Archived Content. Contenu archivé

Transcription

1 ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé Archived Content Contenu archivé Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available. L information dont il est indiqué qu elle est archivée est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n est pas assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada et elle n a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous. This document is archival in nature and is intended for those who wish to consult archival documents made available from the collection of Public Safety Canada. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided by Public Safety Canada, is available upon request. Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et fait partie des documents d archives rendus disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique Canada fournira une traduction sur demande.

2 THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA OFFENDER PROGRAMS BRANCH FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF ISSUES RELATED TO FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL EXCHANGE AGREEMENTS January, 1986 Report By: John Seaily Ref: 1985/86-HQ-233 HV

3 Copyright of this document does not belong to the Crown author for PrOper aueization must be obtained from the use. any intended document dappartiennent Les &oils d'auteur du présent du contenu du présent utilisation pas document à Ittat.Toute doit être approuvée préalabiernent par l'auteur. I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report was commissioned by the Deputy Commissioner, Offender Programs, to address financial issues related to alternative measures for accommodating inmate population increases, including the use of Exchange of Services Agreements (ESAs). SECTION 1 reviews the options in terms of both Capital Expenditure and Operating Costs. In ascending order of capital cost the options are: emergency double bunking; the use of temporary trailer units; the permanent expansion of existing CSC institutions; the sharing of capital costs with provincial governments for guaranteed bedspace in provincial facilities; and the constructing of new federal institutions. Although the latter two options are reasonably comparable on a costper-bed construction basis, the differing levels of flexibility, availability, location and cost predictability over a period of years, are factors that must be considered on a region-by-region basis. The effect of "overcrowding", i.e., accommodating more inmates than the rated capacity of an institution, on operating costs has been to achieve higher overall utilization at many CSC facilities, with a favourable impact on the average cost for inmate maintenance. This has mainly been accomplished by the use of double bunking. The report and Annex D include a review of the incidence of double bunking. Section 1 includes some observations on the use of Service-wide "notional" costs in evaluating options, concluding that notional costs should be treated with due caution because of their arbitrary nature and implied generalizations. Notional costs are inconsistent with actual cost experience, and ESA-related rates should not be compared to arbitrary notional costs, but only to actual costs for appropriate CSC regions and institutional sectbzj ety classifications. UBRARy WINIBTRy Cf THE SOuCITCA GENERAL Of CANADA àa 1991 BIBLIOTHÈQUE Wrest-ERE Du SOWCUEUR GENERAL DU *WIC* ortawa, NUM CANADA IA

4 SECTION 2 deals with some financial implications of issues deriving from Exchange of Services Agreements, and specifically the costs that would be incurred if the Government of Canada were to assume fiscal responsibility for: - inmate maintenance from the date of sentencing, i.e., the costs borne by the provinces under s.16(1) of the Penitentiary Act, estimated at some five to six million dollars annually, at full average cost rates; and - transportation and escort costs estimated to be in the order of $500,000 per year. The concluding SECTION 3 draws attention to two of the difficulties encountered in analyzing costs and estimates for CSC, namely, the availability and reliability of data, and the semantic problem, i.e., imprecise and confusing use of cost accounting terminology. Annex C-1 tabulates capital expenditure patterns for a selection of institutions, and Annex C-2 the payments to provinces under Transfer Agreements. Annex D presents multi-year "operational profiles" of eighteen institutions where double bunking and/or temporary trailer accommodation have been employed.

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION 1 1. ACCOMMODATION FOR INMATE POPULATION INCREASES Alternative Courses of Action Capital Expenditure Options Operating Costs " Notional" Costs Double B unkin g Transfers Under Exchange of Services Agreements OTHER FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS General The Costs of s. 16 (1) Transportation and Escort Costs COST ESTIMATING CONSIDERATIONS Availability of Data 3.2 Costing Semantics ANNEXES Annex A Annex B Annex C Annex D Annex E - Assignment Terms of Referen.ce - Reference Material and Assignment Contacts - C-1 Capital Expenditures C-2 CSC Payments, by Region, to Provinces - 5-Year Operational Profiles (18 Institutions) - Changes in Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Canada

6 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to present the results of our study of the financial implications of options available to The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) pertaining to issues deriving from Exchange of Services Agreements (ESAs). The objective and Terms of Reference for the study were set out in the contract document dated November 18, 1985, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as Annex A. In addition, three specific issues identified in the proposal letter are addressed in this report and some observations on cost estimating in CSC are included. The issues are: - the financial responsibility for federally sentenced offenders held in provincial facilities pending admission to federal penitentiaries, i.e., the financial effects of Section 16 (1) of the Penitentiary Act; - the payment of transportation and escort costs for federal offenders; and - federal-provincial sharing of capital costs for specific construction projects that would provide accommodation for federal inmates in provincial institutions. The broader issues related to "overcrowding", such as in.creased tension possibly causing more incidents and inmate assaults, or increased health care costs, are indirectly addressed in the context of statistical correlations and measurable financial implications. For example, double bunking is an issue with significant "social" implications that cannot adequately be dealt with in terms of the financial benefits of providing relatively cheap additional bedspace or improving the utilization of institutional services.

7 - 2 - The detailed report, following an Executive Summary, is presented in three sections and supported by a series of Tables and Annexes: 1. Accommodation for Inmate Population Increases 2. Other Findings and Conclusions 3. Cost Estimating Considerations. The assignment was conducted in the two months of November and December, Schedules of the reference material used and the officials contacted are attached as Annex B. It is appropriate to acknowledge the unstinted cooperation given to the consultant by all the CSC headquarters staff from whom information was sought, often at short notice. Time constraints precluded pursuing additional data from regional or institutional sources.

8 -3-1. ACCOMMODATION FOR INMATE POPULATION INCREASES 1.1 Alternative Courses of Action 1 1 Alternative courses of action to deal with increases in inmate population are at least partially related to the degree of overcrowding that the CSC, and the Government, is prepared to tolerate, either in the short term or the longer term. The historical CSC philosophy, and currently accepted policy governing this issue, is compatible with the United Nations standard of "one man, one cell", i.e., the rated capacity of CSC institutions. No overcrowding "tolerance index" has been formulated for guidance. Five strategies are available to CSC to accommodate more inmates. In increasing length of "response time", or a Service-wide "state of readiness" for accommodating an increasing inmate population, these options are: double bunking; transfers to proyincial_facilities under_exchange of Services Agreements; temporary (trailer uni:ts) accommodation; _ permanent_expansion_ of existing_ CSC institutions; and construction of ne-w CSC institutions Three of these options pro-vide permanent capacity,, w-riitle----disübte-b u-n-king and trailers can only be considered as stopgap or temporary measures. Each of the options is discussed in the followin.g sections, both in terms of capital expenditure and the impact on operating (0 & M) expenditures. Imposed constraints, such as a limitation on double bunking or interregional transfers, become relevant when planning or costing alternative courses of action, and there may be other, unforeseen and hard to quantify,, outcomes. /For example, the commissioning of new CCCs was expected to open more space for cascading, but the unexpected feature is that more offenders who might previously have been released into the community on full parole appear to be occ -upying CCC bedspace as temporary accommodation in the community 1

9 Capital Expenditure Options The capital expenditures involved in accommodating more inmates, on an escalating scale of cost per bed-space, and with several caveats, are of the following orders of magnitude: Approximate Capital Cost Capital Expenditure Options per Bed Life Cycle Double bunking $1,000 Emergency Trailer units (S-2) $12-14, years Expand existing institutions $50-90,000 Permanent Cost-sharing with provinces $ , years Build new CSC facilities: - S-3 1 S-4 security $ ,000 Permanent It is in the context of the above scales that evaluation of the option to contribute to the one-time construction costs of new provincial facilities can be considered as an "opportunity cost". Double bunking, where capital cost is not a fact or- to be considered, and temporary trailer units, cannot be considered long term solutions to the projected accommodation shortfall. When trailer units are installed at an institution the additional bedspaces are normally included in the "rated" capacity. This may be somewhat misleading, in that rated capacity tends to be equated with permanent capacity, an assumption that is not valid for trailers with a relatively short operational life. Trailer accommodation cannot at present be considered as other than a temporary measure, and for relatively low-security inmates (S-2). Although the physical "life" of a trailer unit is probably in the order of years, for inmate accommodation purposes this is not a realistic planning assumption. The federal Fire Commissioner's Office apparently will not approve the use of trailers except as temporary cells (for one or two years only), and if the units are to be used as "semi-permanent" space, additional security measures might be necessary, e.g., additional perimeter fencing. Any capital costs of a trailer project should, therefore, be considered in terms of a 2-3year amortization period, and for this reason alone it fs----irià.p p--rop ri-aie to compare trœa-ifer costs- With anir permanent,

