Commissioner's directive 710-6 : Review of inmate security classification

1. The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs, following consultation with the Deputy Commissioner for Women in cases of women inmates, and when supported by the Regional Deputy Commissioner, is the final decision maker:
   1. for the reclassification to medium security of an inmate serving a life sentence for first or second degree murder, or an inmate convicted of a terrorism offence punishable by life, who is currently classified as maximum security, prior to the first security classification review
   2. for the reclassification of a Dangerous Offender to minimum security
2. The Regional Deputy Commissioner will:
   1. forward a recommendation to the Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs, for final decision:
      1. for the reclassification to medium security of an inmate serving a life sentence for first or second degree murder, or an inmate convicted of a terrorism offence punishable by life, who is currently classified as maximum security, prior to the first security classification review
      2. for the reclassification of a Dangerous Offender to minimum security
   2. be the final decision maker if they disagree with the Institutional Head's recommendation to reclassify:
      1. to medium security an inmate serving a life sentence for first or second degree murder, or an inmate convicted of a terrorism offence punishable by life, who is currently classified as maximum security, prior to the first security classification review
      2. a Dangerous Offender to minimum security.
3. The Institutional Head:
   1. will authorize an inmate's security reclassification, which can be delegated to:
      1. the Deputy Warden, except for cases where the security reclassification involves a transfer decision and/or an inmate serving a life sentence for first or second degree murder, an inmate convicted of a terrorism offence punishable by life, or a Dangerous Offender, or
      2. the Assistant Warden, Interventions, when the recommendation is to maintain the same security classification level, except for cases where the security classification involves a transfer decision and/or an inmate serving a life sentence for first or second degree murder, an inmate convicted of a terrorism offence punishable by life, or a Dangerous Offender
   2. will forward the recommendation to the Regional Deputy Commissioner for decision for:
      1. the reclassification to medium security of an inmate serving a life sentence for first or second degree murder, or an inmate convicted of a terrorism offence punishable by life, who is currently classified as maximum security, prior to the first security classification review
      2. the reclassification to minimum security of a Dangerous Offender
   3. will be the final decision maker if they disagree with the Case Management Team in the following cases:
      1. for the reclassification to medium security of an inmate serving a life sentence for first or second degree murder, or an inmate convicted of a terrorism offence punishable by life, who is currently classified as maximum security, prior to the first security classification review
      2. for the reclassification to minimum security of a Dangerous Offender.
4. The decision maker must provide specific ratings for institutional adjustment, escape risk and public safety in every final decision on the inmate's security level. If the decision maker does not concur with the recommended ratings in the Assessment for Decision, a rationale must be provided for the divergence from the recommendation.
5. The decision maker will provide the inmate with the rationale as well as the information considered in the decision, in writing, within five working days following the review. The inmate will be advised, at the same time, of the right to seek redress using the grievance process pursuant to CD 081 - Offender Complaints and Grievances.
6. The Parole Officer/Primary Worker will complete all Security Classification Reviews and Reassessments.

7. A Security Classification Review (Security Reclassification Scale/Security Reclassification Scale for Women and Assessment for Decision) will be completed at least once every two years for inmates classified at maximum or medium security level. For Indigenous inmates, if this review falls while the offender is taking a main program, the Security Classification Review will be completed in accordance with paragraph 8
8. For Indigenous inmates, a Security Classification Review (Security Reclassification Scale/Security Reclassification Scale for Women and Assessment for Decision) will be completed within thirty days of an inmate’s successful completion of a main program (based on the final Program Report date) for inmates classified at maximum or medium security level. This review is not required for an inmate serving a life sentence for first or second degree murder, or an inmate convicted of a terrorism offence punishable by life, who is currently classified as maximum security who has not had their first Security Classification Review, unless supported by the Case Management Team.
9. For Indigenous inmates participating in Pre-Pathways interventions/Pathways units, a Security Classification Review (Security Reclassification Scale/Security Reclassification Scale for Women and Assessment for Decision) will be initiated at least every six months and completed within thirty days of the Pathways Progress Review Meeting. This review is not required for an inmate serving a life sentence for first or second degree murder, or an inmate convicted of a terrorism offence punishable by life, who is currently classified as maximum security who has not had their first Security Classification Review, unless supported by the Case Management Team.
10. A Security Classification Review, in accordance with paragraphs 7, 8 and 9, is not required if the inmate has a confirmed release date within 90 days (for example, will be released on Statutory Release).
11. A review of an inmate’s security classification will be completed prior to making a recommendation for any decision (e.g., transfer, temporary absence, work release or parole). This review only requires completion of the Security Reclassification Scale/Security Reclassification Scale for Women and an Assessment for Decision if there will be a change in security level.

