Systemic Review of Secure Isolation In Ontario Youth Justice Facilities

Transcription

MON
11:45 AM
IT’S A MATTER OF TIME
SYSTEMIC REVIEW OF SECURE ISOLATION
IN ONTARIO YOUTH JUSTICE FACILITIES
Published by the Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth of Ontario
©2015
IT'S A MATTER OF TIME
SYSTEMIC REVIEW OF SECURE ISOLATION IN ONTARIO YOUTH JUSTICE FACILITIES
Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth of Ontario
Published in 2015 by
Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth
401 Bay Street Suite 2200
Toronto Ontario M7A 0A6
CANADA
www.provincialadvocate.on.ca
advocacy@provincialadvocate.on.ca
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
First Edition
Printed in Ontario Canada
Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication
It's a matter of time : systemic review of secure isolation in Ontario youth
justice facilities.
Issued also in French under title: C'est une question de temps.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Issued in print and electronic formats.
ISBN 978-1-987815-06-1 (paperback).--ISBN 978-1-987815-07-8 (pdf)
1. Juvenile detention homes--Ontario. 2. Solitary confinement--Ontario.
I. Ontario. Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, author, issuing body
HV9109.O5I87 2015
365'.4209713
C2015-904883-4
C2015-904884-2
IT’S A MATTER OF TIME
SYSTEMIC REVIEW OF SECURE ISOLATION
IN ONTARIO YOUTH JUSTICE FACILITIES
MONDAY
TUESDAY
WEDNESDA
THURSDAY
FRIDAY
SATURDAY
9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
10
OVERVIEW
14
LITERATURE REVIEW AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
20
ANALYSIS OF MINISTRY OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES DATA
38
EXPERIENCING SECURE ISOLATION: WHAT YOUTH SAY
49
SECURE ISOLATION UNIT LOGS
51
WHAT ARE THE RULES ABOUT SECURE ISOLATION?
58
CONCLUSIONS
61
RECOMMENDATIONS
62
APPENDIX I: RAW DATA
74
REFERENCES
MONTHLY AVERAGE NUMBER OF YOUNG PEOPLE
IN YOUTH JUSTICE FACILITIES IN ONTARIO,
2013 AND 2014
4
18
FORT SEVERN
3
NEAR NORTH
12
CECIL FACER
7
5
DONALD DOUCETTE
KENORA
FORT FRANCES
9
THUNDER BAY
6
GE-DA-GI BINEZ
11
BLUEWATER
15
12
[Closed prior to 2013]
10
3
RAY OF HOPE
J RONALD LESTER
3
3
CRAIGWOOD
8
4
2
JJ KELSO
2
6
M GENEST
PORTAGE
27
KEY
2013
2014
18
23 23
3
4
PINEGAR
78
SPRUCEDALE
23
19
SYL APPS
7
6
KENNEDY HOUSE
TIMMINS
WILLIAM HAY
3
4
SUNDANCE
SAULT STE. MARIE
16
OTTAWA
12
KINGSTON
TORONTO
11
BROOKSIDE
10
10
6
WINDSOR
ARRELL
PENINSULA
ROY MCMURTRY
64
MON
9:37 PM
“I NEVER KNOW
HOW LONG I’LL BE IN HERE.”
– ANONYMOUS YOUTH
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Solitary confinement, or secure isolation as it is known in
Ontario’s youth justice system, has generated significant
concern both in Canada and internationally. Questions
about the practice have been the focus in two recent inquests into the deaths of young people in this province: Ashley Smith, a teenager who died in a federal penitentiary, and
a young man who passed away in 2008 while incarcerated at
a youth justice facility.
The Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth conducted
this review in order to understand more about the use of
secure isolation in youth justice facilities in Ontario. To
do this, we interviewed 141 youth, obtained statistical information and log data from the Ministry of Children and
Youth Services (“MCYS”) for the periods 2009–2010; 2013
and 2014, and reviewed the 2012 Auditor General of Ontario
Report on youth justice services in Ontario.
This review points to concerns similar to those raised in
the Auditor General’s Report in 2012. The Auditor General
found that 90% of placements in secure isolation occurred
in youth justice facilities directly operated by MCYS. Our
analysis observed a decrease in use by directly operated facilities to 80% in 2013 and 63% in 2014 when compared to
use by facilities operated by transfer payment agencies.
The Auditor General, in their report, explored whether the
higher use of secure isolation related to the placement of
more young people with suspected gang involvement in
MCYS direct operated facilities. Their review found no real
difference in placement of young people with suspected
gang ties in either directly operated or transfer payment
agencies. While we have no data about the involvement of
young people in gangs or their charges, we have no reason to
believe that these young people would be any different than
those described by the Auditor General.
Youth justice facilities vary in size. In particular, one is very
large. We explored the data to try to determine whether facility size relates to the use of secure isolation. We found
no pattern that could account for the difference in use of
secure isolation based on the size of the facility.
The legislation in Ontario allows for use beyond 24 hours
for youth ages 16 and over. This contradicts the opinions of
international experts on the harmful effects from the use
of solitary confinement (secure isolation). Indeed, the consensus is that solitary confinement should not be used at
all with adolescents.
1. overall, there is a general trend towards less use of
secure isolation across the province;
2. a pattern of high use is observed in some facilities;
3. the Advocate is concerned about the number of young
people held in secure isolation beyond 24 hours and
this finding suggests a need for enhanced safeguards;
4. there is an immediate need for vigilance and further
examination of the conditions of confinement, particularly when youth are held for long periods of time.
Young people themselves told us that this practice was
harmful to them and difficult for them to endure. We conclude from our analysis that much more information is
needed to understand the situations in which secure isolation is used, the profile of the youth placed in secure isolation, and the risks that present from prolonged use with an
adolescent population. There is a disproportionate number
of black and aboriginal youth in criminal justice settings
as well as a higher rate of young people with mental health
concerns. We do not have enough information to determine
how often these populations are placed in secure isolation.
Secondary findings include a wide variability of use across
facilities, as well as, considerable variability in the length of
time it is used. There are indications that serious mental
health concerns emerge or are exacerbated during the use of
secure isolation in Ontario. Together, these results suggest
an urgent need for further safeguarding of young people in
Ontario’s youth justice facilities.
Clearly more study is needed and much more information
must be gathered. Given the closed nature of youth criminal justice facilities, it is imperative that there be external
scrutiny of intrusive measures, such as secure isolation, to
prevent its overuse and harmful impacts. With our new understanding of the risks to the adolescent brain, the need for
enhanced safeguards is crucial.
There are four key findings in this report:
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ADVOCATE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH
9
OVERVIEW
“THEY KEPT
LYING, THEY
SAID IT WOULD
BE TWO HOURSIT WAS TWO
DAYS.”
–ANONYMOUS
YOUTH
When children are placed in institutions, they enter a
different world; for those who are not part of that world
it is often a case of “out of sight, out of mind,” Because
society does not see these children, it needs to ensure
that others see them.1
If young people in youth justice facilities are “out of sight,
out of mind,” then those who are sent to secure isolation
cells within those facilities are almost invisible—statistical
shadows on the margins of the youth justice system.
WHAT IS SECURE ISOLATION?
Secure isolation is classified under Ontario law as an
“extraordinary measure” and refers to the locking of a young
person in a specially designated room to isolate him or her
from others. It is meant to be used only when a young person’s conduct indicates that he or she is likely to cause serious bodily harm or serious property damage to another person in the immediate future and no less restrictive manner
of restraining the young person is practical.2
Secure isolation is expected to be the last resort of
behaviour management, when all other less intrusive measures have been considered and used by staff.3 Once the
threat has ended, the law requires the young person to
be released from the secure isolation cell and returned to
the living unit.4
In Ontario, there are laws and regulations about the maximum time a young person can spend in secure isolation.
The Child and Family Services Act specifies that young
people under the age of 16 years cannot be kept in secure
isolation for more than 8 hours in any one day or 24 hours
in any one week.5 The use of secure isolation for those 16
years of age and older is governed by the regulations in
the Child and Family Services Act. These regulations
stipulate that a young person cannot be held in secure iso-
10
IT’S A MATTER OF TIME: SYSTEMIC REVIEW OF SECURE ISOLATION IN ONTARIO YOUTH JUSTICE FACILITIES
OVERVIEW
lation for more than 72 hours unless this is approved by
a provincial director.6
While acknowledging that different jurisdictions use different names for the practice (e.g., segregation, isolation, separation, cellular, lockdown, Supermax, the hole,
Secure Housing Unit), the United Nations Special
Rapporteur on Torture has characterized the isolation of
individuals in a cell for periods of 22 hours per day or longer
as “solitary confinement.”7
WHY IS IT AN IMPORTANT ISSUE?
In 2011, the Special Rapporteur called for an absolute prohibition on the use of solitary confinement for juveniles.8
Serious concerns about the use of solitary confinement have
also been raised by a recent editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.9 Some of these concerns include:
•
•
•
Substantial health effects that may develop within a
few days (e.g., anxiety, depression, anger, worsening of
pre-existing medical conditions, lethargy, insomnia,
palpitations, and anorexia);
Increased risk of self-harm and suicide; and
An increasing body of literature shows that solitary
confinement can change brain activity and result in
symptomatology within seven days.
WHAT IS THE OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL
ADVOCATE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH?
The Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and
Youth (“Advocate’s Office”) is an independent voice for Ontario’s children and youth who are either “in care” or on the
margins of government care. Reporting directly to the Legislature, the Provincial Advocate partners with children and
youth, including those who are First Nations and those with
special needs, to elevate their voices and promote action
on their issues.
The Provincial Advocate derives authority from the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth Act, 2007. In response
to a request, a complaint, or on its own initiative, the Provincial Advocate acts on behalf of concerns of individuals
or groups of children or youth and can undertake reviews,
make recommendations, and provide advice to governments, facilities, systems, agencies, or service providers.
Guided by the principles of the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child, including the right to be heard,
the Provincial Advocate strives to be a model of meaningful
child and youth participation in every aspect of its work.
WHY DID THE PROVINCIAL ADVOCATE
FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH WRITE A
REPORT ABOUT SECURE ISOLATION?
In 2009, the Advocate’s Office became concerned about
the use of secure isolation in Ontario as the result of complaints from youth. The type of complaints received can be
delineated into the following categories: (1) conditions of
confinement (complaints about the general cleanliness of
the cells, presence of bugs/insects, and the bodily fluids of
previous occupants), (2) access to articles of religion while
in secure isolation (only Bibles available, no prayer mats
for Muslim youth despite the availability of prayer mats for
inmates of adult facilities), (3) no opportunities for mental
stimulation for those held in secure isolation for long periods of time (only Bibles available for reading), and (4) the
placement of youth with severe mental health problems in
secure isolation units. These concerns were raised with the
Ministry of Children and Youth Services (MCYS) and they
indicated that youth in secure isolation were now provided
with prayer mats. The Advocate’s Office embarked upon
a review of secure isolation in 2009–2010. This review involved interviewing young people in youth justice facilities
across Ontario and obtaining data from the MCYS about the
placement of youth in secure isolation.
The interview process confirmed that young people continued to have concerns about the conditions of confinement,
access to articles of religion, and access to mental stimulation. There was no information from the youth interviews
to corroborate the concerns that young people with mental
health issues were being held in secure isolation for long
periods of time. Individual concerns of young people were
raised with the appropriate youth justice authorities. But
the Advocate’s Office felt that more information, over a longer period of time, was required to make fair and accurate
comment about the use of secure isolation in youth justice
facilities across Ontario. As a result, this report contains
information gleaned from the youth interviews conducted
in 2009 and the analysis of the data provided by the MCYS
during that same time period. The report also contains information about the placement of youth in secure isolation
during the calendar year 2013 and the year 2014.
11
OVERVIEW
WHAT ARE THE KEY FINDINGS OF
THE REPORT?
THE SPECIAL
There are four key findings in this report:
RAPPORTEUR
1. there is a steady trend of less secure isolation use
across the province;
2. there is a clear pattern of a high use of secure isolation
in some facilities;
3. the numbers of young people held beyond 24 and 72
hours is concerning and suggests a need for enhanced
safeguards;
4. the conditions of confinement, especially when youth
are placed in secure isolation cells for long periods of
time, need further examination
and immediate vigilance.
Other findings include a wide variability of the use of secure isolation across facilities as well as a wide variability
in regards to the number of admissions and the length of
time used. There are indications that serious mental health
concerns emerge or are exacerbated during use of secure
isolation in Ontario.
THIS REPORT
In creating the report, the Advocate’s Office obtained data
from the MCYS to explore the use of secure isolation over
three discrete time periods:
•
•
•
April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010
January 1 to December 31, 2013
January 1 to December 31, 2014
The data analysis was contextualized through interviews with 141 young people about their experiences
in secure isolation.
The four major components to this review are:
1. Literature review
2. Review of the statistical data on the use of secure
isolation provided by the MCYS
3. Description of themes arising from interviews with
141 youth who had spent time in secure isolation in 21
provincial youth justice facilities
4. Review of secure isolation logs from one facility over a
30-day period in 2014
12
IN 2011
CALLED FOR
AN ABSOLUTE
PROHIBITION
ON THE USE
OF SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT
FOR JUVENILES.
TUES
7:21 AM
“ THERE’S NOTHING TO DO EXCEPT SIT ON THE
COLD METAL BENCH AND STARE AT THE WALL.”
– ANONYMOUS YOUTH
SECTION 1.
LITERATURE REVIEW
AND INTERNATIONAL
PERSPECTIVE
“SIU IS FOR
KIDS THAT ARE
IN CRISIS
— IF YOU’RE
NOT REALLY
IN A CRISIS
AND MAYBE
YOU WERE IN
A FIGHT YOU
SHOULD ONLY
BE BROUGHT TO
SIU FOR ONE
HOUR.”
–ANONYMOUS
YOUTH
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT USING
SECURE ISOLATION? SHOULD IT BE
ABOLISHED? CAN IT BE USED WITH
CAUTION?
Secure isolation, also known as “segregation” or “solitary
confinement,” generally refers to the practice of locking an
inmate in a specially designated room or cell to isolate him
or her from others. Secure isolation has existed as a part
of correctional practice almost since the inception of prisons themselves and so too have the questions and concerns
about its use and effects on prisoners.10
PERSISTENT QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS
Questions and concerns have tended to centre on conditions of confinement—factors relating to the physical
environment (e.g., size, light levels, cleanliness)—and
the circumstances associated with confinement
(e.g., restricted human contact, deprivation of stimulation,
limited physical activity).
In addition, questions have long been asked about why secure isolation is used (e.g., punish behaviour? manage a crisis?), its effectiveness (e.g., does it actually work?), length
of time (e.g., how long should it be used for? an hour? days?
weeks? months?), and the effects on the individual being