10 EXTFtAL CSC accommodation option or a year agreement for guaranteed bedspaces available "on demand" in provincial institutions. el/ Capital costs for trailer units as short term, or temporary, accommodation are estimated by Technical Services Branch, based on project cost data, to be in the order of $11-13,500 per bedspace: r.1,j I \I3 Institution Trailer Capacity Project Cost $ Cost per Trailer Bed Warkworth Joyceville Drumheller 40 beds 40 beds 40 beds 522,017 $13, ,470 $10, ,548 $10,789 ) 1 At Drumheller, trailer units have been installed since but have not been used to accommodate inmates. Bowden's rated capacity includes 120 trailer beds but they also are unoccupied. The units require maintenance whether occupied or not, but trailer-specific cost data are not readily identifiable from regular NHQ financial reports. Occupancy figures, or actual trailer utilization statistics, are also not available at NHQ. Few current examples of capital costs for the permanent expansion of existing S-3/S-4 facilities are available. At La Macaza, an S-3 in Quebec Region, 77 permanent bedspaces have been added to bring the rated capacity up to 220 beds over the past three fiscal years, during which capital costs of over twelve million dollars were incurred: La Macaza ,094,812 7,073,591 (+24 beds) (+33 beds) 4,079,027 (+20 beds) 3-Yr Total 12,247,430 ( beds) I Spread over the total rated capacity of 240 beds the three-year capital expenditure at La Macaza amounted to $51,030 per bed (obviously, the cost per bed is much higher if computed for the incremental 77 beds: $159,000 per bed). Two other examples of recent expansion of CSC facilities, although not particularly appropriate because they relate to special accommodation at S-6 institutions, incurred project costs of $4,310,000 and $4,483,568 for 48-cell units. At Kent, for the incremental 48 beds, this represented $89,792 per bed, and at Edmonton $93,408 per bed.

11 -6 The capital costs quoted above for CSC beds are those recorded over the last three years, i.e., in dollars, while the costs for ESA capital contributions are for facilities to be constructed, i.e., dollars. There is no firm current quotation available to indicate that CSC would be able to build comparable space at costs significantly different from the planned provincial facilities. In recent negotiations for Exchange of Services Agreements, capital cost assistance contributions by the Government of Canada to certain provinces for the construction of provincial facilities, have become a consideration for guarantees of available bedspace for federal inmates over the life of the Agreement: Alberta Saskatchewan British Columbia N. W. Territories $10,500,000 13,750,000 5,906,000 3,000, beds 125 beds 50 beds 20 beds (70 new construction) (all new construction) (30 new construction) (all new construction) In considering the "make or buy" capital options, several factors other than construction costs need to be considered. First, a capital cost contribution to "buy" guaranteed bed-space in a provincial institution is much more of a "one-time" nature than capital expenditures for CSC facilities. Annex C-1 and Annex D illustrate that capital expenditures at most CSC institutions tend to be on-going, year after year, making it difficult to assess an accurate "capital cost per bed" for comparison with a one-time payout to a province. It may be misleading, therefore, to use only the original construction costs for CSC institutions when considering capital expenditure options. Second, the provincial bedspace can be provided in several locations where the CSC has specific operational needs, rather than in one more central federal facility. It is important to CSC offender programs to locate inmates as close to their communities as possible. Third, although the provincial bedspace may, prima fade, appear a less permanent solution than to build CSC accommodation, the terms of an ESA generally allow for an extension beyond the original ten-year term, in five-year increments at Canada's initiative. Fourth, both the capital cost per bed and the per diem maintenance cost per inmate are more predictable under an ESA contract than for CSC institutional costs, e.g., in the event of major damage or repair costs being incurred. Finally, under ESAs the Correctional Service of Canada does not have to be concerned with under-utilization since

12 - 7 - every transfer is on a "pay-as-you-use-it" basis for inmate maintenance costs (0 & M dollars). The capital expenditures for CSC construction of new institutions since , are as follows (see also Annex C-1): Drummond 2,500,468 10,036,975 17,129,994 4,839,223 Bowden 2,312,451 10,053,012 16,313,208 Donnacona 527,969 3,634,358 12,596,713 For Drummond, an S-4 institution with a rated capacity of 252 beds, the four-year ( ) capital costs per bed have been approximately $136,900. Capital costs for Bowden, an S-3 institution now rated at 400 beds, including 120 trailer beds not in service, exceed $98,800 per bed for permanent accommodation, plus $7,176 per trailer bed. Some further costs will be incurred in the current fiscal year at Bowden ($4.5 millions to the end of December, 1985) and at Donnacona, which is not completed (a further $15.5 millions of capital expenditure has been incurred to December, 1985). 1.3 Operating Costs A series of eighteen "institution profiles" are appended as Annex D to this report. One purpose of these profiles is to examine some of the actual costs of alternative accommodation and to compare, if possible, actual costs against the "notional" costs used in planning and budgeting for inmate accommodation to meet forecast population increases. Another purpose is to see whether the effects of overcrowding are evident in, for example, increased numbers of incidents, rising overtime and health care costs, etc. Institutions that have not used either double bunking or trailers, and the institutions that are irrelevant to the comparisons with provincial accommodation options, have not been profiled. Prior to fiscal year there was no double bunking, and the use of trailers was insignificant.

13 - 8 - To provide perspective, the following Service-wide average operating costs per inmate at the institutional level are derived from the annual "Cost of Maintaining Offenders - Summary" issued by the Operational Performance Analysis Unit, Financial Operations Division at NHQ: Average Inmate Count 8,938 Avge. Annual Cost/Inmate 9,774 10,449 11,033 at Institutional level 38,560 38,575 39,336 40,672 Avge. in "Constant $" ( = $1.00) 38,560 34,997 33,976 33,795 Increases over Previous Year - Inmate Count Incremental Cost/Inmate (1) 38,736 50,358 64,576 - in Constant $ 35,143 43,497 53,657 "Overhead" Cost/Inmate (2) 5,686 5,768 6,029 7,629 - in Constant $ 5,686 5,233 5,208 6,339 Notes: (I) The incremental cost is computed from the annual CSC-wide increase in 0 & M dollars at the institutional level, divided by the increase in the average inmate count. (2) "Overhead" costs are additional to costs at the Institutional level. In the above table, the average cost at the institutional level includes male and female inmates, CCCs, H.M. Penitentiary, Newfoundland, and 24 provincial inmates in federal institutions. "Overhead" includes the cost of centres not in operation, Staff College costs and a proportion of NHQ/RHQ costs (allocated on a per-offender basis), but excludes parole office costs and services provided without charge by other departments. Average operating (0 & M) costs per inmate, at the institution level, for a selection of institutions that have employed trailer units and/or double bunking are shown in the tables below, over a four-year period. The percentage utilization, i.e., the average inmate count divided by the average rated capacity, is shown in parentheses in the first table.

14 $ oh Springhill (S-4) 31,143(93) F.T.C. (S-4) 28,773(97) Joyceville (S-4) 30,806(85) Warkworth (S-4) 29,340(86) Drumheller (S-4/S-2) 27,640(90) Mission (S-4) 43,838(98) $ 0/0 31,672(96) 30,904(99) 31,205(99) 30,331(91) 27,280(100) 43,838(106) $ 0/0 $ % 33,858(101) 34,581(103) 32,569(107) 33,142(107) 27,798(107) 27,361(112) 29,136(104) 27,872(113) 28,480(101) 29,603(102) 44,311(113) 46,924(108) In "constant dollars", using as the base year, the above table would appear as follows (with the average inmate count in parentheses): "Constant $" Index $1.00 $0.91 $0.86 $0.83 $ Count $ Count $ Count $ Count Springhill (S-4) F.T.C. (S-4) Joyceville (S-4) Warkworth (S-4) Drumheller (S-4/S-2) Mission (S-4) 31,143(412) 28,773(367) 30,806(383) 29,340(377) 27,640(447) 43,838(176) 28,734(426) 28,037(374) 28,311(448) 27,518(402) 24,750(499) 39,772(190) 29,245(447) 28,132(403) 24,011(486) 25,166(459) 24,600(504) 38,274(204) 28,734(455) 27,538(402) 22,734(517) 23,159(534) 24,597(513) 38,989(205) Although it is not possible to isolate with precision the effects of double bunking or the use of trailers on per-inmate operating costs, the "constant $" figures indicate the effect of the higher utilization achieved. For example, the average costs at Joyceville and Warkworth, where trailers and double bunking are utilized, show a steady decrease, and for every one of the 18 institutions profiled in Annex D the costs in "constant $" were significantly lower than in The measures implemented in and to improve efficiency included better control of staff overtime hours, higher utilization of rated capacity, improving staff-inmate ratios, and the use of trailers and double bunking. In two-thirds of the profiled institutions were operating at 100% utilization of rated capacity, or better. Rated capacity includes trailer units but excludes bunks.

