A review of use of force in three types of correctional facilities

The authors would like to thank Sulaimon Giwa, Anik Milliard, and Mylene Poulin for their assistance in coding the use of force files and the Offender Management System (OMS) data. Appreciation is extended to Andrew Harris and Caroline Pagé for their role in developing this research project. Finally, the authors wish to express sincere gratitude to Lynn Stewart, Brian Grant, Jenelle Power, and Amy Usher for their guidance and editing expertise on earlier drafts of the paper.

The study provides a descriptive analysis of a sample of 185 randomly selected use of force incidents investigated by the Correctional Service of Canada’s Incident Investigations Branch (CSC) between 2003 and 2007. The reports were stratified to equally represent each of the four years in the study and categorised into three groups based on types of institutions where the event occurred: treatment centres, non-treatment centre institutions, and institutions for women. The study examined how use of force was carried out within CSC, the circumstances that triggered the use of force, the type of offenders involved in the incidents, and how well staff complied with policies related to use of force. Data collection was completed from two sources: (1) file reviews of the use of force incidents from records management at National Headquarters; and (2) background information on the offenders involved in the incidents from the Offender Management System.

Of the 185 cases reviewed, 64% of incidents were from treatment centres, 26% were from men’s institutions, and 9% were from women’s institutions. Results from this research indicate that the most common reasons for CSC staff to use force were due to offenders refusing direct orders or becoming aggressive or threatening. It was more common in the women’s institutions that use of force occurred due to an offender initiating self-injurious behaviour. Overall, it appears that use of force is applied when offenders become non-compliant towards correctional staff orders or when they behave violently towards staff or themselves.

The most frequent types of force applied were verbal orders, followed by physical handling/escort, and the use of restraint equipment (soft restraints, handcuffs, leg irons, or body belts). Other common types of force used were Institutional Emergency Response Team presence and chemical agents/inflammatory sprays. In the course of the use of force incidents reviewed, the majority of inmates and staff received no injuries. When injuries occurred, they were minor including scratches, bruises and eye irritation. Fourteen offenders from the sample made allegations of excessive use of force. Upon review, however, all these allegations were ruled unfounded.

Once use of force has been administered, the incident must undergo an institutional, regional, and national review related to Health Care involvement in the incident and post incident. These reviews indicated that the majority of violations of health care guidelines were technical or administrative in nature. Although a significant proportion of the incidents involved procedural violations, most of these were related to issues of problematic documentation or video recording.

The most common violation was related to documentation not being appropriately completed or signed.

It is not unexpected to find that incarcerated individuals can be uncooperative and, at times, physically resist correctional staff (Hemmens & Atherton, 1999). Correctional institutions are by nature restrictive organizations that require routine interactions between officers and inmates. Physical confrontations will inevitably occur during these interactions, drawing attention to critical issues related to of use of force (Griffin, 2001; Hemmens & Atherton, 1999).

In the course of performing their duties correctional officers will at times be called upon to use force against an inmate for a variety of reasons: self-defence, in defence of others (staff or inmates), protection of property, maintain compliance with institutional rules and regulations, or even to maintain institutional safety and security (Hemmens & Atherton, 1999). Correctional officers must be ready to use force or the threat of use of force to gain compliance as a part of security operations (Griffin, 2001). However, the method on which the officer relies to gain control over inmate behaviour needs to be carefully considered and the least restrictive force, depending on the circumstances, should be applied (Hemmens & Atherton, 1999).

Use of force in corrections has become a more salient topic as the oversight of corrections by the public and courts has increased over the years (Champion, 1998; Jacobs, 1977). Correctional officers are no longer protected from public and judicial scrutiny; every action in the correctional system is tracked and every decision is subjected to review (Hemmens & Stohr, 2001). The key question is not whether use of force has a place in prisons since it is a necessary component in the arsenal of methods used to ensure compliance in these institutions, instead, the question is, under what circumstances can force be used in prisons and how much force can be or should be exerted.

There is a substantial literature on the nature and extent of police power to use force or deadly force with respect to the meaning of rule of law. The rule of law within a liberal democracy requires that individual fundamental human rights such as the right to life, liberty, and security be prioritised. If, for example, use of force by the police is exercised arbitrarily and excessively, not only are legal rules violated, but the rule of law itself is jeopardized (Mars, 1998).

The democratic rule of law in the literature on policing can also be applied to the use of force by correctional officers. On one side, officers have the right and duty to use force in certain circumstances. On the other hand, “…every prisoner has the right to be free of both offensive bodily contact and the fear of offensive bodily contact” (Hemmens & Stohr, 2001, p: 30; Palmer & Palmer, 1999). This includes the right to be free from any unwarranted attack from other inmates and correctional officers (Hemmens & Atherton, 1999). To avoid jeopardizing the democratic rule of law by the use of force, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) has developed a mission statement, principles and policies which reinforce the rule of law under all circumstances (CSC, 2008). CSC is committed to protecting staff and inmates, but does not condone unwarranted and unlawful use of force.

