on most days (See Appendix Table 12).

When one looks at time out of the SIU cell for meaningful human interaction, the results are similar. It would appear that Indigenous prisoners are more likely than others to get these hours out of their cell (see Appendix Table 13).

These two findings, however, appear to be interesting artifacts of the combination of three other facts. Looking at the data on achieving “four hours out of cell”, it appears that:

• Almost half (49.7%) of the Indigenous prisoners who spent 16 or more days in SIUs were in Prairie SIUs.
• In the Prairie SIUs, a much smaller proportion of all prisoners (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) missed getting their four hours out of cell most of the time (on 76% or more of their days). The figure for the Prairies is that 'only' 25.4% of the prisoners missed getting out most of the time. The figures for the other four regions (East to West) were 61.4%, 75.1%, 43.3% and 81.3%).
• Finally, in contrast with the other four regions, Indigenous prisoners with long stays in SIUs in the Prairie region were more successful than non-Indigenous prisoners in getting their four hours out of the cell. (Details in Table D and Appendix Table 14).

The notable region is the Prairie Region. Relatively few prisoners failed to get their 'promised' time out cell. And Indigenous prisoners in the Prairies were significantly less likely to miss getting their “four hours out of cell” compared to non-Indigenous prisoners.

When we examined success in getting 2 hours of meaningful human contact, we see similar things (Details in Appendix Table 15).  The only difference was that in Atlantic Canada there appeared to be some suggestion – as in the case of the Prairie Region, that that region was somewhat more successful than others with being successful in achieving this goal with Indigenous prisoners.

An important fact in both of these sets of findings (Appendix Tables 14 & 15) that examine CSC's success in providing time out cell (generally and for human contact) is that there are large regional differences. In previous reports we reported large regional differences, and again in this report we are seeing regional differences with respect to certain groups (e.g., Indigenous people).  This regional variation deserves much more attention by CSC.

The CCRA states that prisoners must be offered time out of cell. It does not require CSC to force SIU prisoners out of their cells. It would appear that Indigenous prisoners were somewhat less likely than non-Indigenous prisoners to refuse to leave their cells (generally or for meaningful human contact). (See Appendix Tables 16 and 17). There are, however, regional differences with prisoners – especially Indigenous ones – being least likely to refuse offers in the Prairie region and most likely to refuse offers in the Pacific region (See Appendix Tables 18 and 19). 

While there were slightly fewer refusals in 2022 than there were in 2020 or 2021, there does not appear to be clearly consistent improvement over time (generally or for human contact). (See Appendix Tables 20 and 21.)

In a more direct test of whether “refusals” to leave one's cell accounted for people not getting their promised “four hours” out of their cells, we performed a very conservative test (see Appendix Table 22). Using this conservative test on long stay SIU prisoners, we demonstrate, using CSC data, that in many cases the prisoner (Indigenous or non-Indigenous) refused to leave the cell relatively infrequently but missed getting their “four hours out of the SIU cell” during the majority of days (See Table E.)

The simple finding, overall, is that many prisoners, (including some Indigenous) often refuse to leave their cells. The fact that fewer of these 'refusals' are Indigenous prisoners goes back to a set of findings that we have highlighted already.

• Indigenous people are highly represented in long stays in the Prairie Region.
• The refusal rates in the Prairie Region are lower than in the rest of Canada (See Appendix Tables 18 and 19).

Understanding what is being refused and why it is being refused (and the relationship of refusals to mental health) clearly needs to be examined more carefully.

Conclusion

It is impossible to suggest that there is not a serious problem concerning the use of Structured Intervention Units for Indigenous people in CSC institutions.

1. Indigenous people are over-represented in SIUs. This is not a new finding. It has been known by CSC for essentially the entire period of time since 2019 when administrative segregation was replaced by Structured Intervention Units.
2. SIUs in women's institutions are rarely used, but when they are, they are almost exclusively populated by Indigenous women.
3. Indigenous prisoners are not only more likely to be transferred to an SIU; once they get there, their stays in the SIU are also likely to be longer than the stays for non-Indigenous prisoners.
4. For long stay prisoners, being an Indigenous prisoner in an SIU cell is associated with deteriorating mental health.
5. Indigenous prisoners in general population and in SIUs, on average, are younger than non-Indigenous prisoners. Their age makes them more vulnerable to the negative mental health impacts of isolating conditions of confinement.
6. There is substantial variation across regions in the success in providing SIU prisoners with four hours out their cell.  Indigenous prisoners are more likely to get their promised time out of cell in large part because they are disproportionately in SIUs in penitentiaries in the Prairie Region where prisoners more frequently get their promised time out cell.
7. Refusals by prisoners to leave their SIU cells do not adequately account for hundreds of cases – for Indigenous prisoners and non-Indigenous prisoners – of failures of prisoners to get their 'promised' time out their SIU cells.

Our findings are based exclusively on CSC administrative data. They directly reflect a description by CSC of what is happening in their institutions. The SIUs have been operating for more than three years.  For one of Canada's most vulnerable groups – Indigenous prisoners – the promise of the Structured Intervention Units has not been realized.  This demands immediate attention. Waiting for the “five-year review” of the SIU legislation before anything is done to address these problems appears to us to be without justification.

Appendix Tables

Note: A few prisoners did not have 'security level' recorded

Note: Numbers are presented rather than percents to make it easier for anyone to calculate alternative indexes of the impact of 'refusals.'

Note: Numbers are presented rather than percents to make it easier for anyone to calculate alternative indexes of the impact of 'refusals.'

Date modified:

2023-05-24