15 The tentative conclusions from analysis of the profiles are that: - optimum utilization of program facilities, e.g., workshops, recreation, clinics, food and laundry services, is attainable only with a population somewhat greater than rated capacity (through controlled use of double bunking); and - the scope for further economies of scale at institutions currently using double bunking and/or trailers, is probably at the % utilization level. - "full" utilization of rated capacity, without double bunking, might be in the order of 98% because there will always be a number of cells unused on a day-to-day basis, e.g., for inmates in hospital or otherwise absent for short periods, or for immediate cell maintenance. The number of inmate Transfers In and Out are generally higher today than in , and transfers create additional workloads for institution staffs. The higher transfer numbers may reflect overcrowding or the implementation of the "cascading" policy, but it is not possible to isolate the effects of overcrowding and cascading. Although some scope remains for reducing the incidence of transfers, the impact on average costs is unlikely to be very significant. Other inferences from the profiles include the following: - increased utilization of capacity is the key to reducing perinmate average costs, and significant reductions of double bunking and other measures that would tend to reduce the utilization of rated capacity, will result in higher average per diem costs; - for purposes of ESA considerations and comparisons with the provincial per diem rates for transferred inmates, the CSC average costs for S-2 to S-4 institutions should be used - trailers do not give that option (trailers are S-2). The profiles indicate that CSC average cost rates for are not significantly different for S-2, S-3 and S-4 institutions (due to the economies of scale attainable from the generally larger S-4 institutions - Mission is an exception); - average per diem rates in Pacific Region are higher than for comparable institutions in other regions, and this could be

16 taken into consideration when negotiating rates for Exchange of Services with the Government of British Columbia; - there is no obvious relationship at the local level, from the statistics collected, between overcrowding and the number of "incidents", the number of clinic visits per inmate or the cost of medical services per inmate (more meaningful "social impact" studies have been conducted into the effects of overcrowding, e. g., by Professor James Vantour) and cost accounting is an inappropriate technique for such a purpose ; - the staff overtime figures, after the dramatic drop in , appear reasonably steady,, although there is a trend to higher total overtime hours in a number of institutions, e. g., Westmorland (S-2), Warkworth and Cowansville (S-4), and Leclerc (S-5). Kent institution (S-6) has been able to absorb exceptionally high staff overtime usage, and since Kent's " constant $ 11 0 & M cost per inmate has declined significantly ; - Drumheller,, where a trailer unit is operated, is a "mix" of an S-4 (with double bunking utilized) and an S-2 (the trailer unit) and it is not feasible to cost the two entities separately - the overall average costs for Drumheller are relatively low and approximately comparable to Westmorland, an S-2 institution; 1.4 " Notional" Costs Some further work can be done with the statistics available at National Headquarters, but detailed analysis at the regional or institutional levels may be the best tool for more definitive studies. Over a period of years, certain "notional" cost concepts and planning hypotheses have been developed by and for CSC. For example, figures of $5,713 as the 0 & M cost per "bunked iiimate", and one person-year for every 7.5 inmates in bunks, were adopted as a basis for resource allocation. Most such arbitrary figures appear to be inconsistent with the actual expenditure patterns. Few attempts have been made to measure the impact on service and support costs, such as maintenance

17 expenditures; and the impact on "overhead" costs at NHQ and RHQ has been assumed to be irrelevant or negligible. These notional costs should be re-examined. In fact, it is very difficult to determine actual operating costs for a mix of facilities at any one institution, e.g., regular accommodation at the S level with double bunking and trailers at the S-2 level. One notional figure that has been used is that a 40-bed trailer unit requires an incremental thirteen person-years (13 PY) of staffing, i.e., a direct cost for salaries of $ ,000 (at an average $33-35,000 per PY). Insufficient data are available to isolate the actual costs of operating trailer units, by treating them as a separate cost centre and computing a separate annual per-inmate maintenance rate. An analysis was attempted but it was inconclusive - the analyst can simply observe the average costs for an institution, i.e., a mix of regular cells and trailer accommodation and also, in several instances, the concurrent use of double bunking. We have noted that some trailer units are included in rated capacity although the trailers are not in use for inmate accommodation purposes. If the temporary life cycle of a trailer unit at an institution is to, say, two years the project cost of installing the units should be amortized over those two years. On that basis, capital costs become more of an "operating" expense. An assessment of other, indirect, costs requires knowledge of particular institutional circumstances. The impact on support or service facilities of adding a 40-bed unit must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. An additional 40 beds at a rated 180-bed institution will have a different impact on support and service costs, on a per-inmate basis, than an additional 40 beds at a rated 400-bed institution. "Notional" costs tend to ignore these factors. It is feasible to develop certain cost guidelines and notional costs for consideration when negotiating ESA financial terms. However, the prerequisite is a series of agreed planning assumptions pertaining to acceptable "utilization indices" and incremental cost elements based on measurable experience or properly formulated standards, e.g., a detailed on-site post analysis. The purpose would be to establish certain datum points that would make reasonable and consistent comparisons possible. The development of the required guidelines and "notion.al cost" assumptions is beyond the scope of the current study.

18 To conclude, the current study was unable to verify the "notional costs" that have been used, and it is possible only to speculate on their validity.. While emphasizing that actual costs should be measured and used whenever possible, it is also important to weigh other,, nonfinancial factors, e. g., the "social" effects of overcrowding, in evaluating alternative courses of CSC action. 1.5 Double Bunking Bunk capacity is not included in the rated capacity of institutions. CSC bunk capacity has declined from a high in 1984 of over 700 cells equipped for double bunking, to approximately 600 at the end of At the end of November,, 1985 there were some 786 inmates in bunks, Service-wide, well down from the peaks of over 1,000 for the past two years. The installed bunk capacity and the average number of inmates in bunks, by region, are tabulated below for the past three calendar years. The first double bunking in Atlantic Region occurred in 1983 at Springhill (March) and Dorchester (April). Quebec Region introduced double bunking in 1983 at the FTC (January), Cowansville (February) and Leclerc (April). There has been no double bunking in the Region since the end of March, the 1985 average and maximum numbers shown for Quebec in the table below are for a three-month period only.. Double bunking began in Ontario Region at Joyceville in October,, 1982, and at Collins Bay and Warkworth in December,, In Prairies Region, double bunking started in July,, 1982 at Saskatchewan Pen, Drumheller and Stony Mountain. Edmonton began in March, There has been no double bunking at Stony Mountain since June, In Pacific Region, Kent began to use double bunking in September,, 1982; at Mountain in December,, 1982; at Matsqui and Mission in January,, Mountain has not used double bunking since June, 1984.

19 Region 1983 Inmates 1984 Inmates 1985 Inmates Bunk in Bunks Bunk in Bunks Bunk in Bunks Capacity Avge. Max. Capacity Avge. Max. Capacity Avge. Max. ATLANTIC QUEBEC (95) (144) ONTARIO PRAIRIES PACIFIC The impact of double bunking has been to push the utilization of institutional facilities to a higher level, in several cases well beyond 100% of rated capacity, as can be seen in the "profiles" presented as Annex D. High utilization, in turn, reduces the average operating cost per inmate, as the tables on page 9 show clearly. Without recourse to double bunking, 97-98% utilization probably represents an attainable optimum; and with double bunking a utilization of % of rated capacity should be attainable. It is unlikely that double bunking can be, or should be, entirely eliminated. Intended as an emergency accommodation measure, it is a valid and cost-effective solution to short-term fluctuations in population. Executive guidelines may be needed to resolve the "trade-off" between a policy based on "one man, one cell" and a desire to optimize the utilization of total institutional capacity, and reduce the unit costs, i.e., by maximizing the use of the program and service/support facilities in addition to the cell spaces. 1.6 Transfers Under Exchange of Services Agreements The number of inmates, male and female, transferred under ESAs, the bedspaces available in each province, and the negotiation of additional provincial accommodation, have been the subjects of considerable documentation by the Deputy Commissioner, Offender Programs. The recent numbers need no further analysis in this report. Prairies Region has used inter-regional transfers to send inmates to Pacific and Ontario; some of the additional provincial beds made

20 available through ESAs might merely reduce the number of such transfers and thus contribute to alleviating some overcrowding in Pacific and Ontario Regions. However, transfers under ESAs are generally to the lower security inmate categories, i.e., S-2 through S-4, while a high proportion of inter-regional transfers are operational-related, e.g., PCU and high security inmates, rather than capacity-related. In effect, the negotiation of additional bed-space in provincial facilities buys time for the CSC, approximately two years for every S-2 to S-4 beds made available through ESAs. However, this does not mean that all construction can be delayed by two years, because ESAs have little impact on the accommodation needs at security levels above S-4.