12. When conducting the inmate security level review, the Security Reclassification Scale/Security Reclassification Scale for Women will be administered and the results will be incorporated into the final assessment.
13. The inmate security classification will take into consideration the factors as required by section 17 of the CCRR, including consideration of the Indigenous social history, if applicable.
14. The final assessment will address section 18 of the CCRR, by setting out the analysis under the three headings of institutional adjustment, escape risk and risk to public safety.
15. A psychological risk assessment is required for Dangerous Offenders when consideration is being given to minimum security reclassification.
16. A mental health institutional assessment is required for inmates serving a life sentence for first or second degree murder or convicted of a terrorism offence punishable by life who are in a maximum security facility when consideration is being given to medium security reclassification.

Commissioner,

Original Signed by:

Don Head

Annex A
Cross-References and Definitions

• CD 001 – Mission, Values and Ethics Framework of the Correctional Service of Canada
• CD 081 – Offender Complaints and Grievances
• CD 701 – Information Sharing
• CD 702 – Indigenous Offenders
• GL 702-1 – Establishment and Operation of Pathways Initiatives
• CD 705-5 – Supplementary Assessments
• CD 705-6 – Correctional Planning and Criminal Profile
• CD 705-7 – Security Classification and Penitentiary Placement
• CD 706 – Classification of Institutions
• CD 710 – Institutional Supervision Framework
• CD 710-2 – Transfer of Inmates
• CD 711 – Structured Interventions Units
• GL 726-2 – National Correctional Program Standards
• GL 726-3 – National Correctional Program Referral Guidelines
• CD 784 – Victim Engagement
• Indigenous Social History Tool
• Integrated Mental Health Guidelines

Dangerous offender: an offender who is subject to a designation by the court pursuant to section 753 of the Criminal Code.

Main program: nationally recognized correctional programs which include moderate intensity programs, high intensity programs, and hybrid programs. Main programs specifically address risk factors related to offending at intensity levels commensurate to offenders' risk and needs.

Mental health institutional assessment: a type of mental health assessment where the purpose is to assess and delineate significant mental health and/or responsivity issues (e.g., intellectual functioning, cultural considerations, etc.) to be considered in relation to institutional adjustment/security level classification. The assessment will identify those factors that may impact the offender's adaptation and/or integration into a lower security environment.

Pathways Progress Review Meeting: a structured Pathways team meeting that must occur at least once every six months with the aim of discussing offender progress and if needed, set new objectives/goals

Psychological risk assessment: an evaluation of offender risk, needs, responsivity and the manageability of risk, done from a psycho-social perspective, utilizing a variety of scientifically-validated assessment methodologies in an integrated process. It also includes reference to appropriate strategies for the management of risk.

Security Reclassification Scale/Security Reclassification Scale for Women: a research-based tool used to assist in the assessment of the most appropriate level of security for an inmate.

Annex B
Assessment for Decision for a Security Reclassification - Report Outline

1. Provide a brief statement of the purpose of the report
2. Indicate the length of sentence, current offence(s), outstanding charges or appeals, immigration/deportation/extradition status

Identify when the Security Reclassification Scale or Security Reclassification Scale for Women was completed, the score and overall level of security indicated by the Scale.