held in secure isolation (e.g., is it safe? is it harmful?).
Although there are challenges to answering these questions, it is important to understand as much as we can
about what is known about secure isolation. First, the majority of research on secure isolation has been conducted
on adult populations—there is less known about the use
14
and impact of secure isolation on young people. Second,
the conditions of secure isolation vary, sometimes dramatically, from institution to institution making it very difficult
to draw conclusions. In their 2007 review of the literature,
Clements and colleagues indicate that research regarding
the effects of segregation on offender functioning is inconclusive.11 Third, not only do the conditions vary from place
to place, but other factors also interact with one another in
conjunction with each individual’s previous experiences and
current reactions to being placed in secure isolation. This
means it is very difficult to untangle and isolate each factor
to understand the role and impact of specific factors. Some
researchers suggest that it is the complex interplay of many
factors (e.g., sensory deprivation, perceived purpose of isolation, and individual personality) that produces the possible harmful effects. In terms of sensory deprivation, the
availability of stimuli, amount and quality of light, and the
general environment of the isolation cell are important influences. Isolation that is perceived as punitive, for example,
produces greater potential for adverse effects.12
CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT:
WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS AND WHAT
ARE THE EFFECTS?
Secure isolation involves confining an inmate in a locked
room or cell, separate from others, typically under the
following conditions.
Conditions of Confinement
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Enclosed physical space: locked door and slot/
window for observation by guards; may or may not
include bed or toilet; and size, lighting, cleanliness,
and temperature vary
Extensive confinement: inmate may spend up to 23
hours per day locked in the cell
Lack of mental stimulation: inmate may be allowed
little or no reading material
Limited physical activity: enclosed space limits
movement and physical activity
Controlled access to fresh air : inmate may or may
not be allowed to go outside
Restricted human contact: inmate may only have
contact with a guard through a slot in the door
Controlled bodily functions/hygiene: guards control access to and/or use of toilet, toilet paper, flushing or removal of urine and feces, access to feminine
hygiene products and access to showers
Research on adults suggests that when inmates are subjected to the preceding kinds of confinement conditions and
deprivations, most can be expected to report moderate to
serious psychological symptoms after a period of time.13
Secure isolation may be particularly harmful to people with
mental health disorders and/or trauma in their histories because they may be especially vulnerable to the detrimental
effects of isolation.14 The complex interplay of factors that
would affect any individual may be intensified in interaction with an individual’s particular mental health challenges
(e.g., anxiety and depression are already symptoms associated with secure isolation). Furthermore, research suggests
that these individuals are at greater risk of being placed
in isolation than their institutional peers. Similarly, many
institutionalized individuals suffering from undiagnosed
mental illnesses are also at increased risk for being placed
in secure isolation because they may be ill-equipped to control their behaviour and conform to institutional rules.15
Research suggests that individuals who have the most difficult time adjusting to institutional life are those with complex histories and the largest number of ongoing life problems.16 The personality types generally found in correctional
institutions may also be more vulnerable to the adverse
impact of isolation.
Nevertheless, secure isolation can produce mental health
and physical health disturbances in healthy individuals,
even if the term of isolation is short in duration. Shalev identifies a range of possible symptoms that can emerge during
or following solitary confinement: anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive disturbances, and perceptual distortions.17
Jackson notes the risk of inmates developing post-traumatic
stress disorder from solitary confinement.18 Haney (2003)
reports there is not a single published study of solitary confinement lasting for more than 10 days that failed to result
in negative psychological effects ranging in severity from
hypertension, uncontrollable anger, hallucinations, emotional breakdowns, chronic anger, chronic depression, and
suicidal thoughts and behaviour.19
In their 2010 article summarizing their analysis of the effects of secure isolation published in the Journal of the
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Metzner
and Fellner state: “Solitar y confinement is recognized
as difficult to withstand; indeed, psychological stressors such as isolation can be as clinically distressing
as physical torture”.20
15
WHAT ARE THE ISSUES AND EFFECTS FOR
YOUNG PEOPLE?
Similar to adults, the way a young person experiences
and adjusts to being in any type of custody is a reflection
of who that young person was prior to being incarcerated
in conjunction with the conditions of being held in such a
facility. Researchers use the concepts of importation and
deprivation to help explain the forces at work. Importation refers to what individuals bring to the experience of incarceration—their backgrounds and personal dispositions.
Deprivation refers to the conditions of imprisonment and
how the young person adapts once there. It is the product of
this dynamic interaction that ultimately determines how a
young person fares in a facility and influences the likelihood
of being placed in secure isolation.
Cesaroni and Peterson-Badali (2001) describe what a
young person can expect to experience when admitted to
a custody facility:21
•
•
•
•
•
Separation from family, friends, and any other support
groups or services;
Exposure to peer-on-peer violence;
Possible violence from staff;
Challenges to proper health care and nutrition; and
Questionable physical conditions within the living
environment.
Research shows that compared to adults, youth in custody
are generally found to be involved in more disciplinary infractions, assaults on inmates, inmate-staff assaults, and
conflicts with others.22 Youth who are placed in custody and
have high degrees of emotional instability experience even
higher degrees of anxiety which, in turn, interferes with
their ability to adapt to the structure of the facility and affects their effective accommodation to the rehabilitation efforts that are offered.23
Historically, young people were generally protected from
extended stays in isolation; however, some researchers
have noted that alternative approaches have not necessarily shielded them from being exposed to the adverse effects. According to Cohen, youth are often “isolated under
sterile, deprivational conditions in the name of Behavioural
Management Plans or the euphemistic ‘time out’”.24
Although the practices may not be called “secure isolation,”
they may in fact produce similar effects.
Because of their younger age and stage of development, most youth placed in secure custody have limited
16
experience to help them deal with managing living in an institutional structure. They also have greater challenges with
impulse control and they cope with trauma through externalizing means. Those with mental health concerns have
higher rates of non-suicidal self-injury, all of which, either
individually or in combination, increase the likelihood that
their behaviour will bring them into conflict within the institution, thus increasing the probability of being placed in
secure isolation. In addition, as summarized by Quinn and
Shera, residents with increased volatility due to their mental
health status create a sense of chaos in the facility and they
are considered unpredictable: “While incarcerated, these
behaviors receive consequences (i.e., solitary confinement)
and, as a result, many residents miss out on opportunities
such as school, recreational activities, peer relationships,
and other rehabilitative services.” 25
There are also a number of issues unique to the use of secure isolation for adolescents, particularly from a developmental perspective. Experts assert that young people actually experience time differently than adults; for youth in
secure isolation, “two weeks in isolation, it was speculated,
would seem like years to an adolescent.26 The adolescent’s
brain is still developing with significant changes occurring
in the brain structure and with executive functioning and
self-regulation. In fact, it is not fully developed until young
people are in their mid-twenties.27 Adolescents are more inclined to take risks and to act impulsively. Adolescence is a
vulnerable time and youth placed in secure isolation at this
developmental stage increases the likelihood that youth will
experience the harmful institutional effects documented for
adults even more powerfully.
WHY IS SECURE ISOLATION USED?
Given the history of concerns and the documented associated risks, why do correctional facilities use secure isolation? The United Nations Special Rapporteur of the Human
Rights Council states that the practice of using secure isolation began in the United States in the early 1800s when
it was believed that isolating prisoners would aid in their
rehabilitation28 It was intended to offer prisoners the time
and space to reflect on their actions. Two centuries later,
secure isolation is used extensively around the world. Although it is considered an extraordinary measure in some
places and a routine measure in others, it is used most often
to punish prisoners for disciplinary violations.29 In a recent
review of its use in American prisons, Browne and colleagues
noted a 40% increase in the overall use of solitary confinement in the United States during a five-year period from
2000–2005.30 They find that it is “most commonly [used] as
a form of punishment for rule violations, as a way to remove
prisoners from the general prison population who are
thought to pose a risk to security or safety, and as a way
to provide safety to prisoners believed to be at risk in the
general population”.31 Essentially, they describe solitary confinement, in many cases, “as a secondary sentence imposed
by the correctional facility”.32
Kupers emphasizes that using secure isolation actually exacerbates the challenges for institutions: “correction[s] are
relying too much on isolation as a solution to behaviour
problems and assaults within the prisons. The remedy, in
this case isolation, is making the problem worse to the extent the harsh conditions of isolation and idleness predictably make prisoners more disturbed and disruptive...”33 Cohen echoes this idea, stating: “The current uses of extended
penal isolation are more often than not confessions of failure by corrections, a reflexive get-rid-of-the-person rather
than an attempt to get-rid-of-the-problem.”34
TWO WEEKS IN ISOLATION,
IT WAS SPECULATED, WOULD
SEEM LIKE YEARS TO AN
ADOLESCENT.
All disciplinary measures constituting cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment shall be strictly prohibited, includ-
ing corporal punishment, placement in a dark cell, closed
or solitary confinement, or any other punishment that may
compromise the physical or mental health of the juvenile
concerned. The reduction of diet and the restriction or
denial of contact with family members should be prohib-
In an extensive review of the literature in 2006, Peter Scharff
Smith of the Danish Institute for Human Rights catalogues
a sizable body of research that demonstrates substantial adverse effects of solitary confinement.35 The review finds that
conditions of solitary confinement can vary significantly
in terms of degree of isolation and perceptual deprivation.
Solitary confinement is seen as social isolation rather than
primarily as sensory deprivation. Smith defines solitary confinement as “physical isolation of individuals in which they
are confined in their cells for around 22 to 23 hours each
day (typically 22 to 24 hours). The amount of contact with
prison staff can vary and may constitute more than an hour
each day, but only rarely will this contact be socially and
psychologically meaningful.”36
SECURE ISOLATION: INTERNATIONAL
CAUTIONS AND BANS
Given the extensive concerns and widespread use, secure
isolation practices involving both adults and young people
around the world are scrutinized and monitored by international organizations such as Human Rights Watch, the
World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations.
ited for any purpose. Labour should always be viewed as
an educational tool and a means of promoting the self-
respect of the juvenile in preparing him or her for return to
the community and should not be imposed as a disciplinary
sanction. No juvenile should be sanctioned more than once
for the same disciplinary infraction. Collective sanctions
should be prohibited.
In 1992, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights issued a General Comment No. 2038 concerning prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment that
calls for additional safeguards for protections against acts
prohibited under Article 7 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights.39
The 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child (UNCRC) defines a child as “every human being below
the age of 18 years unless, under the law applicable to the
child, majority is attained earlier.”40 In 2007, the Committee
on the Rights of the Child (CRC) released a General Comment No. 10 that discussed the rights of children in juvenile
justice. One stated objective of the General Comment was:
…to promote the integration in a national and comprehensive juvenile justice policy of other international stan-
dards, in particular the United Nations Standard Minimum
The use of closed or solitary confinement of juveniles is
prohibited under rule 67 of the 1990 United Nations Rules
for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty.37 The
rule states:
Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The
Beijing Rules), the United Nations Rules for the Protection
of Juveniles Deprived of the Liberty (Havana Rules), and
the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile
Delinquency (The Riyadh Guidelines).41
17
The CRC was guided by the general principles contained in
articles 2, 3, 6, and 12 of the UNCRC as well as the fundamental principles of juvenile justice enshrined in articles 37
and 40 of the UNCRC. Non-discrimination (article 2), best
interests of the child (article 3), the right to life, survival and
development (article 6), the right to be heard (article 12),
and dignity of the child (article 40[1]) form the fundamental
principles for the treatment of young people in conflict with
the law.
The CRC made clear that the principles and rules agreed to
by States party direct that:
THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY USE
WITH YOUNG PEOPLE IS NOT
WELL UNDERSTOOD AND GIVEN
THAT THIS IS A PERIOD OF
CRITICAL BRAIN DEVELOPMENT,
THE USE OF SECURE ISOLATION
WITH ADOLESCENTS PRESENTS
CONSIDERABLE RISK.
Any disciplinary measure must be consistent with uphold-
ing the inherent dignity of the juvenile and the fundamental
objectives of institutional care; disciplinary measures in
violation of article 37 [UN]CRC must be strictly forbidden,
including corporal punishment, placement in a dark cell,
closed or solitary confinement, or any other punishment
that may compromise the physical and mental health or
well-being of the child concerned.42
The CRC has recommended that solitary confinement not
be used with children (see as an example comments (2013)
CRC/C/LUX/CO/3–4).
In December 2007, a task force of international experts
in the area of solitary confinement, prisons, and torture
produced The Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects
of Solitary Confinement (herein referred to as The Istanbul
Statement) and this was adopted at the International Psychological Trauma Symposium held in Istanbul.43 The UN
Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment, at the time Manfred Nowak, participated in
the task force. In his 2008 Interim Report to the 63rd Session
of the General Assembly of the United Nations, he strongly
encouraged States to use The Istanbul Statement as a tool
for protecting the rights of prisoners.44
The Istanbul Statement provides the following definition:
“Solitary confinement is the physical isolation of individuals who are confined to their cells for 22 to 24 hours a day.”45
Furthermore, it urges that the use of solitary confinement
for mentally ill prisoners and children under the age of 18