21 OTHER FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 2.1 General Certain general observations are appropriate, related to the interaction between issues and the use of national statistics. Although the estimates and projections included in this report are presented as "standalone" numbers associated with a particular issue, there is often a certain interdependence, and action taken to resolve one issue could have a secondary effect on another issue. For example, if Canada were to assume responsibility for payment under s.16(1) it is difficult to project with any precision whether the current average number of days that federal offenders remain in a provincial facility, after sentencing, would tend to increase or decrease. There might be regional pressures to admit the offenders earlier, or provincial persuasion to get offenders to waive appeal rights without delay, and these influences could have at least a temporary effect on institutional overcrowding. The availability of a Reception Centre has a direct impact on reducing the time that offenders spend in provincial institutions while the Pen Placement process is completed. Another worthwhile overall observation is related to the use of national averages or Service-wide statistics. Regional differences in accommodation availability and population mix by inmate security levels and sub-populations, e.g., women, special handling and protective custody inmates, Native offenders, make generalized analyses of overcrowding possibly misleading. Technical Services Branch are especially conscious of the need to break down Service-wide data into a series of regional and security level components when dealing with accommodation needs and plans. For example, if the number of provincial bed-spaces available is doubled as a result of extending existing or negotiating new provincial exchange agreements, or if the number of installed bunks is halved nationally, the impact on each region could be quite different. Currently, Quebec Region would be least affected because its rated capacity at the various security levels appears to correspond more closely to its accommodation needs; the Prairies and Pacific Regions would be significantly affected.

22 The Costs of s.16(1) Under existing legal and ESA contractual arrangements Canada assumes financial responsibility for offenders sentenced to a federal penitentiary term from the date of: - the expiry of the s.16(1) appeal period; or - the offender's waiving of the right to appeal, and his/her admission to a federal institution. The provinces would like to see financial responsibility borne by Canada from the date of sentencing to a federal penitentiary term. Newfoundland has such an arrangement, under the terms of the 1949 Agreement with Canada and in the case of inmates sentenced in the Province to two or more years and confined in H.M. Prison at St. John's. To calculate the potential cost to CSC of the assumption of full financial responsibility for federal inmates from date of sentencing involves two factors: - the average number of inmate-days now absorbed by the provinces under s.16 (1) provisions ; and - the per diem rates that are now charged by each province. From a sampling over the past three full fiscal years the national average number of days from Date of Sentence to Admission under a warrant of commital is in the order of days. The statistics indicate that while the national average length of time has remained reasonably constant, significant regional variances exist. Tables 1 and 2 on the next page were developed from the samples derived from OIS records. The figures are the most useful and reliable because the analysis was carried out on a much larger sample and broken down between first-term offenders and others. Ontario requires the longest time, on average, including Pen Placement, while the average number of days has increased in the Quebec Region and decreased in Pacific, over the three-year period. Some caveats about the statistics derived from the sample follow the two tables.

23 - 18- TABLE 1 REGION AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS FROM DATE OF SENTENCE TO ADMISSION - BY REGION ATLANTIC (1) QUEBEC ONTARIO PRAIRIES PACIFIC NATIONAL Note: (1) Excluding Newfoundland. TABLE 2 AVGE. NO. OF DAYS FROM DATE OF SENTENCE TO ADMISSION DATE - NATIONAL PERCENTAGES Days 16% 13% 10% 6-12 Days Days Days Sub-Total 66% 67% 69% Days 28? 25? 21? Over 40 Days 6? 8? 10? Certain caveats about the statistics presented in the above tables are appropriate: - the question marks against figures in the last two lines of the above Table 2, i.e., over 30 days, indicates that the percentages are less reliable than those for the shorter periods; - the averages include time spent by federal inmates in provincial institutions after the s.16(1) period, for Pen Placement

24 purposes, at the request of CSC; the time and costs of Pen Placement were not separately identifiable through financial Line Object coding until the current year ; - the true Date of Sentence is not specifically OIS records - the date used by OIS is the mence Date, which may be different, except offenders - whenever Sentence Administration ferent Sentence Commence Date; - an estimated 20% of Sentence Commence Dates dent with the true Date of Sentence, and the totals are particularly suspect. identifiable on Sentence Cornfor first term compute a dif- are not coinci- It over-30 Days" Despite the caveats, the sample is considered sufficiently reliable as a basis for making projections of s.16(1) costs. Two reasons why the averages for Quebec in Table 1 above are lower than for other regions, are the availability of a Regional Reception Centre (RRC) and less overcrowding in available facilities. The per diem rates charged by the provinces for holding federallysentenced offenders vary by region. The following estimated average rates have been used in calculating the potential costs for s.16(1) purposes, in dollars: Average Per Region Diem Rates ATLANTIC QUEBEC ONTARIO PRAIRIES PACIFIC $ 80 $100 $ 85 $ 85 $ 90 "Ball-park" estimates of the potential costs to CSC, by Region and using the above average rates, of having the Government of Canada assume full financial responsibility under s.16(1) are based on the following formula: Avge. No. of Days No. of Average X Commit- X Per Diem = Subals Rate Totals Amount for - Pen Place- = Net ment Total

25 Avge. No. of Average Amount for No. of X Commit- X Per Diem = Sub- - Pen Place- = Net Region Days ais Rate Totals ment Total ATLANTIC (1) $ , ,000 QUEBEC $100 1,435,200 1,435,200 ONTARIO (2) $ 85 2,075,700 1,200, ,700 PRAIRIES $ , ,030 PACIFIC $ 90 1,938,510 1,938,510 NATIONAL $ 89 6,813,940 1,200,000 5,613,940 (1) Excluding Newfoundland; (2) 26.4 days includes Pen Placement time in Ontario Region. For every one hundred commitals increase or decrease, nationally, the difference in the Net Total would be approximately $180,000. For every change of one day in the average of s.16(1) time spent in provincial facilities the cost would increase or decrease by approximately five percent, or $340,000, e.g., if the national average number were to rise from 20.2 to 23 days the additional cost would be in the order of $950,000. Or, for every change of one dollar in the average per diem rates the total would be affected by approximately $76,000. These figures are only "notional" cost estimates - the actual figures would depend on the actual "mix" of transfers by region and province.. The net total of some $5.6 millions, based on full average cost rates, is the magnitude of the "saving" that presently accrues to Canada under s.16(1). This is approximately equivalent to inmate-years at $32-35,000 per year (the average 0 & M cost, in dollars per inmate, for S-3 1 S-4 institutions). Provincial per diem rates have tended to escalate faster than the rise in inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index for Canada (CPI - see Annex E). However, discussions with provincial governments indicate that instead of full average cost rates, as used in the above calculations, most provinces would accept some formula of rates based on marginal costs for reimbursement under s.16(1). Assuming that marginal cost rates averaging $30 per day were negotiated nationally, the total "liability" of s.16(1) to Canada could be reduced to less than two million dollars per year.

26 Transportation and Escort Costs The general practice governing transfer costs is that the " sending" institution or jurisdiction absorbs the cost of delivering an inmate to another facility.. Regional average costs per inmate-transfer vary based on time and distance between provincial and federal facilities, the "risk" factor involved (related to the offender security classification), and the mode of transportation, e., air or road. The average cost is estimated at between $90 and $100 per inmate transfer,, and the number of transfers between 5,400 and 5,800 annually.. If the Government of Canada were to assume financial responsibility for the transportation and escort costs of all federally-sentenced offenders, the potential added expenditure is estimated to be in the order of $500,000 per year.. The costs of transferring inmates between CSC institutions are not included; these are presently borne by the Service.

27 COST ESTIMATING CONSIDERATIONS In every discussion of the financial implications of Exchange of Services, or any other issue involving costing or estimating for CSC, two potential difficulties bedevil the use of quantitative values, namely : 1 - the availability and reliability of data; and - the semantic problems associated with costing and rate setting Availability of Data The CSC has an abundance of statistical data, but not all of the data are of equal " quality" in terms of currency (timeliness), reliability,, consistency and completeness. "Hard" and " soft" data tend to be displayed without qualification, i. e., their varying degrees of reliability,, or the underlying assumptions, are not commented upon and the sources are not always identified. Estimates, forecasts and projections are essentially "soft" data, influenced by prior experience and trends, the validity of assumptions, or the personal judgment of the forecaster.. For the current study,, efforts were made to achieve consistency with statistics used in earlier studies or presented in estimates and forecasts to CSC senior management, or incorporated in Treasury Board submissions. 1 In using costs and estimates for the purposes of a study such as this one, there is a potential for misleading over-simplification from assuming that national averages are representative or applicable to all regions, provinces and security levels. In practice, each analysis of the effects of overcrowding, and the options pertaining to ESAs or additional inmate accommodation, needs to be treated as a " cost matrix ", with regional and inmate security variables incorporated. With the concurrent trend to regional decentralization and the phasing out of the Operational-Based Costing and Reporting ( OB CR) system, access at NHQ to institutional statistics is more difficult unless the data are collected for the Offender Information System (OIS) or financial reporting purposes. However,, there is no justification for duplicating

28 operational data gathering, in order to meet occasional demands for planning information at the NHQ Branch level, but more time and continuing attention to consistency in regional systems is required if Service-wide data are to be readily available when a functional need arises, e. g., in connection with the settlement of provincial billings under ESAs. Some financial statistics on annual payments to the provinces are tabulated as Annex C-2. For this study,, only the statistics available at NHQ have been used, and no attempt was made to collect provincial cost data, which might be available at Regional HQ offices, e. g., provincial per diem billing rates for transferred federal inmates. Whenever rates, costs, forecasts and other statistics are quoted the source of the data should be identified and the documentation dated Costing Semantics The semantics problem is not a new one but it is assuming greater importance in federal-provincial Agreement docum entation. Similar problems have occurred with the word "inmates", e. g., whether a given total is " on register" or a midnight-count number,, or whether the total includes or excludes transfers to/ from the provinces, includes or excludes females, etc. Virtually every time that the word " cost( s) " is used it needs to be qualiiied by definition, to clarify its application and the degree of precision implicit in the related figures. For example, if salary figures are quoted it is essential to know whether or not they include an allowance for employee benefits, whether the figures are " actual" amounts derived from payroll records, a budget or a forecast, an average or mid-point rate in a salary range, and so on. Cost terms used in ESAs and related administrative procedures include marginal (or incremental) cost, average cost, fixed or variable cost, operating or capital cost, salary cost, program cost, overhead cost, etc.