Include the following statement: “The inmate has been advised of the steps to have access to the Security Reclassification Scale – Version 2 (SRS-2) and the Security Reclassification Scale for Women – Version 2 (SRSW-2).”. For inmates who are unable to have access to CD 710-6 – Review of Inmate Security Classification, staff must provide the inmate with a hard copy.

Consider the following to assess institutional adjustment rating and update any relevant information since the completion of the most recent inmate security level review. For Indigenous offenders, provide an analysis within the context of their Indigenous social history: :

• length of the inmate’s sentence and its impact on the inmate’s institutional adjustment
• violent institutional incidents – use of weapons, role in the incidents, harm caused (including those during provincial incarceration and previous federal sentences). For Indigenous offenders, make links between the incidents and their Indigenous social history
• review the inmate’s disciplinary information – during intake, federal and provincial custody. Identify if there have been any previous minor or serious disciplinary offences, the nature of the offences, if there is a pattern
• include comments on the inmate’s behaviour from unit staff
• review the Security Intelligence file, record date of review and consultation with the Security Intelligence Officer. Indicate whether the inmate has any affiliations with criminal organizations/gangs, or continues to be involved in criminal activities while in custody. Identify the existence of incompatibles or co-convicted inmates and the impact on institutional adjustment. For Indigenous offenders, consider any affiliations within the context of their Indigenous social history (this may be related to family fragmentation and a lack of cultural identity linked to a desire to belong)
• identify whether any administrative intervention has been required in this case, such as involuntary or emergency transfers, transfers to Structured Intervention Units, etc. For Indigenous offenders, indicate whether any cultural interventions or restorative options were considered or used as an alternative to administrative interventions. If cultural interventions or restorative options were not used as an alternative, explain why
• comment on the inmate’s level of motivation/engagement to participate in their Correctional Plan
• identify whether the inmate displays special needs or socio-cultural factors indicating a requirement for special intervention on an ongoing basis (Indigenous inmate, woman inmate, etc.)
• identify whether the inmate has a history of mental health issues, suicidal ideation, self-injury. For Indigenous offenders, provide an analysis of their history of mental health concerns, suicidal ideation and/or self-injury within the context of their Indigenous social history.
• current emotional stability and whether this will impact on the inmate’s institutional adjustment
• if the offender is working with an Elder/Spiritual Advisor, consult with the Elder/Spiritual Advisor and include any comments and recommendations.

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 their dynamic factors, particularly those relating to facilitating their 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 their dynamic factors, particularly those which would lead to a transfer to a less structured environment and ultimately, to their 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

Consider the following to assess the escape risk rating and update any relevant information since the completion of the most recent inmate security level review. For Indigenous offenders, consider the impact of residential schools, the 60s scoop, the foster care system and/or repeated interventions by government agencies that may have built a distrust of authority and government agencies that may be linked to repeated escapes, UALs and breaches of trust directly linked to their Indigenous social history:

• identify if the inmate is a Canadian citizen
• identify history/convictions for escape, attempt escape, being unlawfully at large, breaches - consider seriousness and recency
• use of violence or threatened violence in any escapes or attempted escapes
• comment on whether there was a period of bail and whether the conditions of the bail were respected
• identify if there are any outstanding charges or appeals, including those related to immigration/deportation issues that may impact the inmate's risk of escape
• identify if length of sentence may have an impact on the inmate's risk of escape, and time to be served before eligibility for unescorted temporary absence
• comment on any previous periods on parole or statutory release, whether the inmate has participated in any successful escorted temporary absences, unescorted temporary absences or work releases
• other concerns – unusual circumstances having the potential to increase the escape risk (e.g., current emotional instability, custody battle, problems with significant other, gambling/drug debts).