years be absolutely prohibited.
In his Interim Report, Nowak calls for particular attention
to be paid to the risks to disabled people when placed in
solitary confinement.46 When dealing with disruptive prisoners, this sample typically presents with higher rates of
psychiatric disorders.47 48 Concerns have been repeatedly
18
raised about the increased risk to those with pre-existing
psychiatric diagnoses and the recognition that this population comprises a significant number of the population
placed in isolation.49 Studies document higher levels of distress in isolated populations.50 Hodgins and Cote found that
schizophrenia and mania were over-represented among Canadian prisoners in federal segregation.51 Numerous nongovernmental reports, expert panel recommendations, and
international covenants and statements have been issued
calling for safeguards surrounding the use of solitary confinement for incarcerated people who are vulnerable, have
disabilities, developmental immaturity, or pre-existing psychiatric diagnoses.52 53 54 The Juvenile Justice Reform Committee of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry put forth a policy statement in April 2012 that
opposes the use of solitary confinement with juveniles, considering such treatment cruel and unusual.55 In addition,
suicides are disproportionately reported to occur in US
secure isolation units.56
In 2011, the current Special Rapporteur on torture and
other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E. Méndez, focused his Interim Report to the
66th Session of the General Assembly on the use of solitary
confinement.57 The Interim Report issues general guidance
to States that highlights principles encouraging the abolishment of the practice of solitary confinement. Vulnerable individuals—identified as juveniles, persons with disabilities, and lesbian, gay, and transgendered people—are at
particular risk of harm.
Méndez gives an opinion regarding circumstances that
amount to acts prohibited by Article 7 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights58 and torture as defined by articles 1 and 16 of the Convention against Torture
or Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Punishment.59 He notes
that an assessment must be made on a case-by-case basis
that examines the purpose of use, the individual’s subjective experience, and unique vulnerabilities as well as the
conditions and length of use of solitary confinement.
He states that:
Solitary confinement, when used for the purpose of punish-
ment, cannot be justified for any reason, precisely because
it imposes severe mental pain and suffering beyond any
reasonable retribution for criminal behaviour...This ap-
plies as well to situations in which solitary confinement is
imposed as a result of breach of prison discipline, as long
as the pain and suffering experienced by the victim reaches
the necessary severity (para. 72).60
With respect to young people, “the Special Rapporteur
holds the view that the imposition of solitar y confinement, of any duration, on juveniles is cruel, inhuman,
or degrading treatment and violates Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 16
of the Convention against Torture.”61
In his Report to the Human Rights Council at the 22nd Session, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment focuses on
rights abuses in health care settings,62 he reaffirms his earlier recommendations that:63
…addressed the issue of solitary confinement and stated
…the Rules should explicitly prohibit the imposition of
solitary confinement of any duration for juveniles,
persons with psychosocial disabilities or other disabilities
or health conditions, pregnant women, women with infants
and breastfeeding mothers (see the United Nations Rules
for the Treatment of Women Prisoners, rule 22, and the
United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, rule 67).66
In February 2012, the Federal Court of Mississippi announced a Consent Decree effectively banning the use of
solitary confinement for all male youth aged 17 and younger
in Mississippi correctional facilities. In Mississippi, confinement in a cell for more than 20 hours a day, is now governed
by strict rules that restricts the use for either emergency or
disciplinary purposes. A few months later, the Juvenile Justice Initiative of Illinois urged Congress to ban the use of
secure isolation calling for “regular inspection and monitoring” in youth justice facilities as “indispensable instruments
of control to ensure humane treatment of youth…”67
Despite the United Nations call for a ban, many jurisdictions
continue to use secure isolation with young people. Over
the years, a number of recommendations have been developed, all aimed at reducing the potential negative impact:
use secure isolation only in exceptional circumstances, for
as short a period as possible, and “[prisoners] must be held
in decent conditions and offered access to meaningful human contact and to purposeful activities. The deprivations
inherent in solitary confinement should not be made worse
by further restrictions on family visits and in-cell provisions
such as books and magazines, craft and hobby materials,
personal radios, and so on. These may help to mitigate the
harmful aspects of solitary confinement.”68
that its imposition, of any duration, on persons with
mental disabilities is cruel, inhuman or degrading treat-
ban on all coercive and non-consensual measures, including
In addition, because secure isolation units are “closed units
within closed establishments, shut off not only to the outside world, but also to other sections of the prison and to the
prison society at large,”69 recommendations also commonly
include improving safeguards and oversight practices:
logical or intellectual disabilities, should apply in all
Once society places children in institutions, it seems
social care institutions.64
responsibility to look after them…Where parental
ment. Moreover, any restraint on people with mental
disabilities for even a short period of time may constitute
torture and ill-treatment. It is essential that an absolute
restraint and solitary confinement of people with psycho-
places of deprivation of liberty, including psychiatric and
Méndez restates the call for an absolute ban on the use
of restraints and seclusion on people with psychiatric
disorders. In his 2013 Interim Report to the UN General
Assembly 68th Session, he focuses on the need for procedural standards and safeguards for the prohibition against
torture and other ill-treatment.65 He argues that:
largely content to assume that this is the end of its direct
responsibility is replaced by institutional care, external
vigilance is essential…70
19
SECTION 2.
ANALYSIS OF MINISTRY
OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH
*
SERVICES DATA
When a young person is placed in secure isolation, Ontario’s
secure custody and detention facilities are required to follow
procedures and complete forms as prescribed in the Youth
Justice Services Manual.71 Through its Information Sharing
Protocol with the MCYS, the Provincial Advocate requested
and received data regarding the use of secure isolation with
young people in Ontario’s youth justice facilities. In order to
answer key questions and help form a picture of overall use,
data were sought for the following time periods:
April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010
January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013
January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014
Our analysis of the information provided by MCYS sought to
answer the following questions:
7. How many times is secure isolation used for more
than 24 hours?
8. How many times is secure isolation used for periods
between 24 and 71 hours?
9. How many times is secure isolation used for periods of
72 hours or longer?
10. Are there any discernible patterns between facilities
regarding (a) high use number of placements, (b) medium use number of placements, (c) low use number
of placements, (d) high use average time, (e) medium
use average time, and (f) low use average time?
11. What can we observe from the “reasons for placement” information that accompanied the MCYS data?
Generally, the length of time in our analyses are noted in
minutes. For ease of reference, we have created a chart that
converts minutes into hours for set time periods:
1. How often is secure isolation used by secure youth
justice detention/custody facilities in Ontario?
2. What is the average length of time young people
are held in secure isolation? What is the range?
What is the longest time a person has been held
in secure isolation?
3. Does the “count” or number of young people in the
facility make a difference in how often secure isolation
is used? What is the average monthly count at
each facility?
4. What are the ages of the young people in
secure isolation?
5. Are facilities following the rules for young people
under age 16 years?
6. What can we say about the use of secure isolation for
those under age 16 years?
*
20
Minutes
Hours/Days
480
08 hours
1440
24 hours
2160
36 hours
2880
48 hours
3600
60 hours
4320
72 hours
7200
05 days
14,440
10 days
Dr. Kim Snow – quantitative analysis
2009
2009
1021
1021
PLACEMENTS
PLACEMENTS
Over the three-year
period, all facilities
reported some use
of secure isolation.
There was a general
trend toward lower
use except at two
facilities. In 2014,
three facilities
reported no use and
Bluewater Youth
Centre closed before
2013. There was a
very clear pattern of
“high,” “medium,”
and “low” usage,
which is discussed
subsequently.
HOW OFTEN IS SECURE ISOLATION
USED AT EACH FACILITY?
ROY MCMURTRY 1 267
ROY MCMURTRY 1 267
FIG 1. NUMBER OF PLACEMENTS IN
SECURE ISOLATION PER FACILITY
SPRUCEDALE 115
SPRUCEDALE 115
2014
2014
701
701
PLACEMENTS
PLACEMENTS
2013
2013
592
592
PLACEMENTS
HIGH
HIGH
78.3%
78.3%
PLACEMENTS
1
CECIL FACER 183
CECIL FACER 183
HIGH
HIGH
1
242
ROY MCMURTRY
40.9%
1
ROY MCMURTRY 242
40.9%
WILLIAM HAY 50
WILLIAM HAY 50
SPRUCEDALE 48
SPRUCEDALE 48
WILLIAM HAY 43
WILLIAM HAY 43
MED
MED
CECIL FACER 37
35.4% CECIL FACER 37
35.4%
LOW
LOW
6.6%
6.6%
DONALD DOUCETTE 10
DONALD
DOUCETTE
10
SUNDANCE
7
SUNDANCE
7
NEAR NORTH
5
NEAR
NORTHHOUSE
5
KENNEDY
4
KENNEDY
HOUSE
4
J RONALD
LESTER
3
J PINEGAR
RONALD LESTER
3
3
PINEGAR
ARRELL32
ARRELL
2
JJ KELSO
2
JJPORTAGE
KELSO 22
PORTAGE
2
PENINSULA
1
PENINSULA
1
CRAIGWOOD
0
CRAIGWOOD
0
GE-DA-GI BINEZ
0
GE-DA-GI
BINEZ
0
M GENEST
0
M RAY
GENEST
0
OF HOPE
0
RAY OF HOPE 0
SUNDANCE 47
SUNDANCE 47
LOW
LOW
9.6%
9.6%
KEY
KEY
HIGH USE: > 100
HIGH USE: > 100
LOW USE FACILITIES
BROOKSIDE 70
BROOKSIDE 70
Data in this visual
representation can be
found in Appendix I:
Raw Data.
BROOKSIDE 73
BROOKSIDE 73
CECIL FACER 51
CECIL FACER 51
LOW USE FACILITIES
LOW USE FACILITIES
MED
MED
52.5%
52.5%
SPRUCEDALE 97
SPRUCEDALE 97
LOW USE FACILITIES
KENNEDY HOUSE 14
KENNEDY
14 7
DONALDHOUSE
DOUCETTE
DONALD
DOUCETTE
RAY OF
HOPE 6 7
RAY
OF HOPE56
M GENEST
M ARRELL
GENEST 3
5
ARRELL
3
GE-DA-GI
BINEZ 3
GE-DA-GI
BINEZ
3
JJ KELSO
2
JJNEAR
KELSO
2
NORTH
2
NEAR
NORTH22
PORTAGE
PORTAGE
2
CRAIGWOOD
1
CRAIGWOOD
1 0
PENINSULA
PENINSULA
0
PINEGAR 0
PINEGAR 0
LOW USE FACILITIES
LOW
LOW
4.4%
4.4%
WILLIAM HAY 39
WILLIAM HAY 39
J. RONALD LESTER 30
J. RONALD LESTER 30
SUNDANCE 33
SUNDANCE 33
BLUEWATER 2 35
BLUEWATER 2 35
SYL APPS 43
SYL APPS 43
LOW USE FACILITIES
MED
MED
17.3%
17.3%
278
ROY MCMURTRY
1
ROY MCMURTRY 278
SYL APPS 108
SYL APPS 108
BROOKSIDE 234
BROOKSIDE 234
SYL APPS 40
SYL APPS 40
HIGH
HIGH
55.1%
55.1%
It is important to
note that these data
only illustrate how
many times the secure
isolation cells were
used at each facility.
It is unclear whether
each placement
related to a different
youth or whether
there were youth who
were placed in secure
isolation on multiple
occasions.
KENNEDY HOUSE 27
KENNEDY
27
ARRELLHOUSE
12
ARRELL
12
NEAR NORTH
11
NEAR
NORTH611
PINEGAR
PINEGAR
DONALD6DOUCETTE 4
DONALD
DOUCETTE
4
M GENEST
2
M RAY
GENEST
2
OF HOPE
2
RAY
OF HOPE 1
2
CRAIGWOOD
CRAIGWOOD
GE-DA-GI1BINEZ 1
GE-DA-GI
BINEZ
1 1
J RONALD
LESTER
J JJ
RONALD
LESTER
1
KELSO
0
JJPENINSULA
KELSO 0 0
PENINSULA
0
PORTAGE 0
PORTAGE 0
MEDIUM USE: 30-99
MEDIUM USE: 30-99
LOW USE: 0-29
LOW USE: 0-29
NOTES
NOTES
PERCENTAGES
MAY NOT ADD TO 100%
PERCENTAGES
ROUNDING
MAYDUE
NOTTOADD
TO 100%
DUE TO ROUNDING
1 ROY MCMURTRY
FOR 2009 IS
1 ROYDATA
MCMURTRY
9 MONTHS
ONLY
DATA
FOR 2009
IS
BLUEWATER
92 MONTHS
ONLYCLOSED
PRIOR
TO
2013
2 BLUEWATER CLOSED
PRIOR TO 2013
WHAT IS THE AVERAGE LENGTH OF TIME YOUNG PEOPLE ARE
HELD IN SECURE ISOLATION?
2009
2013
2014
PENINSULA
2009
2013
2014
GE-DA-GI BINEZ
2009
2013
2014
MGENEST
2009
2013
2014
KENNEDY HOUSE
2009
2013
2014
DONALD DOUCETTE
2009
2013
2014
SUNDANCE
2009
2013
2014
PINEGAR
2009
2013
2014
NEAR NORTH
2009
2013
2014
JJ KELSO
PORTAGE
CRAIGWOOD
2009
2013
2014
2009
2013
2014
BLUEWATER1
20,160
2009
2013
2014
FIG 2. AVERAGE (RANGE OF USE) MINUTES OF SECURE ISOLATION USE BY FACILITY.
20 DAYS
18,498
10,080
1 WEEK
4,270
2,411
2,087
1,440
1,253
1 DAY
778
147
60
43
22
1 HOUR
122
Data in this visual representation can be found in
Appendix I: Raw Data.
SYL APPS
SPRUCEDALE
23,655
2009
2013
2014
24,170
ROY MCMURTRY2
2009
2013
2014
WILLIAM HAY
CECIL FACER
2009
2013
2014
2009
2013
2014
BROOKSIDE
RAY OF HOPE
2009
2013
2014
2009
2013
2014
JUSTICE RONALD LESTER
20,160
ARRELL
2009
2013
2014
Each year, there was considerable variability in the
actual length of time secure isolation was used by
each facility. For example, in 2009, the use of secure
isolation ranged from a low of two minutes (at Kennedy
House Youth Services) to a high of 24,170 minutes
(17 days) at Sprucedale Youth Centre.
In 2013, the actual length of use ranged from three
minutes (William Hay Youth Centre) to 23,655 minutes
(16 days) at Sprucedale Youth Centre. In 2014, the
length of use ranged from one minute (Kennedy House
Youth Services) to 15,671 (11 days) at Roy McMurtry
Youth Centre.
2009
2013
2014
In terms of the overall average length of time spent in
secure isolation, there was nominal variability year over
year with a low average of 7 hours and 3 minutes in 2013
and a high average of 9 hours and 37 minutes in 2009.
20 DAYS
KEY
21,622
MAX TIME
18,540
AVG TIME
15,093
MIN TIME
15,671
TIME IS EXPRESSED
IN MINUTES
10,080
1 WEEK
TIME
CONVERSION
1
1
1
1
1 BLUEWATER CLOSED
PRIOR TO 2013
2 ROY MCMURTRY
DATA FOR 2009 IS
9 MONTHS ONLY
1,894
2,162
1,476
2,547
1,440
=
60 MIN
=
1440 MIN
= 10,080 MIN
= 43,200 MIN
NOTES
2,114
3,353
HOUR
DAY
WEEK
MONTH
1 DAY
65
13
60
5
43
7
10
1 HOUR
23
3
3
AVERAGE NUMBER OF YOUTH
JJ KELSO
PER MONTH AT EACH FACILITY
2
2
0
0
1
2
0
4
24
34
23
33
34
43
4
2
2
5
0
0
3
1
6
2
7
0
11
47
7
4
5
3
4
5
10 11
3
7
34
4
6
6
8
3
7
0
4
6
2
27
9
7
0
10
56
1
4
10
7
1
4
66
0
11
8
10
6
02
2
12
27
47
9
0
6
1
10
1
0
2013
2013
2014
2013
2014
2013
2014
2014
2013
2013
2014
2014
2013
2013
2014
2014
2013
2013
2014
2014
2013
2013
2014
2014
2013
2013
2014
2014
2013
2013
2014
2014
2013
2013
2014
2014
2013
2013
2014
2014
2013
6
2014
ARRELL
PENINSULA
GE-DA-GI BINEZ
M GENEST
ARRELL
KENNEDY
HOUSE
PENINSULA
DONALD
DOUCETTE
GE-DA-GI
BINEZ
SUNDANCE
M GENEST
PINEGAR
KENNEDY
HOUSE
NEAR
NORTH
DONALD
DOUCETTE
JJ KELSO
SUNDANCE
CRAIGWOOD
PINEGAR
PORTAGE
NEAR
NORTH
2014
2013
2
NUMBER OF PLACEMENTS
IN SECURE ISOLATION FACILITY
2013
2014
3
CRAIGWOOD
2013
2014
DOES THE NUMBER OF YOUTH AT THE FACILITY MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO THE USE
OF SECURE ISOLATION?
FIG 3. AVERAGE NUMBER OF YOUTH PER MONTH AT EACH FACILITY
11
10
2
12
3
1
0
10
27
19
18
12
2013
ROY MCMURTRY
23
2014
2014
2013
SYL APPS
2013
2014
SPRUCEDALE
2013
2014
2014
CECIL FACER
12
WILLIAM HAY
2013
2013
16
23
64
23
2
37
51
70
50
43
AVERAGE NUMBER OF YOUTH
PER MONTH AT EACH FACILITY
12
15
18
78
NUMBER OF PLACEMENTS
IN SECURE ISOLATION FACILITY
11
2014
BROOKSIDE
2013
2014
2014
RAY OF HOPE
2013
43
48
73
97
108
It is unclear if the average resident
count influenced the pattern of use.
For example, in 2013 Roy McMurtry
Youth Centre had a count of 78 and
reported 242 placements in secure
isolation, whereas, in 2014 Roy
McMurtry Youth Centre reported 278
placements in secure isolation with
an average resident count of 64.
In 2014, Cecil Facer Youth Centre
and Brookside Youth Centre both had
an average count of 12, whereas
Cecil Facer Youth Centre reported
only half as many placements in
secure isolation as Brookside Youth
Centre. In 2013, Sundance Youth
Centre reported seven placements
in secure isolation with an average
resident count of three; in 2014,
they reported 47 placements with an
average resident count of four. In
addition, Syl Apps Youth Centre had
a consistent average count in 2013
and 2014 of 23, yet they reported
43 placements in 2013 and 108 in
2014. More information is needed to
understand the interaction between
resident count and secure isolation.
Data in this visual representation
can be found in Appendix I: Raw Data.
242
278
25
WHAT IS THE AGE OF THE YOUNG PEOPLE IN SECURE ISOLATION?
FIG. 4. NUMBER OF YOUTH AGED 12 TO 21 YEARS IN SECURE ISOLATION IN 2013 AND 2014*
12
13
YEARS
YEARS
14
YEARS
15
YEARS
16
YEARS
17
YEARS
18
YEARS
19
YEARS
20
YEARS
21
YEARS
241
232
KEY