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act specifically requires correctional staff to use the “least restrictive alternative” within a range of legal or approved options when dealing with situations of conflict. This requirement is most relevant when force is required. Correctional staff “are accounTable for using only as much force as is believed, in good faith and on reasonable grounds, to be necessary to carry out their legal duties” (CSC, 2008, para. 5.3.4).

In the past 30 years, there has been a marked increase in research on use of force within the criminal justice system. The majority of that research, however, is found in the policing literature focusing on a police officer’s use of deadly force (Griffin, 2001). There has been little research on the issue of use of force within the correctional setting, leaving such topics as use of force by correctional officers as well as officers’ attitudes toward use of force relatively unexplored (Griffin, 2001; Hemmens & Stohr, 2001). Due to this lack of research, many academics have turned to the literature on police use of force to gain insight into the use of force by correctional officers (Griffin, 2001).

According to the literature on policing, there are three categories of variables associated with police use of force: (1) individual variables such as age, race, gender, and tenure; (2) situation variables which include the number of police present, the behaviour of the accused, and the seriousness of the offence; and (3) organizational variables such as style of policing and type of department (Friedrich, 1980; Riksheim & Chermak, 1993; Worden, 1995). Of these three variable categories, “…situational or organizational variables, and not individual level variables, are better predictors of an officer’s use of force” (Griffin, 2001, p: 89; Riksheim & Chermak, 1993; Bayley & Garofalo, 1989). However, only a few variables associated with a policing situation (e.g., visibility, legal issues, and seriousness) and a police organization (e.g., patrol strategy and department type) can be correlated with the situational and organizational variables of a correctional setting (Griffin, 2001). The literature of police use of force has only provided limited insight into the use of force by correctional officers which serves to highlight the need for research on use of force in correctional settings.

The research that exists on use of force in correctional settings is qualitative in nature and limited in generalizability (Jacobs, 1977; Lombardo, 1989; Marquart, 1986). The focus of these studies is most often on correctional officers, examining such factors as their attitude, demeanour, or the approach they take to particular situations. According to one study, “…excessive use of force by correctional officers is based on correctional officer subcultural norms supporting violence against inmates, and [these norms are] based on correctional officer fear and mistrust of inmates, and the inability of officers to establish meaningful relationships with inmates, which leads to them failing to see inmates as human beings” (Hemmens & Stohr, 2001, p: 29; Toch, 1978). Research on the inappropriate use of force by correctional officers is limited, and what is available is largely anecdotal in nature (Marquart & Roebuck, 1995; Hemmens & Stohr, 2001).

Due to the very nature and business of the Correctional Service of Canada, it is to be expected that threats to offenders, staff and institutional security may arise. Of concern is how staff members deal with these incidents and handle offender behaviour. By definition, the use of force is

The decision to use force by the CSC staff can be either spontaneous or planned in accordance to the non-compliance and/or threatening behaviour of the offender. A spontaneous use of force usually involves an immediate intervention by staff requiring at least one of the aforementioned use of force measures to safely resolve a situation (CSC, 2009a). On the other hand, a planned use of force requires the deployment of line staff and ERT in conjunction with a minimum of one of the use of force measures to properly handle a security incident.

For the purposes of this study, it is important to make the distinction between a reporTable and a non-reporTable use of force incident. The following conditions constitute when a use of force incident should be reported: (a) any spontaneous incident that requires CSC staff to respond to an inmate’s behaviour in accordance with the Situation Management Model (SMM)^{Footnote 1}, and (b) any pre-planned incident that involves cell extractions and an IERT since all attempts by the crisis negotiator failed or was inappropriate (even if the inmate becomes complaint when the IERT arrives, this is still considered a use of force (CSC, 2009b). In contrast, any incident that requires the use of restraint equipment, such as when an offender is being moved or escorted, should not be reported unless the inmate becomes resistive or disruptive (CSC, 2009b).

All applications of use of force must be consistent with the Situation Management Model (SMM). The SMM (Appendix B) is designed to guide decisions on how to intervene in the management of situations that jeopardize the security of an institution and must be used to provide the safest and most reasonable measures in preventing, responding to, and resolving such situations (CSC, 2009a, p. 3). The Model is divided into separate levels which progressively increase in the use of force. The higher levels may only be used providing that the lower levels prove to be ineffective or in situations when the inmate’s behaviour has elevated to levels where lesser restrictive use of force would be assumed ineffective. The lowest level consists of verbal intervention, conflict resolution, and verbal orders. The next level provides the guidelines for the use of restraint equipment which can be used in routine situations such as during an escort or in situations when the inmate’s behaviour lies within the cooperative to assaultive range. Hard restraints include handcuffs, leg irons, body belts, and lead chains while soft restraints, typically reserved for physical or mental health purposes, include leather belts, straps, and restraint jackets. The next level includes inflammatory sprays, chemical agents, and physical handling. The penultimate level is the use of batons and other intermediary weapons such as canines and high pressure water. The final level is the use of firearms which can be utilised only in cases when the inmate poses a threat of death or grievous bodily harm or is attempting to escape from a medium or maximum security institution. The Use of Force Management Model is a required component in staff training and is applied in all cases where force is considered (CSC, 2008).