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

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 OR could threaten the security of the institution in order to facilitate their escape

Provide an analysis of the inmate’s public safety risk and update any relevant information since the completion of the most recent inmate security level review. For Indigenous offenders, provide an analysis within the context of their Indigenous social history: :

• history of any known violence, include violent community incidents – consider the seriousness and recency
• Dangerous Offender designation under the Criminal Code
• the inmate’s social, criminal and, where applicable and available, youth offender history. For Indigenous offenders, describe this history within the context of the offender’s Indigenous social history
• nature and gravity of current and number of previous offences — whether weapons were involved and whether serious harm occurred to the victim
• evidence of family violence. For Indigenous offenders, consider family violence within the context of the offender’s Indigenous social history
• level of dynamic factors or areas of need identified in the Correctional Plan
• Correctional Plan motivation/engagement and progress accomplished
• past releases performance and past escorted temporary absence, unescorted temporary absence or work release performance
• emotional stability/instability, self-injury and suicide history. For Indigenous offenders, consider their history of emotional stability/instability, self-injury or suicide history within the context of their Indigenous social history
• detention referral or whether the inmate is being considered as a potential candidate for detention
• alcohol and drug use and the drug and alcohol rating. For Indigenous offenders, consider any alcohol and/or drug concerns within the context of their Indigenous social history
• affiliations with criminal organizations/gangs. For Indigenous offenders, consider any affiliations within the context of their Indigenous social history
• affiliation with a terrorist organization or radicalized group
• whether the inmate meets the criteria of being a high profile offender (will only have an impact if, in light of the other factors, there is a clear connection with public safety)
• 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, terrorism, affiliation with organized crime, etc.). Note: In order for notoriety to be a relevant factor, it must be demonstrated that it will have an impact on an inmate’s reintegration potential by increasing the risk to re-offend, or the likelihood that they could pose a threat to the safety of any person or the security of a penitentiary
• public safety risk in the event the inmate would escape.

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 sufficient 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

• Provide a short summary of the factors and consider the results of the mental health institutional assessment and/or psychological risk assessment as well as any recent professional opinions such as psychological, psychiatric, mental health and/or health care information, police comments and/or previous CSC decisions (if applicable) in the plan for managing the inmate at the proposed security level
• Consider previous Parole Board of Canada (PBC) decision (nature and purpose, all relevant comments, specific reference to relevant issues noted in the decision, including demonstrating how concerns/issues previously raised have/have not been addressed)
• Consider the results of the most recent Correctional Plan Update, including any recent completion of National Correctional Programs or Pathways progress
• Indicate the existence of co-convicted and/or incompatible inmates
• Comment on discussions during case conferences, when it occurred and who was present, identify the Case Management Team’s recommendations and how the recommendations meet the needs of the inmate while ensuring the safety of the public
• For Indigenous offenders, the overall assessment must be made in the context of the offender’s Indigenous social history
• If the offender has been working with an Elder/Spiritual Advisor, consult with the Elder/Spiritual Advisor and include any comments. If an Elder/Spiritual Advisor review has been completed, include information and recommendations from the report. Take victim considerations into account (if applicable)
• For Indigenous offenders, make links between the identified need areas, the offender’s Indigenous social history, and how the recommendation will address these needs.

Annex C
Security reclassification scale: Version 2

Introduction

The Security Reclassification Scale – Version 2 (SRS-2) is only applicable to men offenders. Once the security reclassification data has been saved, it cannot be modified.

In some cases, the score of zero has a rating of 0.5. This is due to regression analysis weighting.

1. Serious disciplinary offences

Instructions (automatically calculated, cannot be modified by the user, and mandatory)

During the review period, institutional disciplinary offences that result in a conviction for a serious offence are counted (i.e., all “institutional charges” where “offence date” is within the review period, the “court finding” is convicted and the “offence category” is serious).

Item	Score
1. Serious Disciplinary Offences
None	0.5
One	1.0
Two	1.5
Three or more	2.0

2. Minor disciplinary offences

 

Instructions (automatically calculated, cannot be modified by the user, and mandatory)

During the review period, institutional disciplinary offences that result in a conviction for a minor offence are counted (i.e., all “institutional charges” where “offence date” is within the review period, the “court finding” is convicted and the “offence category” is minor).

Item	Score
2. Minor Disciplinary Offences
None	0.5
One	0.5
Two	0.5
Three or more	1.0

3. Recorded incidents

Instructions (manually entered by the user and mandatory)

During the review period, the user will refer to the offender’s electronic file to determine the number of recorded incidents that the offender has been involved in during the review process. These incidents may be recorded in casework records or preventive security information.