2013
2014
200
NOTES
* ONE AGE UNKNOWN
150
126
111
109
121
112
100
50
49
52
56
22
23
21
14
0
1
1
We obtained age-related data for the years 2013 and
2014. For one instance in 2013, the age was unknown.
The ages of young people who experienced secure isolation
ranged from 12 to 21 years. In both 2013 and 2014,
youth aged 17 years were held in secure isolation more
frequently than any other age group. Those aged 17 years
accounted for 41% of those held in secure isolation in
2013 and 33% of those held in 2014.
26
0
0
1
The second highest use of secure isolation was with youth
aged 18 years (19%) in 2013 and 16 years (18%) in
2014. Those aged 16 years were the third most frequently
held age in 2013 (18%). In fact, those aged 16 and 17
years accounted for more than half of the uses of secure
isolation in both 2013 (59%) and 2014 (51%).
ARE FACILITIES FOLLOWING THE RULES FOR YOUNG
PEOPLE UNDER AGE 16 YEARS?
FIG. 5. USE OF SECURE ISOLATION FOR MORE THAN EIGHT HOURS FOR YOUTH
YOUNGER THAN 16 YEARS OF AGE IN 2014
FACILITY
YOUTH, #
TIME, MINUTES (HOURS)
PINEGAR
1
650 (11)
ROY MCMURTRY
1
1191 (20)
All facilities seemed to be observing the laws regarding a maximum
use of eight hours per day for young people under the age of 16
years. Two exceptions were observed in 2014: Pinegar Youth Centre
reported one instance of 11 hours in secure isolation and Roy McMurty
Youth Centre reported one instance of 20 hours in secure isolation for
individuals under the age of 16 years.
Data in this visual representation can be found in Appendix I: Raw Data.
27
WHAT CAN WE SAY ABOUT THE USE OF SECURE ISOLATION FOR THOSE
UNDER 16 YEARS OF AGE?
FIG 6. USE OF SECURE ISOLATION FOR YOUTH UNDER 16 YEARS IN 2013 & 2014
# OF
PLACEMENTS
(12-15 YRS)
2013
2014
4 8
2013
2014
2 1
2013
2014
2013
2014
2 43 5 1
2013
2014
2013
9600%
ARRELL
GE-DA-GI BINEZ
KENNEDY HOUSE
SUNDANCE
DONALD DOUCETTE
e200% 92150% e500% 91200% 9100%
PINEGAR
FACILITY
NEAR NORTH
9200%
2014
1 12 0 1
2013
2014
2 12
12
%
BY AGE
13
12
13
14
15
12
13
14
15
1 HOUR
650
1,440
28
15
12
13
14
15
12
13
14
15
12
13
14
15
12
13
14
15
12
13
14
15
12
13
14
15
NO PLACEMENTS IN 2013
MINIMUM, MAXIMUM,
AND AVERAGE LENGTH
OF PLACEMENT
60
12
13
14
15
12
13
14
15
12
13
14
15
12
13
14
15
12
13
14
15
14
1 DAY
From 2013 to 2014, we see a trend
toward increased use of secure
isolation for youth under the age of
16 years. In 2013, there were 106
reported placements of youth between
the ages of 12 and 15 years; in
2014, this number increased to 186.
Centre, and Roy McMurtry Youth
Centre reported the most frequent
use of secure isolation for this
age group.
Sundance Youth Centre, Syl Apps
Youth Centre, Sprucedale Youth
2013
2014
2013
2014
2013
2014
2013
SYL APPS
9458%
2014
2013
2014
0%
ROY MCMURTRY
9125%
WILLIAM HAY
SPRUCEDALE
e1050% e173%
CECIL FACER
BROOKSIDE
0%
2013
2014
1 1 21 2 19 11 8 10 12 55 29 29
12
13
14
KEY
12
13
14
15
12
13
14
15
12
13
14
15
12
13
14
15
12
13
14
15
12
13
14
15
12
13
14
15
12
13
14
15
12
13
14
15
12
13
14
15
12
13
14
15
12
13
14
15
15
MIN TIME
10
AVG TIME
110
MAX TIME
60
208
223
TIME IS EXPRESSED
IN MINUTES
479
TIME
CONVERSION
1
1
1
1
1191
HOUR
DAY
WEEK
MONTH
=
60 MIN
=
1440 MIN
= 10,080 MIN
= 43,200 MIN
1,440
29
HOW OFTEN IS SECURE ISOLATION USED FOR 24 HOURS AND OVER
AND 72 HOURS AND OVER?
2009
2013
2014
2009
2013
2014
2009
2013
2014
2009
2013
2014
2009
2013
2014
2009
2013
2014
2009
2013
2014
2009
2013
2014
2009
2013
2014
FIG 7. SECURE ISOLATION USE FOR 24–71 HOURS AND 72 HOURS AND OVER BY FACILITY
85
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
19
22
14
45
6
3
0
0
1
81
47
29
83
79
115
32
35
13
27
23
83
70
56
54
50
9
9
38
36
0
As noted earlier, international standards
suggest that use of solitary confinement
beyond 24 hours is harmful to juveniles.
In 2009, secure isolation was used for more
than 24 hours on 415 occasions (31%). In
2013, it was used for more than 24 hours 26%
of the time. In 2014, secure isolation was
used beyond 24 hours on 164 occasions—23%
of all usage.
30
1
5
0
3
0
0
1
These data suggest a general reduction in use
from 2009 to 2014. There is one exception,
Roy McMurtry Youth Centre, which reported
increased use from 2013 to 2014.
Data in this visual representation can be
found in Appendix I: Raw Data.
ROY MCMURTRY2
0
12
CECIL FACER
0
2
14
BROOKSIDE
0
2
J RONALD LESTER
0
1
DONALD DOUCETTE
NA
PINEGAR
BLUEWATER
1
NA
1
25
SPRUCEDALE
17
8
WILLIAM HAY
2
4
KEY
72 HOURS +
24 – 71 HOURS
NOTES
1 BLUEWATER CLOSED
PRIOR TO 2013
2 ROY MCMURTRY
DATA FOR 2009 IS
9 MONTHS ONLY
2014
1
2013
4
2009
8
5
9
12
ROY MCMURTRY*
2014
0
2013
0
2009
2
SPRUCEDALE
2014
0
2013
7
2009
2
CECIL FACER
2014
NA
2013
2014
NA
2009
2013
8
BROOKSIDE
2009
BLUEWATER*
FIG 8. NUMBER OF PLACEMENTS WITHIN SECURE ISOLATION LASTING LONGER THAN 5 DAYS BY FACILITY
KEY
ONE PLACEMENT
OVER 15 DAYS
ONE PLACEMENT
10–14 DAYS
ONE PLACEMENT
5–9 DAYS
15+ DAYS
NOTES
5–9 DAYS
10-14 DAYS
1 BLUEWATER CLOSED
PRIOR TO 2013
2 ROY MCMURTRY
DATA FOR 2009 IS
9 MONTHS ONLY
Very long use is defined as five
days or longer. There was some
reduction in the overall use of very
long placements in secure isolation
between 2009 and 2014. Roy
McMurtry Youth Centre continued high
use with more than 10 placements
lasting between five and nine days
and two placements between 10 and
14 days in 2014. Although there
were three instances of use beyond
15 days in 2009 and 2013, none
were reported in 2014.
31
ARE THERE ANY DISCERNIBLE PATTERNS BETWEEN FACILITIES?
2013
2014
2014
2009
2013
0
1
GE-DA-GI-BINEZ
2013
2009
2014
2014
2009
GE-DA-GI-BINEZ
2013
M GENEST
2013
2009
2014
2014
2009
M GENEST
2013
KENNEDY HOUSE
KENNEDY HOUSE
2013
2009
2014
2014
2009
2013
DONALD DOUCETTE
DONALD DOUCETTE
2013
2009
2014
2014
2009
2013
SUNDANCE
2013
2009
2014
2014
2009
SUNDANCE
PINEGAR
2013
2009
2014
2013
2014
2009
PINEGAR
2013
NEAR NORTH
2013
2009
2014
2014
2009
NEAR NORTH
2013
JJ KELSO
JJ KELSO
2013
2009
2014
2014
2009
2013
2014
2009
2013
2009
2014
CRAIGWOOD
N
A
CRAIGWOOD
N
A
PORTAGE
2013
2013
2009
2014
2014
2009
N
A
BLUEWATER1
BLUEWATER1
N
A
PORTAGE
2013
2009
FIG 9a. HIGH, MEDIUM, AND LOW USE FACILITIES IN 2009, 2013, 2014
HIGH USE
HIGH USE
47
MEDIUM MEDIUM
USE
USE35
35
LOW USELOW USE
33
2
2
02
2 10 0
11
0 21 2
02
2 20
5
11
2
5
11
0
3
6
0
3
6 7
There is a clear pattern of high,
medium, and low use by facilities
with respect to the total number of
placements in secure isolation. A
similar pattern with respect to the
average length of time in secure
isolation was found. There was also
an association between the low use
of secure isolation and low average
length of placement in secure
isolation.
KEY
HIGH USE: > 100
MEDIUM USE: 30-99
LOW USE: 0-29
NOTES
PERCENTAGES
MAY NOT ADD TO 100%
DUE TO ROUNDING
47
33
27
7 7
10
4
7
10
14
14
4 4
2014
2013
2009
ROY MCMURTRY
2
2014
2013
2009
SYL APPS
2014
2013
2014
2009
WILLIAM HAY
2013
2009
2014
SPRUCEDALE
2013
2009
CECIL FACER
278
267
242
4 5
0
25
03 2 0
13
The 2012 Report of the Auditor
General noted that in 2011,
90% of the placements in secure
isolation occurred in MCYS-operated
facilities. In our analysis, the
proportion of secure isolation
placements in MCYS directly
operated facilities decreased to
80% in 2013 and to 63% in 2014.
1 BLUEWATER CLOSED
PRIOR TO 2013
2 ROY MCMURTRY
DATA FOR 2009 IS
9 MONTHS ONLY
32
27
NOTES
PERCENTAGES
MAY NOT ADD TO 100%
DUE TO ROUNDING
ROY MCMURTRY2
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
2014
SYL APPS
2013
2009
2014
WILLIAM HAY
2013
2009
SPRUCEDALE
2014
2013
CECIL FACER
2009
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
BROOKSIDE
RAY OF HOPE
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
2014
PENINSULA
ARRELL
2013
2009
1 BLUEWATER CLOSED
PRIOR TO 2013
2 ROY MCMURTRY
DATA FOR 2009 IS
9 MONTHS ONLY
278
267
234
242
183
115
108
97
70
73
51
48
50
39
43
30
0
1
0
3
12
2
3
1
6
0
Roy McMurtry Youth Centre
consistently ranked as a high use
facility, reporting almost double the
use of all other facilities in 2013
and 2014.
Syl Apps Youth Centre reported in
2014 a high use rate double that of
the two previous reporting periods.
Brookside Youth Centre reported high
use in 2009, but cut their use of
secure isolation by almost two-thirds
in 2013 and 2014.
Similarly, Cecil Facer Youth Centre
reported high use in 2009 and a
reduction in use by almost two-thirds
by 2014.
40 43
MEDIUM USE
LOW USE
2
We defined “high use” in our
analysis as more than 100
placements.
HIGH USE
“Medium use” is defined as 30–99
placements in secure isolation.
Sprucedale originally appeared in
2009 as a high use facility, but
dropped by more than half in 2014.
William Hay Youth Centre consistently
reported medium use. Sundance Youth
Centre reported medium use of secure
isolation in 2009 and 2014, but low
use of secure isolation in 2013.
In our analysis, we defined
“low use” as 0–29 placements.
Kennedy House Youth Services stood
out in the low use grouping as
having double the rate of placements
in secure isolation in 2014 as they
did in 2009.
33
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
FIG 9b. FACILITIES WITH HIGH, MEDIUM, AND LOW AVERAGE MINUTES PER USE IN 2009, 2013, 2014
1 WEEK
NOTES
KEY
1 BLUEWATER CLOSED
PRIOR TO 2013
2 ROY MCMURTRY DATA
FOR 2009 IS 9 MONTHS
ONLY
HIGH AVERAGE MINUTES: ≥ 1000
MEDIUM AVERAGE MINUTES: 100–999
HIGH
LOW AVERAGE MINUTES: ≤ 99
MEDIUM
1 DAY
34
PENINSULA
GE-DA-GI BINEZ
M GENEST
KENNEDY HOUSE
DONALD DOUCETTE
SUNDANCE
PINEGAR
NEAR NORTH
JJ KELSO
N
A
CRAIGWOOD
BLUEWATER1
N
A
PORTAGE
LOW
1 HOUR
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
2014
2013
2009
1 WEEK
In our analysis, we
defined “high use
average minutes”
as more than 1000
minutes in a single
placement. Note
that 1000 minutes
converts to 16 hours
and 40 minutes.
Two facilities
consistently reported
the highest average
minutes per use:
Roy McMurtry
Youth Centre and
Sprucedale. Cecil
Facer Youth Centre
reported a reduction
in length with a
reduction in use
by total number of
placements.
We defined “medium
use average
minutes” as an
average placement
of 100–999
minutes. There was
little change in
average length of
use in medium use
facilities year
over year.
1 DAY
ROY MCMURTRY2
SYL APPS
WILLIAM HAY
SPRUCEDALE
CECIL FACER
BROOKSIDE
RAY OF HOPE
J RONALD LESTER
ARRELL
1 HOUR
We defined “low use
average minutes”
as a placement in
secure isolation
lasting, on average,
99 minutes or less.
There was little
change in the use
of low average
placements year
over year.
Data in this visual
representation can
be found in Appendix
I: Raw Data.
35
WHAT CAN WE OBSERVE FROM
THE “REASONS FOR PLACEMENT”
INFORMATION THAT ACCOMPANIED THE
MINISTRY OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH
SERVICES DATA?
We also asked MCYS to include the “reason for placement
in secure isolation” with the data. For each placement,
a short statement, generally of one or two sentences but
sometimes longer, was provided for each occurrence of use.
Although there was wide variability in the phrases used,
in most cases the reason given for a placement in secure
isolation appeared to meet the legislated criteria for
risk of harm to others, or property (e.g., “irrational
and aggressive behaviour toward staff and property,”
“cause bodily harm,” “imminent threat to cause bodily
harm,” “aggression to others”). In some cases, the
descriptors suggested serious mental health concerns
including “spitting on staff and covering self with
urine and feces,” a youth threatening and attempting
suicide and other aggressive acts after returning from
an involuntary committal in the mental health ward of a
hospital, and a number of other examples of “threat to
self” or “self-harm.” Given the high incidence of mental
health concerns with the general population of youthful
offenders, the use of secure isolation in these situations
appears contraindicated.
36
THURS
9:50 PM
“YOU FEEL LIKE YOU ARE IN A MENTAL INSTITUTION –
IT FEELS LIKE YOU ARE NOT YOU.”
– ANONYMOUS YOUTH
SECTION 3.
EXPERIENCING SECURE
ISOLATION: WHAT YOUTH SAY
•
•
•
•
Youth reported that when they asked specifically to
call the Advocate’s Office they were refused
Many youth reported lack of fresh air and poor access
to showers
Many youth reported food was often late, provided in
small portions, or not provided at all
Most youth described the room as dirty73
In 2015, the Advocate’s Office continues to receive similar
complaints from youth about the physical conditions of secure isolation cells and access to the Advocate’s Office.
“What is it like to be in secure isolation?” This question was
asked of 141 youth during the interviews.
The information we learned from speaking with youth who
had experienced at least one placement in secure isolation
can be summarized into the following themes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
“Too much time” in secure isolation
Youth-reported reasons for placement
Dehumanizing aspect of secure isolation
Access to lawyer and/or advocate
Secure isolation “does things to your head”
Poor living conditions (e.g., food, fresh air, showers,
temperature, bedding, toilet procedures, cell cleanliness, and mental stimulation)
Much of what the youth had to say was disturbing to hear.
Even when used within the boundaries of the Child and
Family Services Act and the Youth Justice Services Manual,
there was no doubt that it is a difficult experience for many
youth. Youth described that the physical conditions in secure isolation can be cold and dirty and that they do not
always receive enough to eat. Some said they were denied
fresh air and they reported being denied access to any kind
of mental stimulation, including books or schoolwork.
Although the interviews were conducted in 2009, the
concerns raised by youth in this section are consistent
with the findings in the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth Report “It Depends Who’s Working.” The
Youth Reality at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre and
with the findings reported previously.72 In the spring
and summer of 2012, the advocates conducted interviews with 38 youth at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre.
The majority of youth reported that they were not advised of
their right to call the Advocate’s Office. The results of these
interviews were as follows:
38
PRESENTATION OF YOUTH
RESPONSES
During the review, we asked youth who had been placed
in secure isolation a series of questions. Their responses
were analyzed and organized into a number of categories
in a way that highlights both what we learned through the
interviews and what the corresponding legislation (Child
and Family Services Act) and Ministry policies (Youth
Justice Services Manual) say concerning the use of secure
isolation in Ontario.
METHODOLOGY
Advocates in teams of two visited every secure detention/
custody facility in Ontario and talked to every young person
in the facility on the day(s) of the visit. Four facilities were
visited in the Eastern Region, eight facilities in the Northern Region, seven facilities in the Western Region, and two
facilities in the Central Region. Interviews began on October 29, 2009, at William E. Hay Centre and were completed
on November 30, 2010, at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre.
Photographs of the secure isolation unit were taken by the
advocates or provided to the advocates by the facility.
Advocates met on a voluntary basis with each young person
at each facility. Youth were asked whether they had any experience in secure isolation at the facility in which they were
currently detained. If the answer was “yes,” the young people
were invited to participate in an interview process based on
a questionnaire that had been developed for the purpose of
the review.
EXPERIENCING SECURE ISOLATION: WHAT YOUTH SAY
FIG 10. NUMBER OF YOUTH CONTACTED AND REPORTING
PLACEMENT IN SECURE ISOLATION PER FACILITY
20
BLUEWATER YOUTH CENTRE*
42
NUMBER OF YOUTH REPORTING
PLACEMENT IN SECURE ISOLATION
0
PORTAGE YOUTH CENTRE
3
0
CRAIGWOOD YOUTH SERVICES (WOODVIEW UNIT)
6
* These facilities are directly operated by the
Ministry of Children and Youth Services.
JJ KELSO CENTRE
0
8
0
NEAR NORTH
6
1
PINEGAR
6
1
SUNDANCE
3
0
DONALD DOUCET YOUTH CENTRE*
12
From a possible 397 youth that were in detention
or custody on the day(s) the advocates visited
the facility, 142 youth reported that they had
experience in secure isolation. All agreed to an
interview. One youth who was interviewed later
noted that he was basing his answers upon being
locked in his room rather than being in secure
isolation; therefore, his answers are excluded
from the data analysis leaving 141 youth who were
interviewed.
Of all the youth in these facilities, more than
one-third (35%) had been placed in secure
isolation. In five of the 21 facilities, no youth
reported being sent to secure isolation.
KENNEDY HOUSE
2
8
5
M GENEST DETENTION CENTRE FOR YOUTH
10
1
GE-DA-GI BINEZ
12
2
PENINSULA YOUTH CENTRE
19
1
ARRELL YOUTH CENTRE
12
5
JUSTICE RONALD LESTER YOUTH CENTRE*
9
2
RAY OF HOPE (HOPE MANOR)
9
19
NUMBER OF YOUTH IN FACILITY
BROOKSIDE YOUTH CENTRE*
40
CECIL FACER YOUTH CENTRE*
17
21
7
18
10
31
WILLIAM E. HAY CENTRE
SPRUCEDALE YOUTH CENTRE*
SYL APPS YOUTH CENTRE
28
29
29
