>Users:   login   |  register       > email     > people    


Meeting Current Challenges with Inmate Classification
By Meghan Fay, Assistant Editor
Published: 07/27/2000

Classification systems play an important role in the effective management of an institution. A solid classification system enables departments to place inmates appropriately so that they utilize their resources effectively. With this in mind it is important to highlight the current challenges corrections professionals are grappling with and how classification may need to be altered.

Advantages of Objective Classification

Most agencies strive toward an objective classification system to accurately place offenders. Under a true objective classification system, two professionals independently evaluating the security level of an inmate can judge him consistently. Currently, “people get assessed based on their own characteristics rather than by the person classifying them,” said Jack Alexander, Director of the Office of Classification and Movement for the New York Department of Corrections.

According to Alexander, with objective classification the system becomes fair and has the ability to be tested for reliability and validity. The real value of objective classification is that it is uniform, said Larry Bench, Ph.D., Research Consultant in the Division of Research and Planning for the Utah Department of Corrections.

“Clinical judgments don't work all by themselves to classify offenders. They are less predictive of offenders re-offending than chance,” said Lorraine Fowler, Ph.D., Division Director of Resources and Information Management for the South Carolina Department of Corrections.

Current Challenges 

Despite having objective systems, agencies still need to pay attention to trends. According to Edward Latessa, Professor of Criminal Justice and Head of the Criminal Justice Department at the University of Cincinnati, the current classification challenges relate to special needs inmates such as the older population and inmates with illnesses like AIDS, as well as safety, juveniles in adult institutions and reclassification or internal classification.

“I think with the special needs offenders, it (classification) can be more of a clinical decision,” said Latessa. In many cases inmates that are 65 years of age or older will go into a different institution then those that are 25 years of age.

“Special needs are a big challenge. Another challenge is building the right prison,” said Latessa. The classification system helps drive bed space and construction. Safety is always a primary concern when looking at classification and it's, “not just safety for the staff, but also safety for inmates,” said Latessa. Corrections officials cannot knowingly place inmates in harmful situations such as placing an inmate in a cell with a known rapist who may attack them.

“A classification system is really how you manage the institution,” said Latessa.

Recently, many states have placed more juveniles into adult facilities and, according to federal law, juveniles have to be separated by sight and sound from adults. According to Latessa, this is difficult to do. Classification staff don't want to see kids get victimized and it's, “a classification issue because not all kids are the same,” so attention needs to be paid to how they are handled, said Latessa.

Reclassification or internal classification is another area of concern and an area that has to be closely monitored. Inmates who begin at a high level of security should be able to work towards a lower security classification through good behavior. The flip side is that inmates who consistently misbehave can earn themselves a higher security classification. Much emphasis has been placed on developing external classification systems and classification staff are quick to point out that classification within a facility is equally as important. 

According to Alexander, there is a current trend surfacing that places an emphasis on further developing internal classification systems. He cites the National Institute of Corrections as kick-starting initiatives to encourage further classification within prisons. Internal classification systems exist, but now they are being looked at more closely. “Most states are behind where NIC would like to see them with internal classification,” said Alexander. Issues such as security, mental health and program needs become internal issues of classification when these things have to mesh with housing arrangements. “These are issues of sorting people out within prisons,” said Alexander. 

Keeping Pace with the Challenges 

To keep up with the classification challenges, many corrections officials are starting to update their classification system through classification validation. “The classification system should not be overlooked. It's an absolute essential component to running a safe and humane institution,” said Bench.

When Bench conducts a classification validation he begins with assessing what the expectations of the institution are and then administers an Inter-Rater Reliability Study to examine how consistently the classification system is being scored. Initially, Bench tries to determine the system's reliability. “The proper way to do it is to use a pre-test and a post-test design,” said Bench. The final step is to look at the predicted validity of the classification system.  The ultimate goal of classification is to, “ figure out who needs to belong in which custody bracket,” said Bench. 

Undergoing this process allows departments to see if the classification system is consistent with its policies and procedures. It also wards off litigation. One down side is, “if [departments] have inmates in more severe custody brackets than they need to be it, is a waste of resources. It makes sense if you're going to run an prison system that you operate a classification system that is at it's peak,” said bench. It is a struggle to find a balance. Departments don't want to under classify or over classify. “Prison classification drives everything else that happens. It's really the nucleus,” said Bench, who believes that if the system is not working properly a problem will manifest itself somewhere in the facility.

Why Validate?

The reason for investing time and resources into a classification validation process is to make sure the system is meeting the intended goals and objectives of the department. “Classification is really just a tool for an institution to manage its inmate population,” said Bench. 

According to Bench, very few departments have validated their classification system since the mid-1980s. It is a long-term process, but he believes it is worth the effort and should be done every three to four years. Bench advises to get outside technical assistance, if necessary, to ensure the evaluation is done correctly. The NIC offers assistance for departments to undergo this process. 