Item	Score
3. Recorded Incidents
No record	0.5
One	1.0
Two	2.0
Three or more	3.0

4. Pay grade

Instructions (automatically calculated, can be modified by the user, and mandatory)

The user will report the most recent pay grade assigned to the offender on the date of the security reclassification review.

Item	Score
4. Pay Grade
Zero pay	1.5
Basic allowance	1.0
Allowance	1.0
Level A	0.5
Level B	0.5
Level C	1.0
Level D	1.0

5. Detention referral

Instructions (manually entered by the user and mandatory)

The user will report any referral or anticipated referral for detention.

Item	Score
5. Detention Referral
Not referred	0.5
Anticipated referral	2.0
Referred for detention review	2.0
Detained	2.0
Life or indeterminate sentence	2.0

6. Correctional plan progress

Instructions (manually entered by the user and mandatory)

The user assesses the offender’s progress in completing programs designed to address contributing risk and progress in reducing risk.

Item	Score
6. Correctional Plan Progress
Has addressed factors	2.0
Has partially addressed factors	3.5
Has not addressed factors	5.0

7. Correctional plan motivation

Instructions (manually entered by the user and mandatory)

The user assesses the offender’s motivation in programs and other interventions designated to address contributing factors identified in the Correctional Plan. The level of offender motivation assesses how actively the offender participates in programs and other interventions.

Item	Score
7. Correctional Plan Motivation
Fully motivated, participated in programs to address identified factors in CP	2.0
Partially motivated, active in programs to address identified factors in CP	4.0
No motivation, limited participation in programs to address identified factors in CP	6.0

8. Drug and alcohol rating

Instructions (manually entered by the user and mandatory)

The user assesses the extent to which the use of drugs and/or alcohol continues to interfere with offender stability and/or influence contributing risk.

Item	Score
8. Drug and Alcohol Rating
No identifiable problems	0.5
Identified as a contributing factor, but has had no evidence of substance abuse during the review period.	1.0
Identified as a contributing factor, but has had evidence of substance abuse during the review period.	1.5

9. Successful escorted temporary absences (eta) releases

Instructions (automatically calculated, cannot be modified by the user, and mandatory)

The application reports the number of separate, successful ETAs that have taken place during the review period (number of TA permits where the “absence type” is ETA, the “completion code” is “On Time” or “Extension” and the “depart. date/time” is greater than the start date of the review period).

Item	Score
9. Successful ETA Releases
No ETAs	2.5
One ETA	2.0
Two ETAs	1.0
Three or more ETAs	0.5

10. Successful unescorted temporary absences (UTA)/work releases

Instructions (automatically calculated, cannot be modified by the user, and mandatory)

The application reports the number of separate, successful UTA/work releases that have taken place during the review period (number of TA permits where the “absence type” is UTA or Work Release, the “completion code” is “On Time” or “Extension” and the “depart. date/time” is: a) beginning prior to the start date of the review period and still in effect during that period; b) beginning prior to the start date of the review period and ended within the review period; c) beginning within the review period and still in effect during that period; or d) beginning within the review period and ended within that period).

Item	Score
10. Successful UTA/Work Releases
None	1.0
One or more	0.5

11. Age at review

Instructions (automatically calculated, cannot be modified by the user, and mandatory)

The application calculates the offender’s age using their birthdate.

Item	Score
11. Age at Review
22 years of age or less	1.0
23 to 29 years of age	1.0
30 to 35 years of age	0.5
36 years of age or older	0.5

12. Psychological concerns

Instructions (manually entered by the user and mandatory)

The user will identify if there are any psychological concerns.

Item	Score
12. Psychological Concerns
No psychological concerns	0.5
Psychological concerns noted	1.5

13. Custody rating scale (CRS) escape history

Instructions (automatically calculated or manually entered by the user if there is no CRS score, and mandatory)

The application reports the Escape History score from the most recent locked CRS.