ROY MCMURTRY YOUTH CENTRE*
85
39
FINDINGS
ROW OF SECURE ISOLATION CELLS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE ‘RANGE’
“TOO MUCH TIME” IN SECURE ISOLATION
They kept lying, they said it would be two hours—it
was two days.
SIU is for kids who are in crisis—if you’re not really in
a crisis and maybe you were in a fight you should only be
brought to SIU for one hour.
On average, youth under the age of 16 years (n=5)
reported spending seven hours in secure isolation. Youth 16
years and older (n=126) reported an average of 42.7 hours
As seen in the data provided by MCYS in Appendix 1: Raw
Data, the data from 2009 show that youth spent as little as
two minutes in secure isolation and as long as 17 days. In
2013, the times ranged from three minutes to 16.5 days and
in 2014 the time spent in secure isolation ranged from two
minutes to almost 11 days. Of the times that secure isolation
was used, it was used for more than 24 hours 22.4% of the
time in 2009, 19% of the time in 2013, and almost 18% of the
time in 2014.
REASONS FOR PLACEMENT
[Secure isolation] is not [to be used] for small reasons,
but for big reasons.
Almost all youth who spent more than a few hours in secure
isolation questioned the length of time they spent there and
the lack of communication or information given to them
about how long they would be there. Youth commented on
a lack of standard time period and expressed concerns that
staff resorted immediately to the use of secure isolation
rather than employing de-escalation techniques.
40
[Secure isolation] not always for the reason they put
on paper.
During the review, we asked the youth why they had been
placed in secure isolation. Almost half of the youth (46%)
indicated that they were placed in secure isolation for
YOUTH ALSO
REPORTED BEING
CALLED NAMES OR
BEING HUMILIATED
BY STAFF FOR
REQUESTING
ACCESS TO THE
ADVOCATE’S
OFFICE. THEY
WERE TAUNTED AND
CALLED "SISSIES."
OUTSIDE LOCKED DOORS TO SECURE ISOLATION CELLS
fighting or for being aggressive with staff. Less aggressive
behaviours, such as refusing to follow staff direction or “not
interacting well” or disrespecting staff, were given by 15% of
youth. Some youth (10%) spoke about staff “power tripping”
and “control issues” that they felt could be dealt with in better ways than secure isolation. In all, 5% of youth described
“freaking out” and 4% cited physical damage to property as
the reason for placement in secure isolation; 25% of youth
either did not know why they were placed in secure isolation
or did not answer the question.
We asked, “Do you think placing you in secure isolation
was the right thing for you at that time?” More than half
of the youth at two facilities agreed it was the right thing
to do. Youth made comments such as “Yeah, a little
bit” and “Yes, but if they would have talked to me I would
have calmed down.”
The majority of youth at six facilities indicated that placement in secure isolation was not the right thing to do: “After
a fight you should go for an hour, not a night;” “I found it unjust and unfair, putting me in my room would have helped;”
“It just makes me more mad;” “I’m not violent, just loud, talk
to me and send me to my room.”
Although youth accepted that there were appropriate reasons for using secure isolation, they objected to its use
based on “trivial reasons” or just “bad behaviour” (versus behaviour that posed a safety risk). Many young people spoke
about staff power tripping and control issues that they felt
could be dealt with in better ways than using secure isolation. Youth reported that sometimes going to secure isolation
was dependent simply on which staff were working at the time.
Approximately 70% of the youth indicated they were told
the reasons why they were placed in secure isolation once
they were released, not at the time that they were placed
there. Others reported things such as “they don’t tell you
why, they’re not very helpful, in fact they are rude” and “they
said they would but they didn’t show up to talk to me.” MCYS
policy requires that staff debrief the young person within 24
hours of the young person’s release from secure isolation.
41
FINDINGS
INSIDE A SECURE ISOLATION CELL WITH BUILT IN BED AND TOILET/SINK COMBINATION
DEHUMANIZING ASPECTS OF SECURE
ISOLATION
Take a shit and they won’t flush the toilet, it stinks in
there. Feels like shit. Don’t give you food.
They told me to clean the cell before I leave and if I don’t
do a good job I won’t get out of here. It wasn’t clean
when I came in. How did the last guy get out of here?
PHYSICAL STRUCTURE OF SECURE ISOLATION UNITS
PORTABLE TELEPHONE THAT CAN BE WHEELED
TO THE DOOR OF A SECURE ISOLATION
CELL AND YOUTH CAN TALK TO LAWYER OR
ADVOCATE THROUGH THE FOOD SLOT IN THE
DOOR OF THE CELL
42
The appearance of secure isolation varies across facilities.
Some are in secure units in a separate part of the facility with several cells with doors and a small window in the
door for observation, a food slot in the door, and a bed, sink,
and toilet in the cell. Others are one or two rooms within
the facility either on the receiving and assessment area or
close to that area with a single bed or no bed at all. There
are also secure isolation rooms that are a separate room on
the living unit.
Many of the youth described their experience in secure isolation as “inhumane.” They talked about having to wait—
sometimes for hours—for staff to flush the toilet and feeling
humiliated by relying on staff to get sufficient toilet paper.
Secure isolation units that contain a stainless steel sink/
toilet combination do not have running water in the toilet
or the sink and do not have toilet paper in the cell. Young
people are required to ask staff to provide toilet paper when
needed and then must request that staff flush the toilet using the switch outside the cell. Youth said it was a “humiliating and degrading” experience and “part of the power trip”
to be required to ask staff to flush the toilet.
Youth also reported feeling dehumanized by mealtime slot
procedures, stating things such as “They don’t even open
the door to feed you; they put it through the slot.” Referring
to the policy that youth are to be served finger foods only
(they are not given utensils), one youth commented, “They
call them finger foods but you can’t eat scrambled eggs
with your fingers.”
LAWYER AND/OR ADVOCATE DIFFICULT TO ACCESS
Enshrined in the Child and Family Services Act (“CFSA”),74
the Youth Justice Services Manual, and the procedures of individual facilities, youth in secure isolation have the right
to speak to a lawyer and/or an advocate. Despite this right,
approximately half of the youth who reported placement in
secure isolation also reported not being given access to a
lawyer or advocate.
STAINLESS STEEL TOILET/SINK
COMBINATION IN A SECURE ISOLATION CELL
Youth were asked, “Did you have access to a lawyer, advocate, ombudsman, or probation officer?” In six of the facilities, more than half of the youth complained that they did
not have access to a lawyer or to the Advocate’s Office while
in secure isolation. Youth made complaints about all of
the facilities except for three. Youth also reported being
called names or being humiliated by staff for requesting
access to the Advocate’s Office. They were taunted and
called “sissies.”
SECURE ISOLATION “DOES THINGS TO YOUR HEAD”
Mind boggling, kind of making you drive yourself insane.
I feel like going crazy in a way; you get no communica-
tion, staff don’t talk to you or nothing; you feel like you
are in a mental institution…I know people started to talk
BUTTON OUTSIDE OF LOCKED SECURE
ISOLATION CELL FOR CUSTODY STAFF TO
FLUSH THE TOILET INSIDE THE CELL
to themselves.
43
FINDINGS
It’s horrible. It feels like you’re not you. I don’t know
why you would place anyone there…I would just place them
[youth] in their room.
When we asked youth what it was like to be placed in secure isolation, they gave us a keen sense of the mental and
emotional effects of being deprived of all social contact for
hours at a time. Many youth believed that being in secure
isolation led to the deterioration of their emotional health
and their sense of self-worth: “[Secure isolation] turns you
into crazy, mad angry people. People [staff] don’t listen to
you in there.” One youth said, “[It] makes us go crazy in here.
I have heard kids go crazy—yelling, punching walls until
their knuckles bleed cause they can’t take it anymore.” Another stated, “Twenty-four hours feels like five days.”
CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT: POOR
LIVING CONDITIONS
CONCRETE HALLWAY WITH FENCED ROOF
FOR FRESH AIR
Conditions of confinement in secure isolation, including
food, fresh air, showers, cell temperature, bedding, toilet
procedures, cell cleanliness, and access to culture/religion,
were all rated by youth during our review.
A. FOOD
The amount of food, the quality of food, and the timeliness
of receiving food in secure isolation were all concerns for the
majority of youth at four facilities.
At one facility, a youth stated, “You get less than everyone
else and they wait until everyone else is eating and say after an hour they give you your food. I don’t know if that is
part of the punishment.” Other youth at the same facility
also reported concerns making comments such as “[food is]
garbage,” “unsanitary,” “not the same as everyone else gets,”
and “asked to get a drink of water but that depends on if
staff like you.”
At four facilities, less than half the youth made complaints about food. A number of youth expressed concerns
that the staff did not open the door to give them their
food, but instead gave them food through the slot in the
door. They referred to this practice as “degrading,” “humiliating,” and “inhumane.”
44
LOCKED DOOR TO CAGED AREA FOR YOUTH TO
BE TAKEN FOR FRESH AIR
SECURE
ISOLATION MAY
BE PARTICULARLY
HARMFUL TO
PEOPLE WITH
MENTAL HEALTH
DISORDERS AND/
OR TRAUMA IN
THEIR HISTORIES
BECAUSE THEY MAY
BE ESPECIALLY
VULNERABLE TO
THE DETRIMENTAL
EFFECTS OF
ISOLATION.
INSIDE OF A CELL DOOR WITH THE FOOD SLOT
SHOWER IN THE SECURE ISOLATION UNIT — YOUTH ARE TAKEN
TO THE SHOWER ON THE UNIT USUALLY BY 2 STAFF AND MAY BE
HANDCUFFED AND/OR SHACKLED
45
FINDINGS
"CONCERNS HAVE BEEN
REPEATEDLY RAISED ABOUT
THE INCREASED RISK TO
THOSE WITH PRE-EXISTING
PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSES
AND THE RECOGNITION
THAT THIS POPULATION
COMPRISES A SIGNIFICANT
NUMBER OF THE POPULATION
PLACED IN ISOLATION."
(ARRIGO & BULLOCK, 2008)
INSIDE DOOR OF A SECURE ISOLATION CELL
B. INCONSISTENT ACCESS TO FRESH AIR
Almost half of the youth interviewed (41%) reported concerns about access to fresh air while in secure isolation.
C. ACCESS TO SHOWERS
Youth reported serious concerns about access to a shower
and about extreme fluctuations between hot and cold shower temperatures at five facilities.
D. EXTREME FLUCTUATIONS IN CELL TEMPERATURE
At six facilities, more than half of the youth interviewed described the air temperature in the secure isolation cells as
fluctuating with extreme heat and cold, reporting mainly
cold. There were no substantive concerns raised about the
temperatures in the secure isolation units reported in the
other facilities.
E. BEDDING TAKEN AWAY DURING THE DAY
Access to bedding and toilet paper was only applicable in
nine secure detention/custody facilities where secure isola46
tion cells included beds and stainless steel sinks and toilets.
The majority of young people reported that they were given
some type of bedding at night: mattresses, pillows in some
cases and in other cases the pillow was built into the bed,
and sometimes they were given blankets (but not always).
Many reported that all bedding was taken away during the
day regardless of the temperature of the cell.
F. TOILET PROCEDURES HUMILIATE YOUTH
It can take several hours before staff flush the toilet.
The secure isolation units that contain a sink-toilet combination do not have running water in the toilet or sink and
do not have toilet paper in the cell. Young people are required to ask staff to provide toilet paper when needed and
then must ask staff to flush the toilet using a switch outside of the cell. Youth expressed significant concerns about
this practice.
Many youth found it degrading and humiliating when staff
were not timely and respectful in disposing of their waste.
Young people acknowledged that they did get toilet paper,
SECURE ISOLATION ROOM THAT DOES NOT HAVE A BED OR TOILET/
SINK COMBINATION — AN EMPTY ROOM
but not always when they requested it, often waiting hours.
When they did get toilet paper, it was only a couple of sheets.
G. NO MENTAL STIMULATION PROVIDED
Time goes by slowly with nothing to do. I’m not thinking
of productive things.
Don’t see how it could help you. Sitting all day looking
at the wall just makes you angry and you’re sitting on
a concrete slab.
OBSERVATION WINDOW IN SECURE ISOLATION CELL —
CAN BE COMPLETELY CLOSED FROM OUTSIDE THE CELL
In nine facilities, the majority of the youth reported no access to mental stimulation while in
secure isolation. Youth at two facilities reported having access to some books and magazines.
H. RELIGIOUS RIGHTS
The youth were asked, “Were you allowed a prayer mat or
Bible if you wanted one?” In total, 80 youth reported “no.”
47
FRI
8:31 PM
“I DON’T KNOW WHY
YOU WOULD PUT ANYONE IN THERE.”
– ANONYMOUS YOUTH
SECTION 4.
SECURE ISOLATION UNIT LOGS
We obtained secure isolation logs from one facility for a 30day period. Based on the information contained in these
logs, two rights concerns were noted. One was the ability to
practice religion. Recorded in the notes was a circumstance
where a young person was denied his request for a prayer
mat and Quran on the basis of his refusal to hand in a pair
of “flip flops.”
The second involved medical care. In one situation, the logs
noted that a young person requested medical attention because he required insulin. The logs stated that he refused
to follow staff direction and was, therefore, deemed to be
refusing medical attention. It is unclear from the logs, which
spanned 24 hours per day for a 30-day period, if or when the
insulin was administered to the young person.
49
SAT
4:02 PM
“YOU ARE ALL ALONE
IT JUST MAKES ME FEEL MAD.”
– ANONYMOUS YOUTH
SECTION 5.
WHAT ARE THE RULES ABOUT
SECURE ISOLATION?
RECORDED IN THE NOTES
There are presently 20 secure custody and detention facilities with secure isolation units in Ontario:
WAS A CIRCUMSTANCE
•
WHERE A YOUNG PERSON
WAS DENIED HIS REQUEST
FOR A PRAYER MAT AND
QURAN ON THE BASIS OF
HIS REFUSAL TO HAND IN A
•
•
•
•
PAIR OF “FLIP FLOPS“.
•
•
•
Six are directly operated by the Ministry of Children
and Youth Services
Fourteen are operated by transfer payment
agencies (non-profit organizations)
Secure isolation units vary by size and fixtures
across facilities75
The size of individual secure isolation cells varies
All cells are required to have a door with a window or
slot through which staff can observe the young person
and deliver meals
Ten facilities contain secure isolation cells that are
empty (no beds, toilets, or sinks), necessitating that a
young person must inform staff if he or she needs to
use a toilet and/or sink
Three facilities contain cells with a bed but no toilet
or sink
Nine facilities contain cells with beds, sinks, and
toilets; water flow and toilet flushing are controlled by
staff outside the cell
USING SECURE ISOLATION: WHAT THE
RULES SAY
In Canada, the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA)76 emphasizes meaningful consequences, rehabilitation, and reintegration for children and youth convicted of criminal offences
and sets the direction for how the provinces and territories
carry out their mandates. The YCJA recognizes and protects
young people’s rights and freedoms. Youth who are in secure isolation are equally entitled to these rights. Canada
51
RESEARCH ON ADULTS
SUGGESTS THAT WHEN
INMATES ARE SUBJECTED TO
THE KINDS OF CONFINEMENT
CONDITIONS AND
DEPRIVATIONS DESCRIBED
ABOVE, THE MAJORITY CAN
BE EXPECTED TO REPORT
MODERATE TO SERIOUS
PSYCHOLOGICAL SYMPTOMS
AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME
is also a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child, which articulates the rights of young
people under the age of 18 years. The Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms77 protects all members of Canadian
society. Both are referenced in the Preamble to the Youth
Criminal Justice Act.
In Ontario, the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA) governs the use of secure isolation in the province’s secure custody/detention youth justice facilities. What the CFSA does
and does not include in its legislation regarding secure isolation is detailed subsequently.
Although the CFSA and its regulations govern the use
of secure isolation, the Ontario Youth Justice Services
Manual “is the source of minimum mandatory expectations for all direct-operated and transfer payment service
providers and, as such, is the basis for monitoring
performance and compliance.”78
Essentially, youth justice facility staff used the manual to