Most often these intervention strategies are formulated in advance whenever the line-staff has the opportunity (based on the availability of time and/or circumstances) or in some cases, this strategy may have to be developed simultaneously during the ongoing incident (CSC, 2009a). If a situation requires the ERT team, an intervention strategy must be developed according to SMEAC which is a five-step process that focuses on the situation, mission, execution, administration, and communication (CSC, 2009a). To ensure accountability, all intervention strategies must be documented, and, when possible, video-recorded by the staff involved.

There are several procedures that need to be followed when using force in CSC. The actual use of force must be in accordance with the principles set out in paragraphs six to eight of the Commissioner's Directive (CD) 567 (CSC, 2009b). Use of Force implies a level of coercion; however, the graduation range of Use of Force options includes several first order strategies that do not involve physical intervention. If the use of force involves restraint equipment, chemical agents, inflammatory sprays, or firearms, then it must follow the procedures stated in CD 567-3, CD 567-4, and CD 567-5. Finally, staff response to all incidents when the use of force is conducted should follow the approved training standards outlined by the Director General of Learning and Development (CSC, 2009b).

Another set of procedures involves recording the use of force on video. An audio-video recording should be provided for every pre-planned use of force or when it is reasonable to believe that a use of force will occur. Such incidents where audio-video recording is required include: cell extraction, IERT deployment, major security incidents, strip searches with a belief that use of force is necessary, and other incidents that the Institutional Head has reasonable belief that force may be necessary due to past history, present behaviour, and current placement (CSC, 2009b). Video recording should begin once the incident has been identified. Once identified, the camera operator shall begin the recording by stating the date and time and electronically inputting it into the video machine. It is the camera operator’s responsibility to record all briefings to staff unless a delay can result in serious injury, loss of life, or destruction of evidence. It should also be noted that during a strip search and use of the shower, the camera operator must be of the same sex as the inmate to ensure the inmate’s safety and minimise violations of privacy (CSC, 2009b). As well, it is important that during a compliant strip search, a privacy barrier (which can be a curtain, wall, door, or anything that would impede visual inspection) should separate the inmate from the camera operator. If the strip search is non-compliant, then it may be necessary to have nudity on film to capture both the staff and inmate simultaneously (CSC, 2009b).

Of particular interest to this study is the quality of health care (HC) provided by Health Services after a use of force incident. According to policy, a health care practitioner (HCP) should examine every offender and staff member who was involved in the use of force incident. The physical assessment of the inmate should be conducted once he or she has been decontaminated^{Footnote 2} or during the post use of force. The location of the physical assessment ought to be in the final cell destination for the inmate, and if deemed appropriate by the officer in charge, without any restraint equipment. If the assessment is conducted with restraint equipment, then a final HC check must be performed (of the wrist/ankle areas covered by the equipment) when the inmate is in his or her cell with the restraint equipment removed (CSC, 2009a). It is important to note that the “…inmate has the right to refuse the health care practitioner’s offer of a health service examination subsequent to a use of force” (CSC, 2004, p. 2), and if the inmate consents to a physical assessment, it should be video recorded. Additionally, if an inmate does refuse a HC assessment, according to the Health Service Guidelines, a second offer must be made within an hour of the initial refusal. This way Health Services can verify that they have offered the inmate all possible opportunities for a HC assessment related to the use of force incident.

There are several procedures that must be met for the physical assessment of a use of force incident. It is the duty of the correctional manager in charge to brief the HCP on the type(s) of force used, how the inmate responded to the force, and that the briefing be video-recorded. Furthermore, the offer of a physical assessment, and any subsequent offers, must also be video-recorded (CSC, 2009a). By no means is a HCP allowed to be a member of the IERT, or similarly, an officer is not allowed to be involved in the physical assessment due to the possibility of conflict between these two roles. However, the IERT does have the responsibility to determine when and where the HCP can be involved in the use of force incident before they are needed for the HC examination (CSC, 2004). As previously mentioned, a HCP must examine every staff member involved in the use of force incident. This examination must be documented in the Use of Force Report and the Officer’s Statement/Observation Report. Also, “…the physical assessment of a staff member must never be video-recorded and the name of the staff member must not be noted in the documentation” (CSC, 2009a, p.16). Finally, the physical assessment must end with the HCP giving a video-recorded synopsis of the examination. What should not appear in this synopsis is the required treatment of the inmate following the examination, as per CD 844 (CSC, 2009a). An incident involving the use of force is considered over once the inmate has been decontaminated, examined by the HCP and the practitioner updates the Use of Force report with the details of the examination and any recommendation for further medical treatment (CSC, 2004).

Once the use of force incident has been completed, it is the responsibility of the institution to provide the appropriate documentation. This includes: (a) Use of Force Report; (b) Officer’s Statement/Observation Report; (c) the Situation, Mission, Execution, Administration and Communications (SMEAC) action plan, which is signed by the Institutional Head and IERT leader; (d) an offender’s version of the incident which most often asks the inmate if there was an excessive use of force; (e) checklist of the Health Services review of the use of force; (f) Offender Management System Incident Report; (g) Seclusion and Restraint Observation Report; (h) Post Search Report; (i) ReporTable Use of Force, Post-incident Checklist; and (j) any other related documents (CSC, 2009a). Having these reporting requirements in place is important so that the incident can be documented and inputted into the Incident Report Screens of the Offender Management System (OMS) (CSC, 2009b).

