Understanding Factors Related to Discordant Security Level Decisions Among Indigenous Persons in Federal Custody
Highlight: Professional judgement can complement the Custody Rating Scale (CRS) to capture nuance or contextual information that provides a more holistic and culturally-informed assessment of risk.
Number: RIB-25-20
Date: 2026-09-18
Alternative Format:
Background
Security classification within the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) is determined using the results of actuarial tools in conjunction with the structured professional assessment of an offender’s Public Safety Risk, Escape Risk, and Institutional AdjustmentFootnote 1 . Security level designations are laid out in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), namely, minimum, medium, and maximum security. The CCRA also holds that offenders are to be placed in the least restrictive environment, taking into account several considerations, including the safety of the public, the safety of other incarcerated persons, the security of the institution, as well as considerations tied to institutional compatibility and suitability.
Racial/ethnic disparities in security level have been raised by the Office of the Auditor General (OAG; 2022) as well as the Office of the Correctional Investigator (OCI; 2023). A key concern is the overrepresentation of Indigenous offenders in higher security settings. Prior research indicates that the actuarial tool at intake, the Custody Rating Scalee (CRS), holds predictive validity for Indigenous individuals (for example, Gobeil, 2011; Barnum & Gobeil, 2012; McKendy et al., 2023a). However, Indigenous individuals (along with Black individuals) are more likely than other groups to have a CRS rating of “maximum” (OAG, 2022; McKendy et al., 2023b; Public Safety Canada, 2024). Research findings have further illustrated that Indigenous individuals are more likely to receive a discordant decision involving a security level decrease rather than a security level increase in relation to the rating of the CRS (McKendy et al., 2023a).
What We Did
The current analysis was intended to understand factors contributing to discordant security level decisions among Indigenous men and women in federal custody. The focus was on cases in which the initial CRS rating was “maximum,” but the final security decision was “medium.” The purpose was to gain insights into case management considerations and areas of focus in addition to the actuarial tool that contributed to the final security level decision, including the analysis of Indigenous Social History (ISH) factors. ISH factors, which must be integrated into case management decision-making, are direct and indirect systemic and background factors relevant to the lives of Indigenous peoples, consideration of which may result in alternate options or solutions (see Commissioner’s Directive 702).
Case reviews were undertaken for a sample of discordant decisions in 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023 (n = 58). For comparative purposes, reviews were also conducted for a smaller sample of Indigenous individuals who had a concordant security classification of maximum (n = 28). The sample included both men and women, and was designed to capture cases across regions, and marked by diverse sentence and offence profiles.
What we Found
Decision documents revealed considerable diversity in structure, articulation of reasons for discordance, justification and rationale for domain ratings, and reference to ISH factors. Notwithstanding this variation, some general themes were evident within discordant decisions at the time of decision-making. Most commonly, there was an emphasis on behavioural change within the area of Institutional Adjustment, whereby prior incidents or challenges were followed by improvement or indicators of enhanced stability. This often related to psycho-behavioural factors (enhanced engagement and motivation), the social environment (improvement in behaviour upon transfer from provincial to federal custody), and/or a shift in criminogenic risk factors (gang disaffiliation, withdrawal from substances, mental health stabilization). The progression of behavioural change is an example of contextual nuance drawn from professional judgement assessments that can complement standardized elements of the CRS. In some cases, reference was made to certain items within the CRS contributing to a higher rating (for example, age, prior security events and offence characteristics), but for which contextual assessment added nuance and lowered the perceived degree of security risk. Supportive factors, including safeguards to manage risk within a medium environment, were also noted.
Reference was made to ISH factors in most cases, with the most common factors relating to individual substance abuse (85%), family and/or community history of substance abuse (78%), experience of loss of, or struggle with, cultural or spiritual identity (78%), exposure to potential risk factors during childhood (80%), and family fragmentation (67%). There were three key challenges identified in the analysis of ISH factors, including generalization (such as, reference to general factors without concrete articulation to the case at hand), identification without application (such as, description of ISH factors as they apply to the individual, but without integrating the description into the decision rationale) and limited detail (minimal information pertaining to ISH, in some cases because this information was not available at the time of the assessment).
A concrete way in which ISH factors were more explicitly integrated in decisions was in the consideration of how cultural engagement served as a protective factor that in turn resulted in a medium security placement being feasible. This included articulating the ways in which risk factors were being mitigated (or could be mitigating) through a culturally-informed approach, such as following a traditional healing path, participating in cultural interventions and ceremonies, and working with Elders in order to address the adverse impacts of ISH factors. In other words, cultural engagement was presented as a case management component to managing risk in the lower security level.
What it means
Overall, this qualitative review highlighted how professional judgement can complement the CRS to capture nuance or contextual information that provides a more holistic assessment of risk, including protective factors, to promote culturally-informed decision-making. There is considerable diversity in reports and there remain key challenges in the integration of ISH factors into decisions; however, there are also illustrations of ‘best practice’ that highlight the structural utility of professional judgement, as well as the importance of including social histories and circumstances relevant to Indigenous peoples within decision-making and the larger case management process.
References
Barnum, G., & Gobeil, R. (2012). Revalidation of the Custody Rating Scalee for Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Women Offenders (Research Report R-273). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.
Gobeil, R. (2011). The Custody Rating Scalee as Applied to Male Offenders (Research Report R-256). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.
McKendy, L., Woodard, A., & Keown L.A. (2023a). Concordance Between the Custody Rating Scalee (CRS) and Offender Security Level (OSL) Among Men Offenders (Research Report R-471). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.
McKendy, L., Woodard, A., Keown, L.A. (2023b). Revalidation of the Custody Rating Scalee for Men Offenders (Research Report R-472). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.
Office of the Auditor General. (OAG; 2022). Systemic Barriers - Correctional Service Canada. Ottawa, ON: Office of the Auditor General.
Office of the Correctional Investigator (OCI; 2023). Office of the Correctional Investigator Annual Report 2022–2023. Ottawa, ON: Office of the Correctional Investigator.
Public Safety Canada (2024). Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada.
For more information
Please email the Research Branch. You can also visit the Research Publications section for a full list of reports and one-page summaries.
Prepared by: Dirk Boon