29

30 Annex A ASSIGNMENT TERMS OF REFERENCE (Extract from Appendix "D" of Agreement 1985/86-HO-233) Coordinate the contributions of the several CSC and Ministry Secretariat "stakeholders" with regard to the collection, validation, analysis and presentation of cost-related data and projections derived from available sources at National Headquarters. Assess the available cost data in terms of materiality, reliability, completeness and currency, i.e., to distinguish "hard" and "soft" projections and to identify any need for additional data to be collected, by source(s). Analyze and report on the financial implications of alternative courses of CSC action with reference to the issues outlined in recent Briefing Notes prepared by and for the DCOP, including federal funding or capital cost-sharing for specific provincial construction projects that would provide new accommodation for federal inmates, the implications of rate setting options, and the assumptions made in determining costs/savings projections. Provide assistance on an "as required" basis with the preparation of submissions or other follow-up work deriving directly from the assignment.

31 Annex B-1 ASSIGNMENT REFERENCE MATERIAL 1. Memoranda of Agreements between the Government of Canada and Provincial Governments for the Exchange of Services. 2. CSC Financial Statements (09800, and 19104), OBCR Reports and the Public Accounts of Canada for through "Summary of Double Occupancy" - weekly reports compiled by the Inmate Population Management Division of Security Branch, NHQ. 4. "Cost of Maintaining Offenders" - reports prepared annually by the Operational Performance Analysis Unit, Financial Operations Division, NHQ. 5. "Review of OBCR Anomalies" - a report by the Bureau of Management Consulting (Project No April, 1984). 6. "Report of the Study Group on Murders and Assaults in the Ontario Region" by Dr. James Vantour (May, 1984). 7. "Crowding and Prison Violence" - a report by Frank Porporino and Kimberley Dudley, Ministry Secretariat (undated). 8. "Report on the Statement of CSC Values" - the First Report of the Task Force on the Mission and Organizational Development of CSC (November, 1984). 9. "Overcrowding" - a report by Gordon Farrell, Evaluation and Special Projects (August 30, 1985). 10. "Report of the Organizational Review Task Force" - the Cliff Scott report (October 22, 1985). 11. "Report of Task Force #10 Providing a Review of Inmate Population Management" (December, 19.85).

32 Annex B-2 SCHEDULE OF ASSIGNMENT CONTACTS 1. OFFENDER PROGRAMS Gordon A. Pinder - Deputy Commissioner, Offender Programs Thomas Townsend - Coordinator, Federal-Provincial Relations Hilda Vanneste - Offen.der Programs Analyst a 2. SECURITY John Lavoie - Chief, Inmate Movement Control Trudy Williams - Supervisor, Inmate Movement Data 3. TECHNICAL SERVICES George Centen - Manager, Accommodation Requirements Valerie Albers - Prog. Admin. Officer, Branch Control Systems 4. POLICY, PLANNING AND SYSTEMS Mike Provan - Director, Operational Planning Division Gerry Homan - Operational Planning Analyst Audrey McDonnell - Head, Information Services, OIS Tom Epp - Director, Administration Division 5. FINANCE Stan Fields - Chief, Financial Operations Ruth Willsher - Head, Operational Performance Analysis Joyce Wright - Cost and Financial Analyst 6. OTHER Dr. James Vantour - former Chairman, Strategic Planning Committee Richard Zubryeki - Director, Policy Analysis and Support, Ministry Secretariat

33 Annex C-1 CSC CAPITAL EXPENDITURES (Changes in rated capacity indicated in parentheses) Institution (P-9) Springhill Dorchester Westmorland 639,996 2,662, ,987 (+36) 1,120,337 2,195,233 (+18) 700,941 1,202,731 1,906, , , , ,170 Leclerc Cowansville Drummond Donnacona La Macaza 206, ,861 10,036, ,969 1,094, , ,695 17,129,994 3,634,358 7,073, , ,830 4,839,223 12,596,713 4,079, , , ,665 15,533, ,824 Collins Bay Joyceville Warkworth 1,830,651 (+5) 2,132,108 (+2) 703,558 1,906,983 1,061,310 (+35) 860,292 1,535,732 1,560,401 (+40) 1,847,346 (J-40) 1,050, , ,728 Stony Mountain Sask. Pen. Drumheller Edmonton Bowden 654,232 2,297,168 1,914,509 6,550, ,333 1,088,998 3,859,295 (+24) 2,175,563 (+18) 2,312,451 (+10) 10,053,012(+120) 1,467,608 7,898,075 (+80) 1,453, ,665 16,313, ,046 1,263, , ,789 4,539,108 Matsqui Mountain Kent Mission 2,372,735 1,481,939 (+8) 701, ,620 1,449, ,513 (+36) 2,778, ,461 1,144, ,029 1,072,807 (+48) 568,223 (+40) 656, , , ,984 Sources: Financial Statements 19008; Monthly Accommodation Reports (by the Inmate Population Management Division, Security Branch, NHQ)

34 Annex C-2 CSC PAYMENTS, BY REGION, TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS FOR PAROLEES UNDER SUSPENSION AND MAINTENANCE OF INMATES Maintenance of Parolees under Supervision (P-9) (Line Object 0455) (LU 0480) ATLANTIC 77,440 89, , , ,089 QUEBEC 616, , , , ,019 ONTARIO ,334 PRAIRIES 350, , , , ,541 PACIFIC 284,102 66,334 76, ,309 21,673 Unreported (& NHQ) ,328,551 1,427,268 3,329,351 1,251,368 1,192,656 Maintenance of Inmates Under Tsfr. Agreements (Line Object 0456) (LU 0481) ATLANTIC (incl.nfld.) 511, , , ,255 94,065 QUEBEC (incl.tanguay) 2,005,536 3,425,003 2,677,647 3,483,520 1,258,360 ONTARIO 369,619 2,082,419 1,524,567 1,057,026 - PRAIRIES 769, , , ,714 78,704 PACIFIC 1,311, , , , ,741 Unreported (& NHQ) ,967,423 7,728,541 5,871,307 6,729,259 1,650,870 Pen. Placements (LU 0456) (LU 0482) ATLANTIC Included in Line Object ,696 ONTARIO Included in Line Object ,022, ,063 1,022, ,759 Psychiatric Services (Line Object 0429) QUEBEC - Pinel 8,174,159 8,055,400 8,545,010 8,963,769 7,762,577 (Source: Financial Statements 19008)

35 Annex D-1 5-YEAR OPERATIONAL PROFILE INSTITUTION: 210 Springhill (ATL) S Rated Capacity (at December 31): including trailers No. of Inmates: - avge. on register avge. midnight count Utilization (%) 93% 96% 101% 103% (avge. count/avge. rated capacity) Bunks: - number of bunks installed - 10? (3 weeks) - no. of inmates double bunked - 15? (approx. monthly average) Inmate "turnover": - Admissions Transfers In Transfers Out Releases Staff-Inmate Ratios (Staff = 1.00) - overall 1:1.51 1:1.50 1:1.52 1: security (incl. LU0s) 1:2.78 1:2.85 1:2.95 1:3.03 Staff Overtime Hours: - security + LU staff 32,367 23,960 31,477 30,094 - instit'n total (excl. training) 44,418 33,897 41;617 40,022 Avge. # of Clinic Visits per Inmate? Incidents: - minor disturbances inmate/inmate assaults - major inmate/inmate assaults - minor attempted suicides self-inflicted injuries & M Cost per Inmate: - security + LU 11,498 11,869 13,188 12,809 - social and community 1,644 1,229 1,316 1,433 - case management (excl LU) ,190 - health care 1,165 1,097 1,229 1,053 - technical services 9,862 9,492 9,072 9,487 Total 0 & M Cost per Inmate 31,143 31,672 33,858 34,581 Per Diem 0 &M Cost per Inmate Capital Expenditure: - total $ 639,996 1,120,337 1,202,731 - expenditure per rated bed 1,448 2,535 2,721