The final step of the response to a use of force incident is to provide a review of the incident from the institutional, regional, and national levels. In general, the following documentation is subject to review: “(a) the video [recording]; (b) the Use of Force Report; (c) all Officer’s Statement/Observation Reports; (d) the SMEAC or action plan submitted to the Institutional Head; (e) the inmate’s written version; and (f) other related documentation” (CSC, 2009b, para. 28). At the institutional level, the Institutional Head will review the use of force documentation, and will be provided with expert advice by the Chief of Health Care on the decontamination procedures and examination of staff and inmates involved. The Institutional Head has 20 calendar days to review the incident, complete section VI of the Use of Force Report, provide recommendations for any violations of guidelines, policy, Provincial Mental Health Act, or Professional Code of Conduct, and forward all related documentation to the Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Operations and the Correctional Investigator for a regional review (CSC, 2009a; CSC, 2009b). The Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Operations at the regional level will then review the use of force incident. In this stage, the Regional Administrator of Health Care will assist in the regional review when force was used to administer a medical treatment or provide expert advice in such areas as decontamination and health examinations. The Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Operations will fill in section VII of the Use of Force Report and will have 25 calendar days to complete the review, provide recommendation(s), and forward all documentation for national review by the Director General of Security (CSC, 2009b). National level reviews must be completed within 30 working days from the date the package was received. The Director General of Security will then forward the national review to the Deputy Commissioner for Women involving any cases with women offenders, the Director General of Clinical Services for cases involving medical interventions, the Director General of Investigations, and the Director General of Rights, Redress, and Resolution (CSC, 2009a). From this national review, follow-ups and recommendations will be provided for any violations of guidelines, policy, Provincial Mental Health Act, or Professional Code of Conduct from the institutional or regional level.

In 2009, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) produced a report based on the statistical information generated from the Use of Force Data Collection Sheets collected by the Health Services Branch. This summary report covers the period from May 4th, 2007 to March 8th, 2009. It provides a summary of use of force incidents nationally, comparing treatment and non-treatment institutions, a quarterly report using incidents from 2008, and five regional reports summarizing each region’s use of force. There were several key findings from this report: treatment centres have more spontaneous use of force incidents (n = 143) than planned incidents (n = 81) (Archambault, 2009, p.3); the most common reasons for using force included refusing orders issued by CSC staff, self-injurious behaviour by the offender, behavioural concerns, and staff assault. The most frequent types of force used were physical handling, physical restraints (i.e. handcuffs), soft restraints (i.e. 4 or 6 point), hard restraints (i.e. leg irons), and Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) spray. Finally, several health care guideline and policy violations were noted from the use of force incidents which included: documentation not appropriately completed or signed, no health care assessment debrief on camera, health care provider did not introduce themselves, non-compliance with CD-844 involving use of restraint equipment, and the Regional Director of Health Services did not review the use of force file (Archambault, 2009, p. 4). This report was meant to provide Health Services with information pertaining to the use of force in the last two years, and was a starting point for the current study that is designed to provide more extensive research on use of force in the CSC.

The current report is based on a retrospective study of 185 files of randomly selected use of force investigations that occurred in CSC between 2003 and 2007. The purpose of this study is to provide a descriptive analysis of use of force incidents to examine how the use of force is carried out by CSC staff in three different types of correctional facilities. This study also examines the quality of service provided to staff and inmates by Health Services following the use of force and describes the profile of offenders who are involved in use of force incidents. The results from this report may contribute to planning for staff training on procedures related to security incidents at correctional sites.

From beginning of 2003 to the end of 2007, the Incident Investigation Branch conducted 874 use of force investigations. Incidents occurring in institutions for men, institutions for women, and treatment centres were investigated. The investigation criteria for the investigation into use of force incidents varied between treatment centres and non treatment centres. All use of force incidents that occurred in treatment centres were subject to investigation. Incident investigations for non-treatment centre sites, however, are conducted on the basis of a set of criteria established by the Incident Investigation Branch. Each month, one case is randomly selected from each region for review. Additional cases may be selected for review based on concerns surrounding incidents identified by the Security Branch or the Women Offenders Sector. As well, all incidents at a given institution may be reviewed if problems were identified in previous reviews. As a result of these criteria, the pool of non-treatment centre cases reviewed is not well defined. The present sample, therefore, may represent a biased set of reports, likely in favour of the most serious incidents.

From the 874 reports of incidents, a random sample of 185 investigation reports (approximately equally distributed across each year over the four year period) was selected for this study. From these 185 files, one offender was randomly selected from each incident file, even though in some instances more than one offender was involved in the incident. In some cases, the same offender was randomly selected twice because he or she had been involved in more than one use of force incident. The final research sample consisted of 158 offenders since offenders involved in repeat incidents were counted only once. When the offender was involved in multiple cases, the most recent case was selected.