implement the CFSA.79 Although the manual stipulates
that certain standards must be adhered to across all facilities, it also allows for some procedures to be defined and
documented at the individual facility level. This may result
in some variation in how facilities carry out their duties,
which means individual youth experiences of secure isolation could vary from one facility to another.
YOUNG PEOPLE IN SECURE
ISOLATION HAVE BEEN
DENIED ACCESS TO THE
ADVOCATE’S OFFICE
THE POLICY CONTEXT IN ONTARIO
The varying practices in the use of secure isolation may
be a reflection of the historical evolution of youth justice
services in Ontario. The Juvenile Delinquents Act80 (1908–
1984) set the age at seven to 15 years or up to 17 years by
Order of the Governor in Council as the age of youth criminal accountability. The Ministry of Community and Social
Services provided service exclusively to youthful offenders
during this time. In 1984, the Young Offenders Act (YOA)81
replaced the Juvenile Delinquents Act and raised the age
of criminal responsibility to 12 years to a maximum of 17
years of age at the time of the offence. Prior to the YOA,
youth aged 16 and 17 years in Ontario were considered to
be adults and dealt with in the adult system by the Ministry
of Correctional Services.
Ontario implemented the YOA in two phases. Policies and
procedures for youth aged 12 to 15 years were implemented
in 1984 in a system called “Phase 1” which was overseen by
the Ministry of Community and Social Services. In 1985,
the YOA required all provinces and territories to enforce a
52
uniform age range of 12 to 17 years for all youth in Canada’s
youth criminal justice system. Thus, youth aged 16 and 17
years remained under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of
Correctional Services, which in 1985 created a “Phase 2” system for young offenders. Phase 2 youth were served within
the correctional system, legislated by the Ministry of Correctional Services Act (MCSA)82 , whereas youth aged 12 to 15
years were served by the children’s services system governed
by the CFSA.
The CFSA (s 127) allows for young persons to be placed in
a secure isolation room in cases where the service provider
believes that the child is likely to cause serious property
damage or cause another person serious bodily harm. Any
child placed in a secure isolation room must be continuously observed by a responsible person and must be released in
one hour unless the person in charge of the premises authorizes a longer period of isolation and documents the reason
a less restrictive course of action is inappropriate. In any
case, a child may not be placed in secure isolation for more
than eight hours in any 24-hour period or for an aggregate
of 24 hours in any given week.
The CFSA requires that all service providers, including detention and custody facilities, be licensed. The licensing
framework requires full compliance to all of the provisions
of the CFSA including secure isolation. The direct operated
facilities that were formerly with the Ministry of Correctional Services were not required to be licensed for secure isolation under the CFSA. In order to provide time to transition
the direct operated facilities to the Ministry of Children and
Youth Services on April 1, 2004, an Order in Council granted
the Ministry of Children and Youth Services Ontario Regulation 87/06 Exemption: Licensing, Locking-Up and Secure
Isolation for all former Ministry of Correctional Services secure detention/custody facilities. The exemptions regarding
locking-up and secure isolation were as follows:84
2. A facility operated pursuant to Part (V) of the Minis-
try of Correctional Services Act, is exempt, until April 1,
2009, from,
(a) the restriction preventing a service provider from
detaining a child in locked premises in the course of the
provision of services to the child as set out in section 100
of the Child and Family Services Act; and
The regulations to the MCSA (s 34) allow a superintendent
of an institution to place an inmate in segregation for any of
the following reasons: the inmate is in need of protection,
the inmate needs to be protected for the safety of others,
the inmate is alleged to have committed serious misconduct of a serious nature, or the inmate his/herself requests
to be placed in segregation.83 The superintendent is required
to review the person’s admission to segregation within 24
hours and then once in every five-day period to ascertain
whether continued placement in segregation is warranted.
All admissions to segregation lasting more than 30 continuous days are to be reported to the Minister and the reasons
for the continued placement must be communicated. Segregated inmates retain the same “privileges and benefits” as
those of the general population.
The MCSA (Part V) was silent on the use of secure isolation
or segregation with respect to young people. The differences
in use of secure isolation in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 systems
may be attributable to the differences in legislative mandate
at the time.
(b) the restrictions preventing a service provider from isolating a child in a locked place as set out in section 127
of the Child and Family Services Act.
This exempted these facilities from the mandatory requirements that limited the length of time a young person
could remain in secure isolation. All facilities formerly operated by the Ministry of Correctional Services have beds
and toilets in their secure isolation room. Very few of the
children’s services–operated facilities have a bed or toilet in their secure isolation rooms. Prior to the expiration
of the exemption (in April 2009), the Ontario government
passed the following amendments to the section of the
Child and Family Services Act that governs secure isolation:
EXCEPTION
A service provider is not required to comply with subsections (5) and (8) with respect to a young person who is
aged 16 years or older and who is held in a place of secure
The current YCJA came into force on April 1, 2003. On August 1, 2003, all youthful offenders and services were integrated together, governed by the MCSA. In November 2003,
it was announced that all youthful offenders and all services
would be transferred to the new Ministry of Children and
Youth Services effective April 1, 2004. Thereafter, all youth
criminal justice services would be regulated by the CFSA.
custody or secure temporary detention, but a service provider shall comply with the prescribed standards and
procedures in respect of such young persons who are held
in such places.
This amendment meant that service providers were no longer required to continuously observe youth who were 16
53
years of age or older while they were in secure isolation. The
amount of continuous time youth aged 16 years and older
could be detained was increased to 72 hours or longer with
the approval of the provincial director.
This amendment resulted in two levels of rights and two
levels of protection for youth in secure detention or custody
based on age.
WHAT ONTARIO LEGISLATION CURRENTLY
SAYS ABOUT SECURE ISOLATION
EXTRAORDINARY MEASURE
Along with other measures that restrict the liberties of
children and youth, such as secure treatment, emergency
admissions, intrusive procedures, and use of psychotropic
drugs, secure isolation is included as an “extraordinary measure.” Although the meaning of “extraordinary measures” is
not defined anywhere in the CFSA, a consultation paper circulated by the Ontario government Ministry then responsible for children’s services in 1982 explained the intention
behind the section as follows:
This part of the legislation would deal with three types of
extreme measures entailing certain risks to the child: (a)
intrusive procedures, (b) secure isolation, and (c) secure
treatment. Although these measures are clearly intended to
help the child, they may be harmful if not carefully controlled and used only as a last resort.85
SEPARATE AND SECURE SPACE
The authority for the use of secure isolation comes from
sections 126–128 and regulation 70 of the CFSA. In order for
a youth to be placed in secure isolation, the youth justice facility must have separate secure isolation cells or units that
are licensed under the licensing provisions in Part IV86 of the
CFSA only for the use of secure isolation.87
CRITERIA FOR USE
“A service provider can place a young person in secure isolation if, in the service provider’s opinion:
•
•
54
the child or young person’s conduct indicates that he
or she is likely, in the immediate future, to cause serious damage or to cause another person serious bodily
harm; AND
no less restrictive method is practicable."88
ONE-HOUR LIMIT
“A child or young person who is placed in a secure isolation room shall be released within one hour unless the person in charge of the premises approves the child’s or young
person’s longer isolation in writing and records the reasons for not restraining the child or young person by a less
restrictive method.”89
MAXIMUM TIME
Young people under age 16 years cannot be kept in secure
isolation any longer than an aggregate of eight hours in a
given 24-hour period or a maximum of 24 hours in a given
week. Youth 16 years and older can be kept longer: 72 continuous hours or a cumulative period of up to 72 hours within a seven-day period. An extension beyond 72 hours may
be approved by the provincial director if there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the young person’s
continued placement in secure isolation is necessary for the
safety of staff or young persons in the facility.
OBSERVATION
Young people under age 16 years must be continuously observed by a responsible person. Youth 16 years and older
are exempt from being continuously observed, but must be
observed at regular intervals taking into consideration the
needs of the young person. At a minimum, youth 16 years
and older must be observed every 15 minutes and the observations must be recorded.
REVIEW
“Where a child or young person is kept in a secure isolation
room for more than one hour, the person in charge of the
premises shall review the child’s or young person’s isolation
at prescribed intervals.”90 For children under age 16 years
who are kept in secure isolation for more than one hour,
the continued need for secure isolation must be reviewed at
least every 30 minutes by the person in charge of the premises. For youth 16 years and older who are kept in secure isolation for more than one hour, the continued need for secure
isolation must be reviewed at least every two hours by the
person in charge of the premises.
RELEASE
FOR YOUTH UNDER 16 YEARS:
“A child or young person who is placed in a secure isolation
room shall be released as soon as the person in charge is
satisfied that the child or young person is not likely to cause
serious property damage or serious bodily harm in the immediate future.”91
WHAT ONTARIO LEGISLATION DOES NOT SAY
Apart from prohibiting the use of secure isolation unless it
occurs in secure treatment programs or within designated
secure custody/secure temporary detention premises and
specifying “criteria for use” (see preceding discussion), the
CFSA does not actually define secure isolation.
Although this lack of detail may seem unimportant, it actually epitomizes the CFSA’s overall lack of clarity. For
example, previous 1997 policy (when the YOA was implemented by Ontario’s Ministry of the Solicitor General and
Correctional Services), defined secure isolation as a “crisis
management” tool and stated that it could only be used as a
“last resort.” The CFSA today does not contain this defining
context or language.
The CFSA does state the kinds of behaviour that could
warrant secure isolation, but by not clarifying its purpose,
it does not specifically prohibit using secure isolation as a
punishment. It does say that no service provider shall allow the use of harsh or degrading measures to humiliate
residents or undermine their self-respect.92 What are those
measures? Would secure isolation, especially when used
for extended periods or in demeaning ways, be considered
harsh and humiliating? The CFSA is silent on this.
HOW ARE YOUTH SAFEGUARDED IN
ONTARIO’S SECURE ISOLATION UNITS?
When it comes to secure isolation, the CFSA articulates
criteria for use, maximum time periods, and observation
and review requirements. As well, the Youth Justice Services
Manual specifies that a series of forms must be completed
by “the person in charge” when a youth is placed in secure
isolation. Importantly, time extensions must be approved
in writing along with the reasons for not using a less restrictive method by increasing levels of management up to
“facility director/youth centre administrator” with final approval coming from the Regional Director. Additionally, the
Youth Justice Services Manual directs that procedures must
be established to ensure a parent or guardian (including a
Children’s Aid Society if appropriate) is notified if a youth is
placed in secure isolation. Taken together, these standards
and corresponding procedures are intended to safeguard
the rights and well-being of young people because they prescribe what youth justice facilities can and cannot do when
it comes to holding youth in secure isolation.
The CFSA also specifies that young people have a right to
be informed of procedures to express their own concerns or
complaints about their care in general:
Concerns or Complaints (CFSA Reg 70, s 83)
Upon admission, young persons in care have the right to be
informed of the procedures that exist to express concerns
At the same time, although the CFSA specifies the rights
of children and youth while in care (as well as prohibiting the deprivation of a resident’s basic needs including
food, shelter, clothing, or bedding), it does not specifically
reiterate those rights under its section on secure isolation.
This means that there could be confusion about whether
all or some of a child’s rights extend to their placements
or complaints, including Internal Complaint and Review
Procedures (CFSA s 109–110); the Custody Review Board
(CFSA s 96); the Ombudsman; and the Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth.
According to the manual, the options available to youth
split across two general avenues:
Internal Complaints Processes (Section 4.3)
Furthermore, although stating that individual youth justice facilities are required to produce a set of policies and
procedures for the use of secure isolation, the CFSA does
not require individual facility policies to reflect a consistent
provincially regulated approach. It states only that: “Every
service provider shall develop and maintain written policies
and procedures with respect to the use of a secure isolation
room in premises of the provider where it is proposed to
place children or young persons in secure isolation.”93 This
too may lead to variations in policies and procedures among
individual facilities, resulting in young people’s experiences
of secure isolation varying from one facility to the next.
A young person shall have access to an internal complaint
mechanism if they have a problem, concern, or believe their
rights may have been violated. A young person must not
experience reprisals or duress as a result of a decision to
access an internal complaint mechanism.
External Complaints Processes (Section 4.4)
A young person, or the young person’s parent/guardian,
has a number of external complaint mechanisms available if
55
they have a problem, concern, or believe their rights may
have been violated. To make a complaint with respect to the
alleged violation of their rights or a service difficulty at
the secure custody/detention facility, a young person or the
young person’s parent/guardian can access the following:
•
Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children
•
Office of the Ombudsman Ontario
•
•
•
•
and Youth
a lawyer
the Minister of Children and Youth Services
THE CFSA ALSO SPECIFIES
THAT YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE A
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF
PROCEDURES TO EXPRESS
THEIR OWN CONCERNS OR
COMPLAINTS ABOUT THEIR
CARE
the Ontario Human Rights Commission
any member of a federal or provincial parliament or
any government minister.
A young person has the right to receive visits from and
speak in private with any of the above parties.94
Along with another external process (4.6):95
The Custody Review Board, as described under the Child
and Family Services Act (CFSA) s. 96 has a specific
mandate to hear applications from young people on the
following issues:
•
the particular place where the young person is held, or
•
a Provincial Director’s refusal to authorize a
•
has been transferred to
reintegration leave
a young person’s transfer from a place of open custody
to a place of secure custody pursuant to the Young
Offenders Act, s 24.2(9), in accordance with the
•
Youth Criminal Justice Act, s88
At present, the Custody Review Board has no
authority to review the placement of a young person
Furthermore, although the CFSA contemplates the creation