Item	Score
13. CRS Escape History
Score of 0	0.5
Score of 4	0.5
Score of 12	1.0
Score of 20	1.0
Score of 28	1.0

14. CRS incident history

Instructions (automatically calculated or manually entered by the user if there is no CRS score, and mandatory)

The application reports the Institutional Incidents Item from the most recent locked CRS.

Item	Score
14. CRS Incident History
Score of 0	0.5
Score of 16	1.0
Score of 24	1.0
Score of 32	1.5
Score of 40	1.5
Score of 48	2.0
Score of 56	2.0
Score of 64	2.0
Score of 72	2.0
Score of 80	3.0
Score of 88	3.0

15. Transfer to Structured Intervention Unit (SIU)

Instructions (automatically calculated, cannot be modified by the user, and mandatory)

During the review period, all periods where the offender actually spent time in an SIU will be counted. This calculation is based on the number of decisions to approve a transfer to an SIU. When the offender is not approved to be transferred to the SIU or refuses to leave the SIU, this period will not be calculated in the SRS. However, it should be considered in the assessment of the offender’s institutional adjustment in the Assessment for Decision.

Item	Score
15. Transfer to SIU
None	0.0
One or more	1.0

Final scores and security level rating

OMS calculates the overall score for the SRS and then provides a recommended security level rating (classification). The Items are weighted as described above, and summed to produce the following ranges of scores and recommended security level ratings.

Recommended Security Level	Score Ranges
Maximum	24.5 to 33
Medium	16.0 to 24.0
Minimum	9.5 to 15.5

 

Annex D
Security reclassification scale for women: Version 2

Introduction

The Security Reclassification Scale for Women – Version 2 (SRSW-2) is only applicable to offenders incarcerated in women’s institutions. Once the security reclassification assessment has been saved, it cannot be modified.

1. Correctional Plan : program motivation/progress

Instructions (manually entered by the user and mandatory)

This Item assesses the offender’s motivation in programs designated to address criminogenic factors identified in their Correctional Plan. The user assesses how actively the offender participates in programs. The assessment is based on knowledge of the offender and on file review.

“Limited motivation” is to be selected if the offender refuses to participate in programs to address needs outlined in their Correctional Plan, or if their participation is very sporadic.

“Partial motivation” is to be selected if the offender participates in programming, with adequate attendance. Homework is at least partially (or sometimes) completed, and they sometimes apply lessons.

“Full motivation” is to be selected if the offender is actively participating in their Correctional Plan, completes homework most of the time, and applies their lessons consistently.

Possible Value	Score
Limited motivation	(+3.20)
Partial motivation	(+0.70)
Full motivation	(-2.40)

2. Maintains regular positive family contact

Instructions (manually entered by the user and mandatory)

This Item assesses whether the offender has social support through regular positive contact with family members. The assessment is based on knowledge of the offender and file review.

“No, very little positive contact with family” is to be selected if the offender has little to no positive, regular contact from their family.

“Yes, regular positive contact with family” is to be selected if the offender’s family is consistently emotionally supportive and available to them regularly.

Possible Value	Score
No, very little positive contact with family	(+1.00)
Yes, regular positive contact with family	(-0.30)

3. Number of convictions for serious disciplinary offences

Instructions (automatically calculated, cannot be modified by user, and mandatory)

During the review period only count institutional disciplinary offences that resulted in a conviction (not charges) for a serious offence, as per the conviction date on OMS.

Count all the “institutional charges” where the “offence date” is within the review period, the “court finding” is convicted and the “offence category” is serious.

The actual score is displayed under “Raw number of convictions”.

Possible Value	Score
None	(-1.10)
One or two	(+1.90)
Three or more	(+4.40)

4. Number of recorded incidents during the review period

Instructions (automatically calculated, cannot be modified by user, and mandatory)

The application performs a count of all “institutional incidents” where the “incident date” is for the period under review regardless of severity, the offender’s role, or whether they resulted in a formal conviction.

The actual score is displayed under “Raw number of recorded incidents”.