From the 158 offenders, three sub-groups were identified for cross-comparison based on the type of facility where the incidents occurred. The first group consisted of male and female offenders who resided in treatment centres in all five regions of the CSC (n = 97; 94 males and 3 females). The second group comprised male offenders who were incarcerated at non-treatment institutions across Canada (n = 47). Finally, a group of women offenders (n = 14) was identified from various non-treatment institutions.

Supplementary data for this study was extracted from the Offender Management System (OMS), the official electronic record on all federally sentenced offenders. Data from this source was used to provide a more complete profile of the offenders involved in the use of force incidents. Risk variables were drawn from the Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) which is a comprehensive evaluation conducted on all incoming offenders to CSC. The Dynamic Factors Identification and Analysis (DFIA) component of the OIA assesses a wide variety of dynamic risk factors grouped into seven domains, with each domain consisting of multiple indicators that guide the final domain rating. The DFIA yields ratings of need levels for each domain, as well as an overall level of dynamic need which is categorized as low, moderate, or considerable (high). The principle tool used for assessing risk level in federal male offenders is the Statistical Information on Recidivism (SIR) Scale which is based on static risk factors. The final score provides estimates of risk from very good to very poor. In addition to this tool, the Static Factors Assessment (SFA) provides comprehensive information pertaining to the criminal history and risk factors of each offender yielding an overall level of low, medium, or high static risk assigned to offenders at their time of admission. CSC policy does not permit the use of the SIR for Aboriginal offenders. For this report, an estimate of risk for Aboriginal offenders is provided through the overall static risk rating.

The Computerized Substance Abuse Assessment (CASA) is the part of the intake assessment that evaluates the extent of substance misuse and its relationship to offending. This assessment procedure includes the results of several well validated measures of substance misuse including the 20-item Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST) (Skinner, 1982), the Alcohol Dependency Scale (ADS) (Skinner & Horn, 1984), the 15-item Problems Related to Drinking Scale (PRD, derived from the MAST; Seltzer, 1971). The CASA uses the DAST, ADS, and the PRD to derive overall substance abuse scores and program referral recommendations.

The sample of non-treatment centre incidents of use of force was comprised solely of male offenders. The sample of cases from the women’s facilities is described in a separate section. The average age of the men who were involved in use of force incidents in theses institutions was 31.8 (SD = 9.45). The demographic and historical characteristics of the men are presented in Table 1. A considerable proportion of men were assessed as high needs and high risk. For the most part, the men were single, separated, or divorced. About 13% were of Aboriginal ethnicity, a rate somewhat lower than the 19% proportion in the general CSC population. More than a quarter had a history of self-injurious behaviour and had a documented psychiatric diagnosis in their lifetime. The most common diagnoses included substance abuse disorders, antisocial personality disorders, and mood disorders.

The majority of the men involved in the incidents were serving a sentence for a violent offence (85.1%, n = 40). Of these men, nine were serving a current sentence for homicide or manslaughter, one offender was serving a sentence for sexual assault and the rest had been sentenced for assault, robbery, arson, etc. Only a small number of men were serving a sentence for a non-violent offence (14.9%, n = 7), including drug offences, property offences and fraud. Almost 45% of the men were serving sentences of less than five years (see Table 2).

The incidents of use of force in the non-treatment centres are drawn from the five correctional regions of CSC (see Table 3). The Atlantic region is the smallest by population; therefore, the data suggest that this region has a disproportionately greater number of incidents relative to its size while Prairie region and Pacific regions have fewer. This should not be interpreted as meaning that use of force was more common in the Atlantic Region, however, since the sampling criteria used by the Investigations Branch could have accounted for the disproportionate numbers in some regions.

The location where the use of force occurred within the non-treatment centres is presented in Table 4. About a quarter of the men were involved in a use of force incident either on the range outside of their cell or in a common room area such as workroom, yard, shower room, or recreation rooms. The majority of all use of force incidents (87.8%, n = 43) occurred outside of the offenders’ cells in the general population.

Each incident could have multiple reasons why force was used. These are presented in Table 5. The incidents most frequently involved force in response to inmates refusing orders issued by staff (63.3%, n = 31) or involved incidents where inmates were threatening or aggressive (49.0%, n = 24). Eight percent of incidents were in response to self harming incidents. Together, these results suggest that staff applied the use of force when inmates became non-compliant towards correctional staff orders or for when they were acting in a disruptive or violent manner.

Table 6 shows the type and frequency of use of force used in the sample of incidents from non-treatment centres. For most use of force incidents, verbal orders were given most commonly (89.9%, n = 44) followed by a combination of physical handling/escort (73.5%, n = 36) and the use of restraints (81.6%, n = 40). A tenth of all incidents did not involve verbal orders and required a stronger initial response (i.e., physical handling, chemical agents, inflammatory spray, restraints, and institutional emergency response team [IERT] presence).