of a Professional Advisory Board composed of physicians
and other professionals who are not employed by MCYS to,
among other things, “review the practices and procedures of
service providers with respect to…secure isolation…”96 This
type of professional and external oversight body has never
been established by MCYS.
Although it would appear that the CFSA provides young
people in the care of government services with a number
of means to express concerns or make complaints about
their care, it is not clear to what extent these means are
available to young people placed in secure isolation.97 The
Youth Justice Services Manual does specify that as soon as
“practicable” young people placed in secure isolation are
56
to be advised of their right to “contact the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth” and “express views respecting
secure isolation including complaints and concerns,” yet
reports that young people in secure isolation have been denied access to the Advocate’s Office have been noted earlier
in this report.
When a young person resides in foster care, attends school,
or is involved in community activities, that young person
has a number of ways (e.g., phone, email, in-person) to reach
out for help and access a number of people (e.g., community
professionals, family, friends) who can provide that help.
When a young person is being held in detention, that list
shrinks dramatically and when that same young person is
placed in secure isolation, that list is reduced to one—the
guard on the other side of the door.
MON
2:16 PM
“THEY TOLD ME I WOULD BE HERE FOR AN HOUR
BUT I WAS THERE FOR ALMOST 5 DAYS.”
– ANONYMOUS YOUTH
SECTION 6.
CONCLUSIONS
Largely, this report documents the functions and conditions of the room that is secure isolation. We understand
now how often it is used in Ontario and for how long. We
have some understanding from young people that they
find the experience in secure isolation to be degrading,
dehumanizing, and punishing. The Advocate’s Office has
previously documented similar findings in a review of one
of the facilities in this study. What we do not know from
these data is about the young people themselves, their individual reactions to secure isolation, or the factors that led
to them being placed there. Although most of the descriptors provided for the reason for use are consistent with the
legislation, the use of stock phrases and vague statements
shed little light on the antecedents for the youth of such
an intrusive measure.
There are many limitations to the data used in this study.
The data are redacted and, as a result, this made the secure
isolation log data less reliable in terms of the ability to track
situations over specific time periods. The secure isolation
data about age, date, length, and reason for placement provides the most confidence for a complete data set. However,
we have no way of determining beyond professional trust of
the source if this is a full accounting of how often secure isolation is used. We have no way of tracking from these data,
whether the same youth is repeatedly placed, or if each entry represents a different youth. In fact, we have been told
that young people can be recorded as being discharged
from secure isolation for the purpose of going to court
and then re-admitted as a separate placement upon return
from court. Therefore, we still have insufficient understanding of the frequency or actual length of use in situations of
repeated placements. This indicates a need for more
robust and accessible data to be confident about the extent
of prolonged use.
58
Youth interview data provided temporal, first person
witness to current practices. Reviews previously
published by the Advocate’s Office serve as a mechanism to
validate their voices.
There is a disproportionate number of black and aboriginal
youth in criminal justice settings as well as a higher rate of
young people with mental health concerns.98 We do not have
enough information to determine how often these populations are placed in secure isolation. Clearly more study is
needed and much more information must be gathered.
This review points to concerns similar to those raised in
the Auditor General’s Report in 2012.99 The Auditor General
found that 90% of placements in secure isolation occurred
in youth justice facilities directly operated by MCYS. Our
analysis observed a decrease in use by directly operated facilities to 80% in 2013 and 63% in 2014 when compared to
use by facilities operated by transfer payment agencies.
The Auditor General, in their report, explored whether the
higher use of secure isolation related to the placement of
more young people with suspected gang involvement in
MCYS operated facilities. Their review found no real difference in placement of young people with suspected gang
ties in either directly operated or transfer payment agencies.
While we have no data about the involvement of young people in gangs or their charges, we have no reason to believe
that these young people would be any different than those
described by the Auditor General.
The strength of this study is the triangulation of several
sources: secure isolation counts, unit logs, interviews, and
findings from existing research. This provides a “face validity” that gives us confidence about the reliability of the data
sources we used in this report. The descriptive statistics
CONCLUSIONS
"DON’T SEE HOW IT COULD HELP
YOU. SITTING ALL DAY LOOKING
AT THE WALL JUST MAKES YOU
ANGRY AND YOU’RE SITTING ON
A CONCRETE SLAB."
–ANONYMOUS YOUTH
from data obtained from the Ministry provide an official record of the length and frequency of use of secure isolation in
Ontario during these time periods. These data provide sufficient evidence to raise concern over the practices of secure
isolation of youth within Ontario institutions. The evidence
also raises more questions than answers. We have no data
to shed light on the cumulative risk to young people due
to repeated use. Although there are suggestions of mental
health deterioration, we do not know how often such crises
occurred during placement.
It is recognized that young people’s brains continue to
develop into their mid-twenties. Indeed, the protections
of a youth criminal justice system reflect an international
acceptance of the immature brain of the adolescent. Considered a critical time period for mental health, adolescence
is a stage marked by vulnerability. Substantial evidence
from the research on the use of secure isolation with adults
documents the harmful effects of prolonged isolation.
The consequences of any use of secure isolation with young
people is not well understood and, given that this is a
period of critical brain development, the use of secure
isolation with adolescents presents considerable risk. Such
an intrusive and risky intervention must only be used
with heightened safeguards.
Although the data demonstrate a steady trend toward less
use across the province, we note that a few facilities demonstrated high use and, in one case, use increased year over
year. There is also a noticeable decrease in the use of secure
isolation by the Ministry-operated secure custody/detention facilities in the two-year period following the report
of the Auditor General’s findings in 2012. Finally, it is encouraging to note that in more than 75% of the instances in
which secure isolation was used in Ontario’s youth justice
facilities, it was used for periods of less than 24 hours.
It is the role of the Advocate, however, to speak to the rights
and needs of young people in vulnerable situations and to
point out situations where rights and needs are not met.
The data we reviewed documents the prolonged use of secure isolation for some youth. In fact, in 2014 there were
164 placements in secure isolation that lasted beyond 24
hours. Of these, 38 placements lasted beyond 72 hours and
13 placements lasted more than five days. We note with
concern a trend toward use of secure isolation with youth
at younger ages from 2013 to 2014. We found that in 2013
youth aged 12 to 15 years accounted for 18% of use, whereas
27% of the secure isolation placements were for youth aged
15 years and younger in 2014. There is inconsistent practice across facilities and wide variability in the frequency
and length of use among facilities. There is a clear pattern
whereby some facilities frequently use secure isolation at
high rates for long periods of time, whereas others use it infrequently and for much shorter periods.
The review of the “reason for placement” data raised concerns about the mental health needs of young people placed
in secure isolation. This is a finding that was echoed by
youth when recounting their own experiences during the
interviews with the advocates. Youth made comments such
as “I felt like going crazy,” “It feels like you are not you,” and
“It turns you into crazy, mad, angry people.”
It is clear from the information we have gathered that there
is a need for greater vigilance regarding secure isolation in
Ontario. In particular, more attention must be paid to the
environmental conditions and the subjective experiences
of young people when this type of intrusive measure is employed. The existing review mechanisms and the absence
of appeal processes result in inadequate oversight of this
practice. Given the known risks of solitary confinement, the
need for enhanced safeguards is apparent.
59
MON
8:48 PM
“NOBODY EVER TALKS TO YOU. THEY DON’T TELL YOU
ANYTHING, YOU JUST SIT THERE.”
– ANONYMOUS YOUTH
SECTION 7.
RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION 1
RECOMMENDATION 4
The Ontario Government should amend the Child
and Family Services Act to prohibit the placement
of a young person in secure isolation for a period
that exceeds 24 hours without exception.
The Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth
should be notified anytime a young person is
placed in secure isolation for reasons related to
mental health.
RECOMMENDATION 2
RECOMMENDATION 5
At a minimum, the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth should be notified by the Ministry
of Children and Youth Services of any young person
placed in secure isolation for a period beyond 24
hours and the name of the facility.
The Ministry of Children and Youth Services should
review the conditions of confinement in each youth
justice facility and develop consistent standards.
RECOMMENDATION 3
The Custody Review Board should be empowered to
hear appeals from any young person whose placement in secure isolation extends beyond 24 hours
and be given the authority to order the release of a
young person from secure isolation.
RECOMMENDATION 6
The Ministry of Children and Youth Services
should put a process in place that tracks the use
of secure isolation in youth justice facilities by:
frequency of use; actual length of time in isolation;
repeated placements by the same youth; gender;
race; and culture. Annual benchmarks should be
developed and the results reported annually on the
Ministry’s website.
61
1. NUMBER OF PLACEMENTS IN SECURE ISOLATION PER FACILITY
FACILITY
ARRELL
2009
2013
2014
NOTES
3
2
BLUEWATER
35
—
BROOKSIDE
234
70
73 —
CECIL FACER
183
51
37 —
CRAIGWOOD
1
0
1 —
DONALD DOUCETTE
7
10
4 —
GE-DA-GI BINEZ
3
0
1 —
JJ KELSO
2
2
0 —
J. RONALD LESTER
30
3
1 —
KENNEDY HOUSE
14
4
27 —
M GENEST
5
0
2 —
NEAR NORTH
2
5
11 —
PENINSULA
0
1
0 —
PINEGAR
0
3
6 —
PORTAGE
2
2
0 —
RAY OF HOPE
6
0
2 —
267*
242
115
97
48 —
SUNDANCE
33
7
47 —
SYL APPS
40
43
108 —
WILLIAM HAY
39
50
43 —
1021
592
701 —
ROY MCMURTRY*
SPRUCEDALE
TOTAL
62
12 —
— CLOSED BEFORE 2013
278 DATA FOR A 9-MONTH PERIOD
2. AVERAGE (RANGE OF USE) MINUTES OF SECURE ISOLATION USE BY FACILITY
2009
FACILITY
ARRELL
AVERAGE
2013
LOWEST
HIGHEST
AVERAGE
2014
LOWEST
HIGHEST
AVERAGE
LOWEST
HIGHEST
33
15
65
35
25
45
31
10
62
BLUEWATER*
2411
43
18498
—
—
—
—
—
—
BROOKSIDE
560
48
10130
2162
5
18540
1073
6
5760
1253
15
7240
642
15
5315
873
50
3855
28
28
28
0
0
0
175
175
175
416
49
987
228
69
386
1253
122
4270
GE-DA-GIBINEZ
34
4
101
0
0
0
25
25
25
JJKELSO
80
11
150
100
95
105
0
0
0
J. RONALD LESTER
359
22
1578
82
10
135
97
97
97
KENNEDY HOUSE
116
2
242
37
7
59
23
1
81
M GENEST
194
17
545
0
0
0
155
127
182
NEAR NORTH
80
75
85
115
83
160
114
47
240
PENINSULA
0
0
0
143
143
143
0
0
0
PINEGAR
0
0
0
135
34
310
778
147
2087
PORTAGE
40
39
40
53
20
86
0
0
0
RAY OF HOPE
70
27
145
0
0
0
455
245
665
ROY MCMURTRY
1476
7
15093
1894
13
21622
2114
10
15671
SPRUCEDALE
3353
65
24170
2547
43
23655
2214
100
7535
SUNDANCE
85
20
270
103
17
285
86
2
198
SYLAPPS
115
3
546
77
6
337
74
4
325
52
7
170
101
3
650
128
2
1750
577
—
—
423
—
—
483
—
—
9:37
—
—
7:03
—
—
8:03
—
—
CECIL FACER
CRAIGWOOD
DONALD DOUCETTE
WILLIAM HAY
AVERAGE(MINUTES)
AVERAGE(HOURS)
* BLUEWATER CLOSED BEFORE 2013
63
3. AVERAGE NUMBER OF YOUTH PER MONTH AT EACH FACILITY
FACILITY
2013
ARRELL
2014
11
10
BLUEWATER*
0
0
BROOKSIDE
16
12
CECIL FACER
18
12
CRAIGWOOD
3
3
DONALD DOUCETTE
7
5
GE-DA-GI BINEZ
9
6
JJ KELSO
4
2
11
12
KENNEDY HOUSE
7
6
M GENEST
8
6
NEAR NORTH
4
3
PENINSULA
10
6
PINEGAR
3
4
PORTAGE
3
2
RAY OF HOPE
15
10
ROY MCMURTRY
78
64
SPRUCEDALE
27
18
SUNDANCE
3
4
SYL APPS
23
23
WILLIAM HAY
23
19
* BLUEWATER CLOSED BEFORE 2013
64
4. NUMBER OF YOUTH AGED 12 TO 21 YEARS IN SECURE ISOLATION IN 2013 AND 2014
AGE (YEARS)
12
2013
0
13
22
56
111
241
232
49
16
109
18
112
17
19
1
1
14
15
2014
52
126
121
23
20
14
0
21
21
0
TOTAL
1
592*
701
*ONE AGE WAS UNKNOWN
5. USE OF SECURE ISOLATION FOR MORE THAN EIGHT HOURS FOR YOUTH YOUNGER
THAN 16 YEARS OF AGE IN 2014
FACILITY
PINEGAR
ROY MCMURTRY
YOUTH, #
1
1
MINUTES
TIME
650
1191
HOURS
11
20
65
6. USE OF SECURE ISOLATION FOR YOUTH UNDER 16 YEARS IN 2013 AND 2014
2013, AGE 12 YEARS
FACILITY
AVERAGE
MINUTES
NUMBER
LOWEST
MINUTES
2013 AGE 13 YEARS
HIGHEST
MINUTES
AVERAGE
MINUTES
NUMBER
LOWEST
MINUTES
HIGHEST
MINUTES
ARRELL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BROOKSIDE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CECIL FACER
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DONALD DOUCETTE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GE-DA-GI BINEZ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KENNEDY HOUSE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NEAR NORTH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PINEGAR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ROY MCMURTRY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SPRUCEDALE
0
0
0
0
1
58
58
58
SUNDANCE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SYL APPS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WILLIAM HAY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
0
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2014, AGE 12 YEARS
FACILITY
AVERAGE
MINUTES
NUMBER
LOWEST
MINUTES
2014, AGE 13 YEARS
HIGHEST
MINUTES
AVERAGE
MINUTES
NUMBER
LOWEST
MINUTES
HIGHEST
MINUTES
ARRELL
1
22
22
22
11
32
10
61
BROOKSIDE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CECIL FACER
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DONALD DOUCETTE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GE-DA-GI BINEZ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KENNEDY HOUSE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NEAR NORTH
0
0
0
0
1
54
54
54
PINEGAR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ROY MCMURTRY
0
0
0
0
1
42
42
42
SPRUCEDALE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SUNDANCE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SYL APPS
0
0
0
0
8
36
12
81
WILLIAM HAY
0
0
0
0
1
40
40
40
TOTAL
1
—
—
—
22
—
—
—
66
2013 AGE 14 YEARS
2013 AGE 15 YEARS
AVERAGE
MINUTES
NUMBER
LOWEST
MINUTES
HIGHEST
MINUTES
AVERAGE
MINUTES
NUMBER
LOWEST
MINUTES
HIGHEST
MINUTES
FACILITY
0
0
0
0
2
35
25
0
0
0
0
1
215
215
1
145
145
145
20
206
45
3
340
300
386
2
230
149
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 GE-DA-GI BINEZ
1
7
7
7
0
0
0
0 KENNEDY HOUSE
4
117
83
160
—
—
—
— NEAR NORTH
1
310
310
310
1
34
34
17
208
110
479
12
231
70
10
257
43
440
8
251
147
395 SPRUCEDALE
0
0
0
0
2
49
17
81 SUNDANCE
10
46
10
83
2
96
45
147 SYL APPS
2
109
96
122
6
87
35
252 WILLIAM HAY
49
—
—
—
56
—
—
2014, AGE 14 YEARS
AVERAGE
MINUTES
NUMBER
LOWEST
MINUTES
45 ARRELL
215 BROOKSIDE
320 CECIL FACER
311 DONALD DOUCETTE
34 PINEGAR
467 ROY MCMURTRY
— TOTAL
2014, AGE 15 YEARS
HIGHEST
MINUTES
AVERAGE
MINUTES
NUMBER
LOWEST
MINUTES
HIGHEST
MINUTES
FACILITY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ARRELL
1
46
46
46
0
0
0
0 BROOKSIDE
0
0
0
0
2
130
85
175 CECIL FACER
0
0
0
0
1
146
146
1
25
25
25
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
11
17
1
1
100
100
100
6
115
58
0
0
0
0
1
650
650
3
140
86
188
25
223
10
1191 ROY MCMURTRY
3
412
315
468
8
295
100
405 SPRUCEDALE
28
69
2
198
15
99
53
190 SUNDANCE
8
73
20
149
39
62
4
215 SYL APPS
6
88
2
175
3
49
26
52
—
—
—
111
—
—
146 DONALD DOUCETTE
0 GE-DA-GI BINEZ
45 KENNEDY HOUSE
240 NEAR NORTH
650 PINEGAR
90 WILLIAM HAY
— TOTAL
67
7. SECURE ISOLATION USE FOR MORE THAN 24 HOURS BY FACILITY
FACILITY
2009
BLUEWATER
2013
2014
NOTES
85
—
PINEGAR
0
0
1 —
DONALD DOUCETTE
0
0
1 —
2
0
0 —
BROOKSIDE
19
22
14 —
CECIL FACER
45
6
3 —
WILLIAM HAY
0
0
1 —
SPRUCEDALE
81
47
29 —
ROY MCMURTRY
83*
79
TOTAL