Possible Value	Score
None	(-1.50)
One	(+0.40)
Two	(+0.75)
Three or more	(+3.50)

5. Pay level during the review period

Instructions (automatically calculated, can be modified by the user, and mandatory)

The application reports, in a drop-down list, the most recent pay grade assigned to the offender on the date of the security review. In the event that there is no pay grade recorded for the offender, the application presents to the user a list of valid pay grades to choose from. If the offender is receiving a rate of pay other than those listed, the user has the option of choosing “Other”.

Possible Value	Score
Zero pay	(+1.00)
Basic allowance	(+1.00)
Allowance	(+1.00)
Level D pay	(+0.70)
Level C pay	(-0.30)
Level B pay	(-1.10)
Level A pay	(-1.10)
Other	(0.00)

6. Total number of successful Escorted Temporary Absences (ETAS) during the review period

Instructions (automatically calculated, cannot be modified by the user, and mandatory)

The application tabulates the number of temporary absence permits where the “absence type” is ETA and the offender has successfully completed the ETAs with a recorded outcome of “on time” or “extension.” ETAs granted, for any reason during any part of the review period, will be considered by the scale. The “depart date” or the “required date” must be greater than the start date. The application will count the total number of separate ETAs, not the number of days released on ETA.

The application provides a breakdown of the raw number of successful ETAs during the review period by reason: family related, personal, medical, administrative, and other.

Possible Value	Score
None	(+1.15)
One to three	(+0.70)
Four to eight	(-0.85)
Nine or more	(-1.40)

7. Transfer to structured intervention unit (SIU)

Instructions (automatically calculated, cannot be modified by the user, and mandatory)

During the review period, all periods where the offender actually spent time in an SIU will be counted. This calculation is based on the number of decisions to approve a transfer to a SIU. When the offender is not approved to be transferred to the SIU or refuses to leave the SIU, this period will not be calculated in the SRS. However, it should be considered in the assessment of the offender’s institutional adjustment in the Assessment for Decision.

Possible Value (not from OMS)	Score
None	(-1.00)
One or more	(+1.00)

8. Ever unlawfully at large (UAL) from work release, temporary absence or community supervision

Instructions (automatic calculated, can be modified by user, and mandatory)

The application automatically checks for any instances of UAL. If an official incident of UAL is found by the application, the field will be populated as “Yes”, and the user will be unable to modify it. If no official incident of UAL is found by the application, the field will be populated as “No” and the user will have the option of overriding the selection to “Yes”.

If the application selects “No”, the user will need to examine the offender’s files to adequately respond to this Item. Because not all UAL will result in formal charges, the user is to count any record of escape from lawful custody on the offender’s personal file. If the offender escaped, they must have been UAL. The user is NOT to count escape attempts – only successful escapes.

Also, if the user is certain that the offender has been UAL but there is no official record, indicate “Yes” and specify the details in the Assessment for Decision. For the purposes of the field, the user is not to include failure to appear or breaches of trust. If these are the only indicators, mark “No.”

Possible Value	Score
No	(-0.25)
Yes	(+1.20)

9. Custody rating scale (CRS) incident history

Instructions (automatically calculated and mandatory)

The application will report the “Incident History score” from the most recent “locked” CRS.

If the score is 0, then “None” will be selected.

If the score is greater than 0, then “Any prior involvement” will be selected.

If no CRS score is available and this is the offender’s first custodial sentence (including provincial) then “None” will be selected, and the user will be allowed to modify the response. If no score is available on OMS, the user must create a ‘proxy’ Incident History score by using the CRS guidelines contained in Annex B of CD 705-7 – Security Classification and Penitentiary Placement.

Possible Value	Score
None	(-0.95)
Any prior involvement	(+1.60)

Final scores and security level rating

OMS calculates the overall score for the SRSW and then provides a recommended security level rating (classification). The Items are weighted as described above, and summed to produce the following ranges of scores and recommended security level ratings.

Recommended Security Level	Score Ranges
Maximum	+6.03 to +18.05
Medium	-3.03 to +6.02
Minimum	-10.00 to -3.02