36 Annex D-2 5-YEAR OPERATIONAL PROFILE INSTITUTION: 220 Dorchester (ATL) S Rated Capacity (at December 31): including trailers No. of Inmates: - avge. on register avge. midnight count Utilization (%) 77% 88% 93% 91% (avge. count/avge. rated capacity) Bunks: - number of bunks installed 12? no. of inmates double bunked (approx. monthly average) Inmate "turnover": FM FM FM FM - Admissions i Transfers In Transfers Out Releases Staff-Inmate Ratios (Staff = 1.00) - overall 1:1.10 1:1.27 1:1.31 1: security (incl. LU0s) 1:1.85 1:2.19 1:2.29 1:2.15 Staff Overtime Hours: - security + LU staff 54,234 44,243 41,734 39,451 - instit'n total (excl. training) 77,809 54,215 50,757 47,606 Avge. # of Clinic Visits per Inmate? Incidents: - minor disturbances inmate/inmate assaults - major inmate/inmate assaults - minor attempted suicides self-inflicted injuries & M Cost per Inmate: - security + LU 18,818 15,894 16,791 17,693 - social and community 1,812 1,408 1,429 1,619 - case management (excl LU) 1,236 1,019 1,147 1,189 - health care 1,603 1,488 1,403 1,578 - technical services 10,450 9,589 8,736 9,122 Total 0 & M Cost per Inmate 40,754 37,286 37,855 40,154 Per Diem 0 & M Cost per Inmate Capital Expenditure: - total $ 2,662,406 2,195,233 1,906,344 - expenditure per rated bed 5,701 4,701 4,082

37 Annex D-3 5-YEAR OPERATIONAL PROFILE INSTITUTION: 221 Westmorland (ATL) S Rated Capacity (at December 31): including trailers No. of Inmates: - avge. on register avge. midnight count Utilization (%) 84% 85% 103% 111% (avge. count/avge. rated capacity) Bunks: - number of bunks installed no. of inmates double bunked (approx. monthly average) Inmate "turnover": - Admissions _ - Transfers In Transfers Out Releases Staff-Inmate Ratios (Staff = 1.00) - overall 1:1.75 1:2.25 1:2.39 1: security (incl. LU0s) 1:5.56 1:6.99 1:7.22 1:7.55 Staff Overtime Hours: - security + LU staff 3,488 4,418 4,209 4,986 - instit'n. total (excl. training) 7,504 6,178 6,783 7,525 Avge. # of Clinic Visits per Inmate???? Incidents: - minor disturbances inmate/inmate assaults - major inmate/inmate assaults - minor attempted suicides self-inflicted injuries & M Cost per Inmate: - security + LU 6,213 5,255 5,187 5,471 - social and community case management (excl LU) 2,127 1,614 1,425 1,406 - health care 1,591??? - technical services 9,843 8,779 7,581 9,401 Total 0 & M Cost per Inmate 31,277 27,996 26,997 31,996 Per Diem 0 & M Cost per Inmate Capital Expenditure: - total $ - 406, , ,014 - expenditure per rated bed 2,609 4,493 2,494

38 Annex D-4 5-YEAR OPERATIONAL PROFILE INSTITUTION: 320 Federal Training Centre (QUE) S Rated Capacity (at December 31): including trailers No. of Inmates: - avge. on register avge. midnight count Utilization (%) 97% 99% 107% 107% (avge. count/avge. rated capacity) Bunks: - number of bunks installed (2 mths) - no. of inmates double bunked (approx. monthly average) (2 mths) Inmate "turnover": - Admissions Transfers In Transfers Out Releases Staff-Inmate Ratios (Staff = 1.00) - overall 1:1.33 1:1.41 1:1.46 1: security (incl. LU0s) 1:2.44 1:2.58 1:2.76 1:2.70 Staff Overtime Hours: - security + LU staff 28,851 21,823 26,143 23,195 - instit'n total (excl. training) 32,029 25,481 29,937 27,537 Avge. # of Clinic Visits per Inmate? Incidents: - minor disturbances inmate/inmate assaults - major inmate/inmate assaults - minor attempted suicides self-inflicted injuries & M Cost per Inmate: - security + LU 12,196 12,794 13,313 13,859 - social and community 1,554 1,282 1,324 1,303 - case management (excl LU) 1,300 1,379 1,331 1,332 - health care 1, ,001 1,098 - technical services 6,226 7,102 7,098 6,443 Total 0 & M Cost per Inmate 28,773 30,904 32,569 33,142 Per Diem 0 & M Cost per Inmate Capital Expenditure: - total $ 459, , ,672 - expenditure per rated bed 1,220 1,152 1,248

39 Annex D-5 5-YEAR OPERATIONAL PROFILE INSTITUTION: 330 Leclerc (QUE) S Rated Capacity (at December 31): including trailers No. of Inmates: - avge. on register avge. midnight count Utilization (%) 96% 98% 98% 96% (avge. count/avge. rated capacity) Bunks: - number of bunks installed ? - - (6 mths) - no. of inmates double bunked (approx. monthly average) (6 mths) Inmate "turnover": - Admissions Transfers In Transfers Out Releases Staff-Inmate Ratios (Staff = 1.00) - overall 1:1.47 1:1.53 1:1.50 1: security (incl. LU0s) 1:2.63 1:2.89 1:2.89 1:2.87 Staff Overtime Hours: - security + LU staff 51,169 32,622 36,668 43,247 - instit'n total (excl. training) 59,919 41,551 46,353 51,576 Avge. # of Clinic Visits per Inmate? Incidents: - minor disturbances inmate/inmate assaults - major inmate/inmate assaults - minor attempted suicides self-inflicted injuries & M Cost per Inmate: - security + LU 12,290 12,074 13,472 13,335 - social and community 1,387 1,078 1,163 1,216 - case management (excl LU) 1,090 1,095 1,158 1,232 - health care 1,278 1,172 1,205 1,379 - technical services 9,523 7,874 7,295 9,817 Total 0 & M Cost per Inmate 30,507 29,446 31,216 34,249 Per Diem 0 & M Cost per Inmate Capital Expenditure: - total $ 206, , ,794 - expenditure per rated bed 428 1,598 1,629

40 Annex D-6 5-YEAR OPERATIONAL PROFILE INSTITUTION: 350 Cowansville (QUE) S Rated Capacity (at December 31): including trailers No. of Inmates: - avge. on register avge. midnight count Utilization (%) 96% 94% 98% 100% (avge count/avge. rated capacity) Bunks: - number of bunks installed (6 wks) - no. of inmates double bunked (approx. monthly average) (6 wks) Inmate "turnover": - Admissions Transfers In Transfers Out Releases Staff-Inmate Ratios (Staff = 1.00) - overall 1:1.39 1:1.43 1:1.47 1: security (incl. LU0s) 1:2.56 1:2.64 1:2.76 1:2.90 Staff Overtime Hours: - security + LU staff 37,103 31,557 32,579 38,609 - instit'n total (excl. training) 44,388 36,935 39,256 46,291 Avge. # of Clinic Visits per Inmate?? Incidents: - minor disturbances inmate/inmate assaults - major inmate/inmate assaults - minor attempted suicides self-inflicted injuries & M Cost per Inmate: - security + LU 12,673 13,278 13,798 14,007 - social and community 1,334 1, case management (excl LU) 1,202 1,172 1,362 1,413 - health care technical services 9,005 9,276 8,358 8,584 Total 0 & M Cost per Inmate Per Diem 0 & M Cost per Inmate Capital Expenditure: - total $ - expenditure per rated bed 31,022 32,863 33,178 33, , , ,830 1,405 1,440 1,624

41 Annex D-7 5-YEAR OPERATIONAL PROFILE INSTITUTION: 440 Collins Bay (ONT) S Rated Capacity (at December 31): including trailers No. of Inmates: - avge. on register avge. midnight count Utilization (%) 84% 92% 102% 107% (avge. count/avge. rated capacity) Bunks: - number of bunks installed - 10? (4 mths) - no. of inmates double bunked (approx. monthly average) (4 mths) Inmate "turnover": - Admissions Transfers In Transfers Out Releases Staff-Inmate Ratios (Staff = 1.00) - overall 1:1.61 1:1.47 1:1.58 1: security (incl. LU0s) 1:3.03 1:2.88 1:3.14 1:3.13 Staff Overtime Hours: - security + LU staff 38,462 35,659 39,443 38,053 - instit'n total (excl. training) 46,069 44,401 48,448 45,745 Avge. # of Clinic Visits per Inmate? Incidents: - minor disturbances inmate/inmate assaults - major inmate/inmate assaults - minor attempted suicides self-inflicted injuries & M Cost per Inmate: - security + LU 11,872 11,809 11,971 11,528 - social and community 1,718 1,259 1,284 1,216 - case management (excl LU) 1,558 1,164 1,123 1,183 - health care 1,382 1, technical services 9,305 9,357 8,112 8,358 Total 0 & M Cost per Inmate 31,136 31,120 31,216 29,291 Per Diem 0 & M Cost per Inmate Capital Expenditure: - total $ 1,830,651 2,132,108 1,535,732 - expenditure per rated bed 4,170 4,857 3,498