Almost three-quarters of the incidents (69.4%, n = 34) involved correctional staff using spontaneous, rather than planned, force. The majority of all incidents of use of force required the involvement of correctional officers (77.67%, n = 38); the IERT were involved in under one-third of the incidents (30.6%, n = 15). In considering injuries sustained during use of force incidents, results demonstrated that neither staff nor offenders sustained major injuries. Only minimal injuries were sustained by staff (10.2%, n = 5) or inmates (32.7%, n = 16), which were addressed by health care staff within the institution. Examples of these minor injuries are: eye irritation from the chemical sprays, sore wrists because of the use of restraints, bruises from offender assault. In six of the 49 incidents, allegations of excessive use of force were made by the offenders involved. All these complaints were investigated and all were deemed unfounded or not upheld.

Table 7 presents violations of the health care guidelines that were most frequently cited in the incidents reviewed for non treatment centre institutions. Guidelines violations that occurred only once or twice (i.e., in less than 5% of incidents involving guideline violations) were not included. Three-quarters of the incidents involved at least one health care guideline violation. Of these, the majority were for technical or administrative issues. For example, slightly more than a quarter of the incidents reviewed involved a violation in which the health care documentation was not appropriately completed or signed.

In addition to the guideline violations, a number of the incidents had procedural violations (see Table 8) which involved issues related to failure to properly document (40.8%, n = 20) or problems with video recording of the incidents (69.4%, n = 34).

The characteristics of the inmates in treatment centres involved in a use of force incident are presented in Table 9. The sample was typically male, Caucasian, and their mean age was 33.62 (SD = 9.99) years. The majority of men were single, separated, divorced, or widowed. Nearly a quarter of the sample was of Aboriginal ethnicity (23.7%, n = 23). The individuals in the sample were generally evaluated as high needs and high risk, had a history of self-injurious behaviour, and had a documented lifetime psychiatric diagnosis. The most common diagnoses included substance abuse disorders, antisocial personality disorders, and schizophrenia/psychotic disorders.

Table 10 shows that the majority of the inmates within the treatment centre sample were currently serving a sentence for a violent offence (84.5%, n = 82). Of the most serious violent offences, 14 inmates were serving a sentence for homicide or manslaughter, 13 inmates for sexual assault, and the rest had been sentenced for assault, robbery, arson, etc. Only a small percentage (15.5%, n = 15) of inmates were serving sentences for non-violent offences, which include drug, property, and fraud related offences. Approximately half of this sample was serving custodial sentences of less than five years (see Table 10).

The majority of inmates involved in incidents of use of force in the treatment centres were men; only three were women and all of these were housed in the Regional Psychiatric Centre located in the Prairie Region (Table 11).

Over half of the use of force incidents occurred in the offenders’ cells (see Table 12). Other incidents took place on the range (19.3%, n = 23) and in common room areas (19.3%, n = 23). These results show a pattern where the use of force in treatment centres generally occurs within the general population and are rarely occurs in specialized areas such as segregation.

The results presented in Table 13 indicate that in 50% of cases one of the reasons use of force was applied was that an inmate refused staff orders. Other common reasons for the use of force were related to offenders’ acts of violence against others or themselves.

There were more spontaneous (55.5%, n = 66) use of force incidents than planned (44.5%, n = 53) in the treatment centres. Of the various types of force applied during a use of force incident within treatment centres, it was most common for verbal orders to be initially issued followed by the use of physical handling/escort (see Table 14). Restraint equipment was also used in nearly three-quarters of incidents while the IERT presence was used in less than half of the incidents. Other types of force were used less frequently.

Correctional officers (62.2%, n = 74) and the IERT teams (41.2%, n =49) were the staff most frequently involved during a use of force incident within treatment centres. There were no major injuries suffered by staff or inmates during the use of force in treatment centres. Minor injuries such as bruises, scratches, or eye irritation from chemicals were sustained by staff in 13.4% of the incidents (n = 16) and by inmates in 30.3% (n = 36) of incidents.

Following the 119 incidents there were a total of seven allegations of excessive use of force made by inmates. All were investigated and determined to be unfounded.

A sample of recommendations issued following a health care review of guideline violations is presented in Table 15. Slightly more than a quarter of use of force incidents had no guideline violations (26.9%, n = 32). The use of force incidents that did have guideline violations were for technical or administrative issues. For example, approximately a third of all issued recommendations within treatment centres were the result of documentation issues. The technical issues generally occurred in fewer than 10% of incidents, the most common being ‘no video/DVD or blank’.

The types of procedural violations that occurred during the use of force incidents are presented in Table 16. Eighty-one percent of the incidents had a use of force procedural violation (n = 96). As was the case in the non treatment centre setting, the most frequent procedural violations involved administrative issues such as incomplete documentation (34.5%, n = 41) and the package for the use of force review being past due date (21.8%, n = 26) . Reoccurring violations involved various video recording issues.

Sample characteristics ^{Footnote 3}

The offender group from the institutions for women had an average age of 27.4 (SD = 9.22). The demographic and historical characteristics of the women are presented in Table 17. Approximately three-quarters of the women in the sample were classified as high risk and high needs. Close to one-quarter of the women were Aboriginal, a proportion lower than the representation of Aboriginal women in the general population which is 34%^{Footnote 4} and, the majority of the sample were identified as single or divorced. Most of the women (85%) had a history of self-injurious behaviour and slightly less than half had a documented lifetime psychiatric diagnosis. The most common diagnoses included substance abuse disorders and borderline personality disorders.