According to Alexander, the validation process is a time consuming one, which is probably why it is not undertaken as often as it should be. He believes that part of the problem is that many departments aren't really willing to test to see if their system is right. To truly validate the instrument, departments would have to randomly distribute inmates, which is a luxury few have. “We can't afford to not act on our predictions,” said Alexander. Other experts agree.

“I really believe that we have been overwhelmed with the logistics and tactics of what we need to do daily to ensure public safety and we haven't really gotten into the strategic pasture that would force us to administer and manage better,” said Fowler. She sees the future of classification needing to focus on good data, validating instruments and answering questions like: What do we do with women? “If we don't do that we are really going to be overwhelmed in the 21st century,” said Fowler. The changes should deal with longer sentences and how to manage more problematic inmates with mental health issues.

BOP Modifies Classification

The Federal Bureau of Prisons was one of the first agencies in the country to switch to an objective classification system in 1979, with the development of the BOP's first classification manual, which was most recently updated in September 1999. According to Paul Horner, Administrator for the BOP Correctional Programs Branch, one of the most significant changes in handling classification has been the growth of not only the inmate population, but also the number of facilities. “The choices were rather limited of where we could place an inmate,” twenty years ago as compared with today, said Horner. “We have to make adjustments for those offenders to make sure they are in the appropriate institution,” he said.

There are two significant additions to the classification manual: a public safety factor and management variables. Inmates who fall under one of the following eight categories are classified as requiring increased security. Those categories are: 

1. Inmates with a history of disruption fall into a disruptive group.
2. Inmates who have committed a crime of extreme severity, which usually means seriously violent.
3. A sex offender.
4. Any inmate who has threatened a government official.
5. Inmates who are deportable aliens.
6. Inmates with very long sentences that are also in the category of committing a severe crime.
7. Inmates with a history of escape.
8. Inmates with a history of prison disturbances.

Inmates that fall under one of these categories are required to be placed in specific facilities.

Sometimes inmates are placed in a facility that is inconsistent with their security level. When this happens the management variable is applied, which is basically documentation for the staff used as a management tool. Inmates in this category are usually participating in treatment or a specific vocational program and are placed in an appropriate facility upon completion of the program. The BOP tries to keep inmates within 500 miles of their home because they feel as though it is positive for inmates to maintain relationships with their families. In trying to do this, inmates can be placed in facilities that are inconsistent with their security level.

The BOP reviews inmate classification every six months to increase or decrease the classification level appropriately. Ultimately the goal is to place the offender in the lowest possible security level, as they get closer to release. “We try to keep our institutions as pure as possible with regards to security level,” said Horner.

Lessons Learned

Because the BOP updates its classification manual there are new lessons learned every time. Paul Taylor, Chief of Policy Review and Development for the BOP, agrees that the BOP said adjustments needed to be made for security and programs to accommodate female offenders and older inmates. 

According to Delores Stephens, Assistant Administrator for Policy Development and Training at the BOP, one of the reasons for the new classification manual was to look at the issue of over classifying inmates. She believes that there was a tendency to over classify inmates who were in prison for drug related offences because of the politics around drugs. 

Currently, the BOP is challenged by the need to absorb 6,000 inmates from the Washington, D.C. Department of Corrections and determine what security level they are with the limited amount of information. Horner explains that agencies can't classify efficiently without a database system. It is a crucial element of a solid system.

Assistance is Available

Departments can contact the NIC for technical assistance and training regarding classification. In addition, the NIC has awarded a cooperative agreement to assist state departments in developing classification systems that are appropriate and valid for female offenders.

To apply for assistance or to obtain information about applying for the major classification initiatives, short-term technical assistance, or training, contact Sammie Brown, Correctional Program Specialist in the NIC Prisons Division at 800-995-6423 or email her at sbrown@bop.gov.

Resources
To contact Delores Stephens, Assistant Administrator for Policy Development and Training at the BOP; Paul Taylor, Chief of Policy Review and Development for the BOP or Paul Horner, Administrator for the BOP Correctional Programs Branch, please call Scott Wolfson, BOP Public Affairs at 202-307-3198
Jack Alexander, Director of the Office of Classification and Movement for the New York Department of Corrections
518-457-6022
Larry Bench, Ph.D., Research Consultant in the Division of Research and Planning for the Utah Department of Corrections.
801-265-5593
Lorraine Fowler, Ph.D., Division Director of Resources and Information Management for the South Carolina Department of Corrections
803-896-8526
Edward Latessa, Professor of Criminal Justice and Head of the Criminal Justice Department at the University of Cincinnati
513-556-5836

Screened Images Inc., Copyright 1999, 2000 all rights reserved
 



Comments:

No comments have been posted for this article.


Login to let us know what you think

User Name:   

Password:       


Forgot password?





correctsource logo




Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of The Corrections Connection User Agreement
The Corrections Connection ©. Copyright 1996 - 2024 © . All Rights Reserved | 15 Mill Wharf Plaza Scituate Mass. 02066 (617) 471 4445 Fax: (617) 608 9015