315
154
115 *DATA FOR A 9-MONTH PERIOD
164 —
8. SECURE ISOLATION USE BETWEEN 24 AND 71 HOURS BY FACILITY
FACILITY
BLUEWATER
2009
2013
2014
NOTES
50
—
PINEGAR
0
0
1 —
DONALD DOUCETTE
0
0
1 —
2
0
0 —
BROOKSIDE
17
14
12 —
CECIL FACER
36
5
3 —
WILLIAM HAY
0
0
1 —
SPRUCEDALE
54
38
25 —
ROY MCMURTRY
70*
56
TOTAL
229
113
68
126 —
9A. NUMBER OF PLACEMENTS WITHIN SECURE ISOLATION LASTING LONGER THAN 72 HOURS
BY FACILITY
FACILITY
2009
2013
2014
NOTES
BLUEWATER
35
—
BROOKSIDE
2
8
2 —
CECIL FACER
9
1
0 —
SPRUCEDALE
27
9
4 —
13*
23
86
41
38 —
ROY MCMURTRY
TOTAL
9. NUMBER OF PLACEMENTS IN SECURE ISOLATION LASTING FIVE DAYS OR LONGER BY
FACILITY IN 2009 2013 2014
2009
FACILITY
5–9 DAYS
2013
10–14
DAYS
15+ DAYS
5–9 DAYS
2014
10–14
DAYS
15+ DAYS
5–9 DAYS
10–14
DAYS
15+ DAYS
BLUEWATER
5
3
0
—
—
—
—
—
—
BROOKSIDE
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
0
CECIL FACER
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SPRUCEDALE
7
0
1
2
1
1
1
0
0
ROY MCMURTRY
4*
1*
0*
6
2
1
10
2
0
TOTAL
20
4
1
13
5
2
11
2
0
*DATA FOR A 9-MONTH PERIOD
69
10A-C. HIGH USE FACILITIES (≥100 PLACEMENTS IN SECURE ISOLATION) 2009 2013 2014
FACILITY
2009
2013
2014
NOTES
BROOKSIDE
234
—
— —
CECIL FACER
183
—
— —
SPRUCEDALE
115
—
— —
—
—
108 —
267*
242
SYL APPS
ROY MCMURTRY
10D-F. MEDIUM USE FACILITIES (30 TO 99 PLACEMENTS IN SECURE ISOLATION)
IN 2009 2013 2014
FACILITY
2009
2013
2014
NOTES
BLUEWATER
35
—
SUNDANCE
33
—
47 —
30
—
— —
BROOKSIDE
—
70
73 —
CECIL FACER
—
51
37 —
WILLIAM HAY
39
50
43 —
SPRUCEDALE
—
97
48 —
40
43
— —
SYL APPS
70
10G-I. LOW USE FACILITIES (0–29 PLACEMENTS IN SECURE ISOLATION) IN 2009 2013 2014
FACILITY
2009
2013
2014
PORTAGE
2
2
0
CRAIGWOOD
1
0
1
JJ KELSO
2
2
0
NEAR NORTH
2
5
11
PINEGAR
0
3
6
SUNDANCE
—
7
—
DONALD DOUCETTE
7
10
4
14
4
27
M GENEST
5
0
2
GE-DA-GI BINEZ
3
0
1
PENINSULA
0
1
0
ARRELL
3
2
12
3
1
0
2
KENNEDY HOUSE
RAY OF HOPE
6
10J-L FACILITIES WITH HIGH AVERAGE MINUTES PER USE (≥1000 MINUTES_≥16 HOURS)
IN 2009 2013 2014
2009
FACILITY
BLUEWATER
2009
MINUTES
2013
2009
HOURS
2013
MINUTES
2014
2013
HOURS
2014
MINUTES
NOTES
2014
HOURS
2411
40
—
—
—
DONALD DOUCETTE
—
—
—
—
1253
21 —
BROOKSIDE
—
—
2162
36
1073
18 —
CECIL FACER
1253
21
—
—
—
— —
SPRUCEDALE
3353
56
2547
42
2214
37 —
1476*
25*
1894
32
2114
ROY MCMURTRY
71
10M-O. FACILITIES WITH MEDIUM AVERAGE MINUTES PER USE (100–999 MINUTES)
IN 2009 2013 2014
2009
FACILITY
2009
MINUTES
2013
2009
HOURS
2013
MINUTES
2014
2013
HOURS
2014
MINUTES
2014
HOURS
CRAIGWOOD
—
—
—
—
175
3
JJ KELSO
—
—
100
1.5
—
—
NEAR NORTH
—
—
115
2
114
2
PINEGAR
—
—
135
2
778
13
SUNDANCE
—
—
103
1.5
—
—
DONALD DOUCETTE
416
7
228
4
—
—
KENNEDY HOUSE
116
2
—
—
—
—
M GENEST
194
3
—
—
155
2.5
—
—
143
2
—
—
359
6
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
455
8
560
9
—
—
—
—
CECIL FACER
—
—
642
11
873
15
WILLIAM HAY
—
—
101
1.5
128
2
115
2
—
—
—
—
PENINSULA
RAY OF HOPE
BROOKSIDE
SYL APPS
10P-R. FACILITIES WITH LOW AVERAGE MINUTES PER USE (_99 MINUTES) IN 2009 2013 2014
FACILITY
2009 MINUTES
2013 MINUTES
2014 MINUTES
PORTAGE
40
53
—
CRAIGWOOD
28
—
—
JJ KELSO
80
—
—
NEAR NORTH
80
—
—
SUNDANCE
85
—
86
KENNEDY HOUSE
—
37
23
GE-DA-GI BINEZ
34
—
25
ARRELL
33
35
31
—
82
97
RAY OF HOPE
70
—
—
WILLIAM HAY
52
—
—
—
77
74
SYL APPS
72
11. NUMBER OF YOUTH CONTACTED AND REPORTING PLACEMENT IN SECURE ISOLATION
PER FACILITY
FACILITY
BLUEWATER YOUTH CENTRE*
NUMBER OF YOUTH
CONTACTED AT
FACILITY
NUMBER OF
YOUTH REPORTING PLACEMENT IN SECURE
ISOLATION AND
COMPLETING INTERVIEW
NOTES
42
20 —
PORTAGE YOUTH CENTRE
3
0 —
CRAIGWOOD YOUTH SERVICES (WOODVIEW UNIT)
6
0 —
JJ KELSO CENTRE
8
0 —
NEAR NORTH
6
0 —
PINEGAR
6
1 —
SUNDANCE
3
1 —
DONALD DOUCET YOUTH CENTRE*
12
0 —
KENNEDY HOUSE YOUTH SERVICES
8
2 —
MAURICE H. GENEST DETENTION CENTRE FOR YOUTH
10
5 —
GE-DA-GI BINEZ
12
1 —
PENINSULA YOUTH CENTRE
19
2 —
ARRELL YOUTH CENTRE
12
1 —
JUSTICE RONALD LESTER YOUTH CENTRE*
9
5 —
RAY OF HOPE (HOPE MANOR)
9
2 —
BROOKSIDE YOUTH CENTRE*
40
19 —
CECIL FACER YOUTH CENTRE*
21
17 —
WILLIAM E. HAY CENTRE
28
7 —
SPRUCEDALE YOUTH CENTRE*
29
18 —
SYL APPS YOUTH CENTRE
29
10 —
ROY MCMURTRY YOUTH CENTRE*
85
31 —
STERLING B. CAMPBELL HOUSE
—
— CLOSED SEPTEMBER 2009
YORK DETENTION CENTRE
—
— CLOSED SEPTEMBER 2009
TOTAL
397
142 —
*THESE FACILITIES ARE DIRECTLY OPERATED BY THE MINISTRY OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES.
73
REFERENCES
1 Law Commission of Canada. Restoring Dignity:
Responding to Child Abuse in Canadian Institutions.
Ottawa (ON): Minister of Public Works and
Government Services; 2000.
units. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology. Dec 2008;52(6):622-640.
13 Haney C. Mental health issues in long-term segregation
and “supermax” confinement. Crime and Delinquency.
January 2003;49(1):124-156.
January 2003;49(1):124-156
2 Ministry of Children and Youth Services, Ontario.
Subject 9.1: Requirements for use of a secure isolation
room. In: Youth Justice Services Manual-Custody/
Detention Facilities. Place (ON): April 1, 2009.
January 2003;49(1):124-156
3 Child and Family Services Act, RSO 1990, c C-11, s
126(3)(a)(ii).
16 Adams K. Adjusting to prison life. Crime and Justice.
1992;16:275-239.
127(7).
17 Shalev S. A Sourcebook on Solitary Confinement.
London: Mannheim Centre for Criminology; 2008.
126(8).
18 Jackson M. The psychological effects of administrative
segregation. Canadian Journal of Criminology and
Criminal Justice. 2001;43(1):109-116.
6 Child and Family Services Act, RRO 1990, Reg 70, s 48.1
7 Nowak, Manfred. Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman
Treatment or Punishment Submitted to the UN
General Assembly 63rd Session A/63/175
8 Mendez J. Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur of
the Human Rights Council on Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Vienna: United Nations; Aug 2011. Item No.: 69(b) of
66th session of United Nations General Assembly.
Report No.: A/66/268.
9 Kelsall D. Cruel and unusual punishment: solitary
confinement in Canadian prisons. Canadian Medical
Association Journal. December 9, 2014; 186(18):1345.
January 2003;49(1):124-156
11 Clements C, Althouse R, Ax R, Magaletta P, Fagan T,
Wormith J. Systemic issues and correctional outcomes.
Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2007;34 (7):919-932
12 Arrigo B, Bullock J. The psychological effects of
solitary confinement on prisoners in supermax
74
January 2003;49(1):124-156
20 Metzner JL, Fellner J. Solitary confinement and mental
illness in US prisons: a challenge for medical ethics.
Journal of the American Academy for Psychiatry and
Law. 2010;38:104-8
21 Cesaroni C, Peterson-Badali M. Understanding
the adjustment of incarcerated young offenders: a
Canadian example. Youth Justice. 2010;10(2):251-277
22 McShane, M.D. and Williams, F.P. The Prison
adjustment of juvenile offenders. Crime and
Delinquency. 1989; 35 (2); 254-269
23 Gover AR, MacKenzie KL, Armstrong CS. Importation
and deprivation explanations of juveniles’ adjustment
to correctional facilities. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology.
2000;44:450-467.
24 Cohen F. Penal isolation: beyond the seriously mentally
ill. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2008;35(8):1017-1047.
REFERENCES
25 Quinn A, Shera W. Evidence-based practice in group
work with incarcerated youth. International Journal of
Law and Psychiatry. 2009;32(5):288-293
27 Arnett, J. Emerging adulthood: The winding road from
late teens through the twenties. Oxford University
Press. 2004
37 31. United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles
Deprived of their Liberty. Vienna: United Nations;
December 14, 1990. Item No.: 45/113 of 68th plenary
meeting of United Nations General Assembly. Report
No.: A/RES/45/113.
38 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
General Comment 20: Replaces general comment 7
concerning prohibition of torture and cruel treatment
or punishment. Geneva: Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights; 1992.
39 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
1966 A/63/16
40 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
(1989) A/44/49
Committee on the Rights of the Child. Concluding
observations on the combined third and fourth
periodic reports of Luxembourg, adopted by the
Committee at its sixty-fourth session (16 September–4
October 2013). Vienna: United Nations; October 29,
2013. Report No.: CRC/C/LUX/CO/3-4.
30 Browne A, Cambier A, Agha S. Prisons within prisons:
the use of segregation in the United States. Federal
Sentencing Reporter. October 2011;24(1):46-49.
(1989) A/44/49
43 The Istanbul statement on the use and effects of
solitary confinement. http://solitaryconfinement.org/
uploads/Istanbul_expert_statement_on_sc.pdf
44 U N General Assembly, Torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment : note
/ by the Secretary-General; 28 July 2008. Report No.:
A/63/175.
33 Kupers T. What to do with the survivors? Criminal
Justice and Behavior. 2008; 35(8):1005-1016.
45 The Istanbul statement on the use and effects of
solitary confinement. http://solitaryconfinement.org/
uploads/Istanbul_expert_statement_on_sc.pdf
35 Smith PS. The effects of solitary confinement on prison
inmates: a brief history and review of the literature.
Crime and Justice. 2006;34:441.
46 U N General Assembly, Torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment : note
/ by the Secretary-General; 28 July 2008. Report No.:
A/63/175.
36 Smith PS. The effects of solitary confinement
on prison inmates: a brief history and review of
the literature. Crime and Justice. 2006;34:441.
January 2003;49(1):124-156.
75
REFERENCES
48 Smith PS. The effects of solitary confinement on prison
inmates: a brief history and review of the literature.
Crime and Justice. 2006;34:441
49 Arrigo B, Bullock J. The psychological effects of
solitary confinement on prisoners in supermax
units. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology. Dec 2008;52(6):622-640.
50 Grassian S, Friedman N. Effects of sensory deprivation
in psychiatric seclusion and solitary confinement.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry.
1986;8(1):49-65.
51 Hodgins S, Cote G. The mental health of penitentiary
offenders in isolation. Canadian Journal of Criminology.
1991;33:175-182.
52 Simkins S, Beyer M, Geis LM, The harmful use of
isolation in juvenile facilities: the need for postdisposition representation. Washington University
Journal of Law and Policy. 2012;38:241.
January 2003;49(1):124-156
54 Human Rights Watch 2012. Growing up locked down:
Youth in solitary confinement in jails and prisons
across the United States. American Civil Liberties
Union. ISBN 1-56432-949-6.
55 Juvenile Justice Reform Committee of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry policy
statement. April 2012
56 Metzner JL, Fellner J. Solitary confinement and mental
illness in US prisons: a challenge for medical ethics.
Journal of the American Academy for Psychiatry and
Law. 2010;38:104-8.
59 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Punishment 1984 A/Res/39/46.
Report No.: A/66/268
62 Statement of High Commissioner for Human Rights to
the 22nd session of Human Rights Council, 25 February
2013
64 Statement of High Commissioner for Human Rights to
the 22nd session of Human Rights Council, 25 February
2013
65 Mendez J. Torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment: note by the
Secretary-General. Vienna: United Nations; Aug 2013.
Item No.: 69(a) of 68th session of United Nations
General Assembly. Report No.: A/68/295.
66 Mendez J. Torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment: note by the
Secretary-General. Vienna: United Nations; Aug 2013.
Item No.: 69(a) of 68th session of United Nations
General Assembly. Report No.: A/68/295.
67 JJI urges congress to ban solitary confinement of
juveniles. Models for Change. Available at: http://www.
modelsforchange.net/newsroom/259
58 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
1966 A/63/16
76
REFERENCES
80 Juvenile Delinquents Act, S C 1908 c. 40
81 Young Offenders Act, R S C 1985 c. Y-1
Youth Justice Services Manual-Custody/Detention
Facilities. (ON): April 1, 2009.
72 Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth. “It
Depends Who’s Working.” The Youth Reality at the Roy
McMurtry Youth Centre. Toronto (ON): Office of the
Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth; 2013.
73 Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth. “It
Depends Who’s Working.” The Youth Reality at the Roy
McMurtry Youth Centre. Toronto (ON): Office of the
Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth; 2013
74 Child and Family Services Act, R S O 1990 c. C.11
75 Some of the physical differences relate back to the
previous mandate of the facility—the secure isolation
cells in the former Phase 2 direct-operated facilities
were originally intended for adults and have beds
and toilets; very few of the transfer payment facilities
originally intended for youth have a bed and/or toilet
in the space.
82 Ministry of Correctional Services Act, RSO 1990 c-M22
83 Ministry of Correctional Services Act. RRO 1990, Reg.
778: General
84 Child and Family Services Act. RSO 1990, c C-11, s 126128 and Regulation 70
85 Ministry of Community and Social Services, The
Children’s Act”, Toronto: Queen’s Printer (1982) p 133
86 Child and Family Services Act. RSO 1990, c C-11, s 126128 and Regulation 70.
87 This pertains specifically to youth justice facilities.
Elsewhere the CFSA states in C-11, s 127: (1): No service
provider or foster parent shall isolate in a locked place
a child or young person who is in his or her care or
permit the child or young person to be isolated in a
locked place, except in accordance with this section
and the regulations. 2009, c. 2, s. 12 (1). It then qualifies
the above in s 127(2): Subsection (1) does not prohibit
the routine locking at night of rooms in the premises
of secure treatment programs or in places of secure
custody and places of secure temporary detention
under Part IV (Youth Justice).
76 Youth Criminal Justice Act, S C 2002 c.1
77 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of
the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the
Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982 c 11.
78 Ministry of Children and Youth Services, Ontario. Youth
Justice Services Manual-Custody/Detention Facilities.
(ON): April 1, 2009.
79 There are separate manuals for direct-operated
facilities (i.e., managed directly by MCYS) and transfer
payment facilities (i.e., managed by independent
third-party agencies). The direct-operated manual
specifically lists youth rights and devotes a section
to the use of secure isolation. Except for mention of a
few rights, the transfer payment manual takes a more
general approach, referring mostly to the CFSA and
YCJA and making no mention of any policies regarding
secure isolation.
88 Child and Family Services Act, R S O 1990 c. C.11 s 127
(3)
89 Child and Family Services Act. RSO 1990, c C-11, Secure
Isolation, s 127.
Isolation, s 127(6).
Isolation, s 127(4).
92 Under Part IX, Discipline, Punishment and Isolation,
the CFSA states: “No licensee shall, (a) use or permit
the use of deliberate harsh or degrading measures to
humiliate a resident or undermine a resident’s selfrespect; or (b) deprive or permit a person to deprive a
resident of basic needs including food, shelter, clothing
or bedding.
77
REFERENCES
93 Child and Family Services Act. RSO 1990, c C-11, Part
VI, Extraordinary Measures – Secure Isolation, RRO
1990, Reg 70, s 45(1); O Reg 122/09, s 4(2).
Youth Justice Services Manual-Custody/Detention
Facilities. (ON): April 1, 2009.
95 Ministry of Children and Youth Services, Ontario. Youth
Justice Services Manual-Custody/Detention Facilities.
(ON): April 1, 2009.
96 Child and Family Services Act. RSO 1990, s134 (3).
97 The CFSA specifies one additional source for external
oversight regarding the use of secure isolation in
Section 134: the Professional Advisory Board. The
Minister may establish such a board to advise and
or make recommendations specifically regarding
intrusive procedures, including secure isolation.
98 Rankin J, Winsa P. Unequal Justice: Aboriginal and
Black Inmates Disproportionately fill Ontario jails.
Toronto Star. March 1, 2013.
99 Office of the Auditor General of Ontario. 2012 Annual
Report. Toronto (ON): Queen’s Printer for Ontario;2013
78
Office of the Provincial
Advocate for Children and Youth
401 Bay Street, Suite 2200
Toronto ON M7A 0A6
Canada
provincialadvocate.on.ca
advocacy@provincialadvocate.on.ca
WINDOW INSIDE A SECURE ISOLATION CELL

Systemic Review of Secure Isolation In Ontario Youth Justice Facilities

Transcription

Similar documents

the atrophy of social life

Playdium is pleased to present our new Education Program

Presentation to the Port Arthur Rotary Club

Guide Map - Ontario Science Centre

Bob Rae-Levine: Confirm or Deny

caminalcules answers gr. 7.notebook

Slides - Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior

Economic and Community Profile - Strathroy

Greater Toronto Area - The Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance

DEPTH with Michael David Sturlin