Nearly all of the women were serving a sentence for a violent offence, with the most serious violent offences being homicide or manslaughter and the rest being assault, robbery, and arson. Only one offender was serving a current sentence for a non-violent offence which was drug and property related. Approximately half of the women were serving sentences of fewer than five years (see Table 18).

An examination of the distribution of the sample of use of force incidents in institutions for women (see Table 19) reveals that more than a third of the incidents were from the Atlantic region and no incidents were from the Pacific region. Again, this proportion may not reflect the actual numbers of incidents in each region; rather it could be an artifact of the sampling procedure used by the Investigations Branch to select investigations for review. Slightly more than half of the incidents (52.9%, n = 9) involved a planned use of force.

Table 20 presents the locations where the use of force incident occurred in the institutions for women. As presented in the Table , approximately three-quarters of all use of force incidents occurred in areas outside of the offenders’ cells.

Table 21 provides the reasons for the use of force. Incidents can involve multiple reasons for use of force. More than 75% of the incidents involved refusing orders and in 35% of incidents use of force was used because were engaging in self-injurious behaviour or suicide attempts. Over 40% N=7) of the incidents involved use of force in response to violent or threatening behaviours toward others.

The type and frequency of use of force used in the sample of incidents from institutions for women are presented in Table 22. For all the incidents of use of force, verbal orders were given to the women. This is consistent with the use of force management model that requires that the first option used by staff should be to intervene verbally. Following the verbal orders, most incidents either involved the use of restraints (94.1%, n = 16) and/or physical handling/escort (70.6%, n = 12). Close to half of the incidents required the presence of the IERT team

Finally, the majority of all incidents of use of force required the involvement of correctional officers (70.6%, n = 12). Results indicate that neither staff nor the offenders sustained a major injury during the incidents of use of force. Minimal injuries were sustained by staff in one incident and by the offenders in four incidents. There was only one allegation of excessive use of force which was not upheld upon review.

Approximately 65% of the use of force incidents sampled involved some kind of violation of health care guidelines. These violations were either technical (such as problems with video recording or documentation) or administrative (some aspect of the health care assessment of the staff and inmates involved in the incident was over-looked). Table 23 presents information on the types of health care guideline violations that occurred in these cases.

Table 24 presents the use of force procedure violations that were present in 5% or more of the use of force incidents in the women’s facilities. More than a quarter of the incidents had procedure violations that involved documentation (35.3%, n = 6) or video recording issues (76.5%, n = 13). These violations were identified through the various levels of review in CSC (institutional, regional, and national) and recommendations for remediation were made.

This study researched patterns in the use of force within three types of correctional facilities in CSC: non-treatment centres, treatment centres, and institutions for women. The profile of offenders involved in the incidents across each type of institution was similar in that they were generally high risk and high needs and were serving a sentence for a violent offence. Offenders from the treatment centres and the women’s facilities had significant histories of self-injurious behaviour and high rates of documented psychiatric diagnoses. Almost half of the offenders in the total sample were serving a sentence of less than five years.

Within the non-treatment centres, there were more spontaneous use of force incidents reported (almost three-quarters of the incidents) while in the treatment centres and institutions for women there were roughly equal numbers of planned versus spontaneous use of force. It was most common for the use of force to occur within the offenders’ cells in treatment centres, on the range in the non-treatment centres, and within segregation in the institutions for women.

Across all three institutional types the majority of use of force incidents resulted from offenders refusing orders or becoming aggressive or threatening. Although this pattern is observed within institutions for women, it is more common in the women’s facilities than in the men’s facilities and the treatment centres for the use of force to occur when an inmate has engaged in self-injurious behaviour or a suicide attempt than in response to aggressive or threatening behaviour. Overall, the pattern is that when the use of force is applied it is in response to inmates become non-compliant towards staff orders or when they behave violently towards staff or themselves. The type of force applied by correctional staff most frequently involves verbal orders. Verbal orders were used in more than 90% of use of force incidents. A combination of physical handling/escort or use of restraint equipment was commonly applied method during the use of force across all institutional types. There was also frequent use of the IERT during use of force incidents. The pattern of results is consistent with the graduated application of force as stipulated in the use of force management model (see Appendix A).

Correctional officers were the most frequent type of staff involved in a use of force among all institutional types. While injuries were sustained to both staff and offenders during the incidents, none of these were major. Although there were several allegations of excessive use of force made against the correctional staff, all allegations were investigated and determined to be unfounded. This suggests that CSC correctional staff had taken appropriate measures and precautions to reduce the occurrence of injuries and bring a resolution to the situation by using appropriate force.

Across the three institutional types, the results showed that there were violations of health care guidelines in 75% of the incidents sampled. These violations, however, were technical or administrative. The most common violation across all three institutional types was related to the documentation not being appropriately completed or signed. Similarly, documentation and video recording issues were the most frequent procedural violations among the three types institutional types. No major violations had been reported during the review process.