42 I Annex D-8 5-YEAR OPERATIONAL PROFILE INSTITUTION: 450 Joyceville (ONT) S Rated Capacity (at December 31): including trailers No. of Inmates: - avge. on register avge. midnight count Utilization (%) 85% 99% 107% 112% (avge. count/avge. rated capacity) Bunks: - number of bunks installed (51 mths) - no. of inmates double bunked (approx. monthly average) (5i mths) Inmate "turnover": - Admissions Transfers In Transfers Out Releases Staff-Inmate Ratios (Staff = 1.00) - overall 1:1.47 1:1.57 1:1.68 1: security ( i ci. LU0s) 1:2.56 1:3.06 1:3.27 1:3.58 Staff Overtime Hours: - security + LU staff 40,701 36,767 33,781 34,128 - instit'n total (excl. training) 47,401 42,560 39,576 39,931 Avge. # of Clinic Visits per Inmate? Incidents: - minor disturbances inmate/inmate assaults - major inmate/inmate assaults - minor attempted suicides self-inflicted injuries & M Cost per Inmate: - security + LU 12,956 11,705 11,713 10,887 - social and community 1,669 1,176 1,235 1,218 - case management (excl LU) 1, ,013 - health care 1,309 1, ,001 - technical services 8,163 7,517 6,821 7,094 Total 0 & M Cost per Inmate 30,806 31,205 27,798 27,361 Per Diem 0 & M Cost per Inmate Capital Expenditure: - total $ 703,558 1,906,983 1,560,401 - expenditure per rated bed 1,550 4,420 3,437

43 Annex D-9 5-YEAR OPERATIONAL PROFILE INSTITUTION: 460 Warkworth (ONT) S Rated Capacity (at December 31): including trailers No. of Inmates: - avge. on register avge. midnight count Utilization (%) 86% 91% 104% 113% (avge. count/avge. rated capcity) Bunks: - number of bunks installed - 36? (3 mths) - no. of inmates double bunked (approx. monthly average) (3 mths) Inmate "turnover": - Admissions Transfers In Transfers Out Releases Staff-Inmate Ratios (Staff = 1.00) - overall 1:1.47 1:1.45 1:1.61 1: security (incl. LU0s) 1:2.70 1:2.91 1:3.17 1:3.34 Staff Overtime Hours: - security + LU staff 31,043 26,386 28,358 33,392 - instit'n total (excl. training) 36,270 31,512 33,328 38,451 Avge. # of Clinic Visits per Inmate? Incidents: - minor disturbances inmate/inmate assaults - major inmate/inmate assaults - minor attempted suicides self-inflicted injuries & M Cost per Inmate: - security + LU 11,898 11,895 11,803 11,306 - social and community 1,641 1,276 1,207 1,006 - case management (excl LU) 1,118 1, health care 1,208 1,157 1, technical services 8,142 8,556 7,889 7,584 Total 0 & M Cost per Inmate 29,340 30,331 29,136 27,872 Per Diem 0 & M Cost per Inmate Capital Expenditure: - total $ 1,061, ,292 1,847,346 - expenditure per rated bed 2,396 1,942 3,825

44 Annex D-10 5-YEAR OPERATIONAL PROFILE INSTITUTION: 510 Stony Mountain (PRA) S Rated Capacity (at December 31): including trailers No. of Inmates: - avge. on register avge. midnight count Utilization (%) 86% 103% 101% 98% (avge. count/avge. rated capacity) Bunks: - number of bunks installed (8 mths) - no. of inmates double bunked (approx. monthly average) (8 mths) (10 mths) (4 mths) Inmate "turnover": FM FM FM FM - Admissions el - Transfers In Transfers Out Releases Staff-Inmate Ratios (Staff = 1.00) - overall 1:1.45 1:1.63 1:1.61 1: security (incl. LU0s) 1:2.63 1:3.03 1:2.98 1:3.01 Staff Overtime Hours: - security + LU staff 36,245 36,266 35,207 42,800* - instit'n total (excl. training) 49,401 48,183 46,495 52,870* Avge. # of Clinic Visits per Inmate? Incidents: - minor disturbances inmate/inmate assaults - major inmate/inmate assaults - minor attempted suicides self-inflicted injuries & M Cost per Inmate: - security + LU 12,203 11,176 13,396 15,826 - social and community 1,629 1,384 1,375 1,363 - case management (excl LU) 1,343 1,006 1,162 1,290 - health care 1,796 1,481 1,546 1,612 - technical services 7,096 6,762 6,534 7,016 Total 0 & M Cost per Inmate 29,511 28,627 30,605 34,598 Per Diem 0 & M Cost per Inmate Capital Expenditure: - total $ 654,232 2,297,168 1,467,608 - expenditure per rated bed 1,392 4,888 3,123 * Hours for the July/84 incident are not included.

45 Annex D-11 5-YEAR OPERATIONAL PROFILE INSTITUTION: 520/522 Saskatchewan Pen (PRA) ML/S-7 Rated Capacity (at December 31): including trailers No. of Inmates: - avge. on register avge. midnight count 430 Utilization (%) 91% (avge. count/avge. rated capacity) Bunks: - number of bunks installed - no. of inmates double bunked (approx. monthly average) Inmate "turnover": - Admissions - Transfers In - Transfers Out - Releases F M Staff-Inmate Ratios (Staff = 1.00) - overall 1: security (incl. LU0s) 1:2.27 Staff Overtime Hours: - security + LU staff 32,402 - instit'n total (excl. training) 38,300 Avge. # of Clinic Visits per Inmate? Incidents: - minor disturbances - inmate/inmate assaults - major - inmate/inmate assaults - minor - attempted suicides - self-inflicted injuries 0 & M Cost per Inmate: - security + LU - social and community - case management (excl LU) - health care - technical services /80 430/ % % % (7 mths) (7 mths) (3 mths) (8 mths) FMFMFM T, :1.41 1:1.36 1:1.62 1:2.50 1:2.38 1: ,068 25,824 33,984 35,588 32,937 38, ,604 13,138 15,068 11,968 1,880 1,464 1,516 1,462 1,361 1,189 1, ,385 1,212 1,245 1,362 7,397 7,572 7,170 7,363 Total 0 & M Cost per Inmate 29,831 30,695 33,362 30,307 Per Diem 0 & M Cost per Inmate Capital Expenditure: - total $ - expenditure per rated bed 1,914,509 6,550,750 7,898,075 4,452 12,845 15,486

46 Annex D-12 5-YEAR OPERATIONAL PROFILE INSTITUTION: 530 Drumheller (PRA) S-4/S Rated Capacity (at December 31): 453/48 453/48 453/48 453/48 453/48 - including trailers No. of Inmates: - avge. on register avge. midnight count Utilization (%) 90% 100% 101% 102% (avge. count/avge. rated capacity) Bunks: - number of bunks installed (8 mths) - no. of inmates double bunked (approx. monthly average) (8 mths) (5 mths) Inmate "turnover": FM FM - Admissions T 47 T 5-à Transfers In Transfers Out Releases Staff-Inmate Ratios (Staff = 1.00) - overall 1:1.49 1:1.72 1:1.69 1: security (incl. LU0s) 1:2.63 1:3.14 1:3.09 1:3.12 Staff Overtime Hours: - security + LU staff 33,732 32,895 34,062 26,666 - instit'n total (excl. training) 39,418 38,134 40,380 32,913 Avge. # of Clinic Visits per Inmate? Incidents: - minor disturbances inmate/inmate assaults - major inmate/inmate assaults - minor attempted suicides self-inflicted injuries & M Cost per Inmate: - security + LU 10,989 10,931 12,172 11,753 - social and community 1, ,064 - case management (excl LU) 1,013 1,173 1,109 1,203 - health care 1,327 1,136 1,348 1,393 - technical services 7,892 7,483 6,781 7,758 Total 0 & M Cost per Inmate 27,640 27,280 28,480 29,603 Per Diem 0 & M Cost per Inmate Capital Expenditure: - total $ 784,333 1,088,998 1,453,304 - expenditure per rated bed 1,566 2,174 2,901

47 Annex D-13 5-YEAR OPERATIONAL PROFILE INSTITUTION: 537 Bowden (PRA) S Rated Capacity (at December 31): including trailers No. of Inmates: - avge. on register avge. midnight count Utilization (%) 95% 96% 89% 95% (avge. count/avge. rated capacity) Bunks: - number of bunks installed no. of inmates double bunked (approx. monthly average) Inmate "turnover": - Admissions Transfers In Transfers Out Releases Staff-Inmate Ratios (Staff = 1.00) - overall 1:0.83 1:0.90 1:1.09 1: security (il. LU0s) 1:1.64 1:1.72 1:2.13 1:2.47 Staff Overtime Hours: - security + LU staff - instit'n total (excl. training) Avge. # of Clinic Visits per Inmate? Incidents: - minor disturbances - inmate/inmate assaults - major - inmate/inmate assaults - minor - attempted suicides - self-inflicted injuries 0 & M Cost per Inmate: - security + LU 18,354 19,486 18,444 14,974 - social and community? 2,543 1,946 1,791 - case management (excl LU)? 1,309 1,463 1,747 - health care 2,544 2,366 2,065 1,948 - technical services 10,618 10,893 8,917 9,500 ' Total 0 & M Cost per Inmate 43,539 46,280 42,208 41,163 Per Diem 0 & M Cost per Inmate , Capital Expenditure: - total $ 2,312, , ,208 - expenditure per rated bed 8,114 23,133 40,783 'Ma

