Joint Audit and Evaluation of Structured Intervention Units: Internal Audit and Evaluation Sector, Correctional Service of Canada

List of acronyms

About Structured Intervention Units

The Structured Intervention Units (SIUs) were introduced by Bill C-83: An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), that received Royal Assent on June 21, 2019. The purpose of the bill was to strengthen the federal correctional system. This included the elimination of administrative and disciplinary segregation and the establishing of the SIU correctional model. The SIUs were designed to provide an appropriate living environment for an inmate who cannot be maintained in the mainstream population for security or other reasons. There are specific legislative requirements that guide the operationalization of SIUs and the management of its inmates, including: the opportunity for inmates to receive a minimum of 4 hours a day for time outside their cell (including 2 hours a day of interaction time with others), opportunities for inmate’s to participate in programming and interventions tailored to address their specific needs and risks in relation to the behaviours that led to their transfer, daily visits to inmates by the Institutional Head and by a registered health care professional. SIUs are also subject to both internal and independent external oversight, under specific timeframes and/or circumstances.

There are 15 SIUs distributed across all regions of the country. They are located within 10 men’s institutions and 5 women’s institutions.

About the Joint Audit and Evaluation

This joint engagement examined whether a management framework is in place to support SIUs and assessed compliance with relevant legislation, policy and procedures. It also examined the correctional model's continued relevance, effectiveness/performance and efficiency based on a list of defined short to medium-term outcome objectives. The data collected covered a period ranging between April 2016 to April 2024.

Information was acquired from document and literature reviews, data from various internal databases (including Offender Management System and Structured Intervention Unit Long Term Evolution application data), file review and testing, interviews with over 240 stakeholders, and observations conducted at various SIU sites.

Key findings

Concerns were noted regarding the existence, accuracy, and level of detail of information in the Structured Intervention Unit Long Term Evolution application data and SIU-associated documentation, and evidence was not always available to support that CSC complied with relevant legislation and policies related to SIUs.

The effectiveness of the SIU in meeting inmate-specific needs is varied, largely dependent on the inmate’s level of accountability and willingness to engage in the programming, interventions, and services offered to them.

While the SIU model provides an increased level of timely access to programming, interventions, and services, challenges remain, such as:

• access to mainstream correctional programming
• the applicability of the MM-SIU/MM-SIU-I for some inmates; and
• consultation with Elders, Indigenous Liaison Officers, and spiritual advisors

There are also challenges maintaining institutional safety and security in the SIU.

Despite the significant amount of financial and human resources that have been allocated to SIUs, CSC is falling short of achieving its objectives in responding to inmate risks and needs and contributing to the successful reintegration of inmates into the mainstream population.

CSC faces challenges in operationalizing the SIU model due to:

• the contradiction between the SIU objectives of providing programming, interventions, and services aimed at changing behaviours and the expectation that inmates be transferred out of the SIU as soon as possible
• staff vacancies and turnover; and
• insufficient and improper infrastructure and equipment

CSC has implemented a management framework for SIUs; however, areas for improvement have been identified. These include:

• clarifying and developing key elements of the policy framework, governance structure, and roles and responsibilities
• establishing rigorous processes for tracking and monitoring resource allocation; and
• reviewing CSC’s SIU performance measurement framework to ensure it is comprehensive and that metrics are sound, accurate, consider the complexities of SIU inmates, and support CSC in reflecting the efforts made by staff with SIU inmates

SIU objectives are aligned with CSC’s mandate, policies, corporate priorities, and lessons learned from the previous segregation model.

SIU objectives further complement broader federal priorities of public safety and humane treatment.

There are notable differences between men’s and women’s institutions in the operationalization of the SIU model. Inmates at women’s institutions:

• experience fewer transfers to the SIU
• spend less time in the SIU
• have a higher prevalence of mental health needs
• have access to alternative options not available at men’s institutions; and
• benefit from the work of the interdisciplinary team within the Intensive Intervention Strategy Framework

Recommendations

1. The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs, in collaboration with the Senior Deputy Commissioner, should ensure that the CSC SIU objectives within a multidisciplinary context are clearly articulated; and that the performance measurement framework in place for the purposes of monitoring compliance and results is reviewed to include key performance indicators that are outcome-based and capture the complexity of inmates in the SIU environment. SIU human and financial resource allocations should also be accurately captured and documented to support decision making and reporting

2. The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs, as part of its ongoing policy framework review exercise, should ensure that all SIU-related policy instruments and guidance documents are aligned with the CSC SIU objectives; and that employee roles, responsibilities, and expectations are clearly articulated and understood

3. The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs, while considering safety, security, and cost, should review the infrastructure and equipment in place within SIUs to determine whether enhancements or improvements should be made to support the achievement of SIU objectives

4. The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs should re-examine the access to, and delivery of correctional interventions for inmates in the SIU to ensure that interventions are meeting SIU objectives

5. The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs, in collaboration with the Senior Deputy Commissioner, should develop a data strategy to improve data quality, accuracy, and completeness; and to reduce duplication of data entry