The small sample size for the treatment centres and woman offenders’ institutions makes it difficult to draw conclusion on differences between the three institutional groups. A further issue is the uncertainty of the sampling procedure for the selection of use of force reports applied by the Investigations Branch. It is not clear what percentage of the actual use of force incidents in the women offender institutions and the non-treatment institutions this sample represents and it is not clear as to the criteria for the selection of use of force incident reports that were forwarded from the Investigations Branch to Health Services. For the treatment centres, however, the reports selected by the Investigations Branch represent all use of force incidents so those randomly selected for this research study should be representative of use of force incidents in these facilities. Given that one of the criteria for an incident to receive a national review is that it be considered serious, it is possible that this study has a selection bias that has provided an over-estimation of how frequently the more restrictive use of force measures were applied. Future research on use of force incidents should clearly define the selection process in identifying the incidents for examination in order to have a better indication of whether these incidents are representative of general use of force incidents in CSC.

There are several implications of the study worth noting. One of CSC’s priorities is to provide safety and security for staff and offenders in the institutions and to use the least restrictive measures to provide this security. The findings in this study suggest that, on balance, this goal is achieved with verbal orders and physical handling/escorting being applied before the use of restraint equipment, chemical/inflammatory sprays, or IERT. Notably, the sample did not contain a single case of an offender or staff person sustaining serious injury during an incident. Secondly, this study demonstrates that the violations of guidelines related to health care services during use of force incidents are largely administrative and violations of use of force procedures are for administrative and technical issues. To minimize these administrative and technical violations, staff training could include a focus on ensuring the provision of required documentation related to the incidents and the proper use of video recording equipment. Finally, the study identifies the characteristics of the sample of offenders involved in incidents where use of force was applied across different facilities. For the most part, the sample of offenders used in this study involved in use of force incidents were high needs and high risk, with approximately half of them having histories of psychiatric diagnoses and self-injury. This information can assist security and health care staff in planning for training on the most effective ways to maintain order at correctional sites.

Archambault, K. (in press). Summary report of the key findings from the Use of Force Data Collection Sheets: Health Services. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Bayley, D. H., & Garofalo, G. (1989). The management of violence by police officers. Criminology, >27, 1-25.

Canadian Heritage. (2005). Human Rights Program: Articles 12 and 13. Retrieved from http://www.canadianheritage/gc/ca/prgs/pdp-hrp/docs/cat/2005/04_e.cfm

Champion, D. J. (1998). Corrections in the United States: A contemporary perspective (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Correctional Service of Canada. (2004). Guidelines for Health Service responsibilities related to use of force incidents. Ottawa, ON: NHQ Health Services.

Correctional Service of Canada. (2008). Report of the task force on security. Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/security/security-06-eng.shtml

Correctional Service of Canada. (2009a). Commissioner’s Directive 567-1: Use of Force. Ottawa, ON: Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada.

Correctional Service of Canada. (2009b). Commissioner’s Directive 567-1: Use of Force, Policy Bulletin 245. Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/plcy/cdshtm/567-1-cd-eng.shtml

Friedrich, R. J. (1980). Police use of force: Individuals, situations and organizations. Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, 452, 82-97.

Griffin, M. L. (2001). The use of force by detention officers. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.

Hemmens, C., & Atherton, E. (1999). Use of force: Current practice and policy. Lanham, Maryland: American Correctional Association.

Hemmens, C., & Stohr, M. K. (2001). Correctional staff attitudes regarding the use of force in corrections. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(2), 27-40.

Jacobs, J. (1977). Stateville: The penitentiary in mass society. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.

Lombardo, L.X. (1989). Guards imprisoned: Correctional officers at work (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Marquart, J.W. (1986). Doing research in prison: The strengths and weaknesses of full participation as a guard. Justice Quarterly, 3(1), 166-182.

Marquart, J.W., & Roebuck, J.B. (1995). Prison guards and snitches: Social control in a maximum security institution. In K.C. Haas & G.P. Alpert (Eds.), The dilemma of corrections: Contemporary readings (3rd ed., pp. 147-165). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Mars, J. (1998). Deadly force and the rule of law: The Guyana example. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 21(3), 465-478.

Palmer, J., & Palmer, S. (1999). Constitutional rights of prisoners. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Riksheim, E. C., & Chermak, S. M. (1993). Causes of police behaviour revisited. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 353-382.

Selzer, M. L. (1971). The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test: The quest for a new diagnostic instrument. American Journal of Psychiatry, 127, 1653-1658

Skinner, H.A. (1982). The Drug Abuse Screening Test. Addictive Behaviours, 7, 363-371.

Skinner, H.A., & Horn, J.L. (1984). Alcohol Dependence Scale (ADS): User's Guide. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation.

Toch, H. (1978). Is a correctional officer, by any other name, a screw? Criminal Justice Review, 3(2), 19-25.

Worden, J. (1995). The ‘causes’ of police brutality: Theory and evidence on police use of force. In W. Gellar & H. Toch (Eds.), And justice for all: Understanding and controlling police abuse of force (pp.31-60). Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.