48 Annex D-14 5-YEAR OPERATIONAL PROFILE INSTITUTION: 539 Edmonton (PRA) S Rated Capacity (at December 31): including trailers No. of Inmates: - avge. on register avge. midnight count Utilization (%) 86% 93% 105% 100% (avge. count/avge. rated capacity) Bunks: - # of bunks installed 30? (6 wks) - no. of inmates double bunked (approx. monthly average) (6 wks) (8 mths) Inmate "turnover": FM FM FM FM - Admissions fâ- 1«, Ji fi Transfers In Transfers Out Releases Staff-Inmate Ratios (Staff = 1.00) - overall 1:0.62 1:0.67 1:0.77 1: security (il. LU0s) 1:0.95 1:1.04 1:1.18 1: Staff Overtime Hours: - security + LU staff 37,182 23,087 37,030 36,501 - instit'n total (excl. training) 42,079 25,412 41,107 42,219 Avge. # of Clinic Visits per Inmate? Incidents: - minor disturbances inmate/inmate assaults - major inmate/inmate assaults - minor attempted suicides 4 - self-inflicted injuries & M Cost per Inmate: - security + LU 30,440 30,379 30,824 27,218 - social and community 2,926 2,204 1,781 1,906 - case management (excl LU) 1,726 1,648 1,551 1,532 - health care 2,938 2,836 1,850 1,803 - technical services 12,079 11,106 9,401 9,365 Total 0 & M Cost per Inmate 59,070 58,262 56,374 53,208 Per Diem 0 & M Cost per Inmate Capital Expenditure: - total $ 3,859,295 2,175, ,665 - expenditure per rated bed 17,867 9,297 3,793

49 Annex D-15 5-YEAR OPERATIONAL PROFILE INSTITUTION: 831 Matsqui/Sumas (PAC) S-5/S Rated Capacity (at December 31): 333/20 334/20 337/20 337/22 312/22 - including trailers No. of Inmates: - avge. on register avge. midnight count Utilization (%) 66% 102% 109% 109% (avge. count/avge. rated capacity) Bunks: - number of bunks installed (3 mths) - no. of inmates double bunked - 6? (approx. monthly average) (3 mths) (8 mths) Inmate "turnover": - Admissions Transfers In Transfers Out Releases Staff-Inmate Ratios (Staff = 1.00) - overall 1:0.83 1:1.29 1:1.41 1: security (incl. LU0s) 1:1.54 1:2.46 1:2.93 1:3.01 Staff Overtime Hours: - security + LU staff 47,294 31,401 33,353 30,548 - instit'n total (excl. training) 68,186 38,160 38,674 37,235 Avge. # of Clinic Visits per Inmate? Incidents: - minor disturbances inmate/inmate assaults - major inmate/inmate assaults - minor attempted suicides self-inflicted injuries & M Cost per Inmate: - security + LU - social and community - case management (excl LU) - health care - technical services 21,209* 14,402 13,862 12,216 2,648 1,408 1,383 1,573 1, ,134 1,603 2,599 1,359 1,802 2,135 13,521 8,915 8,820 8,949 Total 0 & M Cost per Inmate 50,628 33,989 34,429 34,413 Per Diem 0 & M Cost per Inmate Capital Expenditure: - total $ 2,372,735 1,449,610 1,144,276 - expenditure per rated bed 6,609 4,038 3,187 * Riot

50 Annex D-16 5-YEAR OPERATIONAL PROFILE INSTITUTION: 833 Mountain (PAC) S Rated Capacity (al December 31): including trailers No. of Inmates: - avge. on register avge. midnight count Utilization (%) 90% 98% 100% 97% (avge. count/avge. rated capacity) Bunks: - number of bunks installed - 20? (4 mths) (6 wks) - no. of inmates double bunked (approx. monthly average) (4 mths) (11 mths) (1 mth) Inmate 'turnover": - Admissions Transfers In Transfers Out Releases Staff-Inmate Ratios (Staff = 1.00) - overall 1:1.32 1:1.25 1:1.36 1: security (il. LU0s) 1:2.56 1:2.43 1:2.73 1:3.05 Staff Overtime Hours: - security + LU staff 21,549 12,210 11,769 9,992 - instit'n total (excl. training) 24,453 15,031 13,860 12,610 Avge. # of Clinic Visits per Inmate? Incidents: - minor disturbances inmate/inmate assaults - major inmate/inmate assaults - minor attempted suicides self-inflicted injuries & M Cost per Inmate: - security + LU 13,595 14,402 13,576 11,652 - social and community 2,490 1,408 2,035 2,351 - case management (excl LU) 1, ,727 1,798 - health care 2,284 1,359 2,038 2,163 - technical services 8,395 8,915 8,159 8,018 Total 0 & M Cost per Inmate 32,133 34,046 33,829 33,587 Per Diem 0 & M Cost per Inmate Capital Expenditure: - total $ 1,481, , ,029 - expenditure per rated bed 6,388 3,338 2,242

51 Annex D-17 5-YEAR OPERATIONAL PROFILE INSTITUTION: 836 Kent (PAC) S Rated Capacity (at December 31): including trailers No. of Inmates: - avge. on register avge. midnight count Utilization (%) 97% 103% 116% 111% (avge. count/avge. rated capacity) Bunks: - number of bunks installed - 36? (7 mths) - no. of inmates double bunked (approx. monthly average) (7 mths) Inmate 'turnover: (8 mths) - Admissions Transfers In Transfers Out Releases Staff-Inmate Ratios (Staff = 1.00) - overall 1:0.65 1:0.66 1:0.73 1: security (incl. LU0s) 1:0.99 1:0.96 1:1.06 1:1.29 Staff Overtime Hours: - security + LU staff 96,450 36,159 40,328 43,404 - instit'n total (excl. training) 101,199 40,559 45,193 49,358 Avge. # of Clinic Visits per Inmate? Incidents: - minor disturbances inmate/inmate assaults - major inmate/inmate assaults - minor attempted suicides self-inflicted injuries & M Cost per Inmate: - security + LU 38,936 35,594 35,803 30,295 - social and community 3,488 1,800 1,901 2,004 - case management (excl LU) ,045 1,508 - health care 2,079 2,003 1,973 1,761 - technical services 13,499 12,561 10,860 10,036 Total 0 & M Cost per Inmate 66,699 61,923 59,636 54,378 Per Diem 0 & M Cost per Inmate Capital Expenditure: - total $ 701,002 2,778,300 1,072,807 - expenditure per rated bed 3,894 12,186 4,705

52 Annex D-18 5-YEAR OPERATIONAL PROFILE INSTITUTION: 849 Mission (PAC) S Rated Capacity (at December 31): including trailers No. of Inmates: - avge. on register avge. midnight count Utilization (%) 98% 106% 113% 108% (avge. count/avge. rated capacity) Bunks: - number of bunks installed 38? (3 mths) (8 mths) - no. of inmates double bunked (approx. monthly average) (3 mths) (8 mths) Inmate "turnover": FM FM FM FM - Admissions T bi 13 b.() Transfers In Transfers Out Releases Staff-Inmate Ratios (Staff = 1.00) - overall 1:0.88 1:0.91 1:0.99 1: security (incl. LU0s) 1:1.45 1:1.48 1:1.67 1:1.75 Staff Overtime Hours: - security + LU staff 35,018 16,350 18,852 18,439 - instit'n total (excl. training) 37,295 18,732 22,036 21,533 Avge. # of Clinic Visits per Inmate? Incidents: - minor disturbances inmate/inmate assaults - major inmate/inmate assaults - minor attempted suicides self-inflicted injuries & M Cost per Inmate: - security + LU 21,932* 21,089 21,415 20,524 - social and community 2,929 2,173 2,200 2,239 - case management (excl LU) 1,066 1,311 1,301 1,225 - health care 1,602 1,613 1,505 1,479 - technical services 8,211 8,675 8,196 8,414 Total 0 & M Cost per Inmate 43,838 43,838 44,311 46,924 Per Diem 0 & M Cost per Inmate Capital Expenditure: - total $ 249, , ,223 - expenditure per rated bed 1,387 1,003 2,583 * Riot

53 Annex E CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (CPI) FOR CANADA (1981 = 100) Fiscal F.Y. Avge. (Approx.) and % Change from Year June Sept Dec. March Previous Year (E) ? 128.8(E)+ 4.2(E) Calendar Year Average and "Constant $" Factor % Change from Previous Year ( = $1.00) $ $ $ $ $ (Est.) (E) (E) $0.797 Source: Statistics Canada Quarterly Consumer Prices and Price Indices

54 0\1 \

55