Managing Risk: Classification Of Prison Inmates
Introduction
Prison categorization is a technique of reviewing inmates’ risks that balance security requirements with program needs. Many classification systems that are in use today were developed more than a decade ago. These systems were aimed at an inmate’s population that was significantly different from what is experienced today both in size and in diversity. Most of these old classification systems were based on so many objectives which included among others the punishment of the offender and his or her rehabilitation.
In the course of the past thirty years, considerable modifications have been done in the criminal classification systems. Prior to the 1980s, all prisons in the United States except for the California Department and the Federal bureau prisons used objective oriented prison classification systems (Austin, 2003). Subjective oriented prison classification method was what was common. In subjective-oriented prison classifications, the judgment of prison officials to establish where a prisoner would be housed and the forms of supervision and security the prisoner will be subjected.
However, due to the advantages that came with the objective-oriented prison classifications, 50 states have implemented objective classification. The Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico have as well implemented complete objective prison classification systems. The adoption of the objective-oriented prison classification system has several distinct features that made it preferable over the subjective oriented classification system. These features include: use of reliable and valid factors to assess prisoner’s custody level and centralized classification unit with sufficient and well trained professionals responsible for inter-agency transfers.
Others are centralized classification to monitor classification unit and plan all classification procedures and policies and over-riders use to allow staff to get out of scored classification level over agency approved reasons. In objective oriented classification system, each classification decision and factors considered for each of the decisions are put on record and are assessable for analysis (Austin, 2003). Again, subjectivity has an initial and reclassification process that involves the review of all prisoners at least once annually and to get an update and if possible modify the prisoner’s current level of classification. There is a wide proliferation of objectives that has influenced the objective classification.
Although this form of classification has significant implications, there is need to adopt new forms of prison classification especially due to current criminal issues on increased inmate’s population and issue of diversity. In order to deal with current inmate population and diversity issue, the importance of inmate classification at incarceration at initial entry, internal assimilation, and the reclassification. The paper will also examine and contrast current classification process in active prisons in different jurisdictions to ascertain the most effective approach to inmate management. This paper will conclude with the assessment of inmate classification process to determine the prospect of achieving the goal if rehabilitation and recidivism.
Literature review
Offender classification and assessment are two processes that permeate correctional processes from offender admission to the correctional facility and incarceration through to sentence completion, release and post-incarceration. The role of offender classification is carried out by the correctional counselors with the intentions of provision of public safety and community protection. Inmate classification is also intended at identifying and matching offenders’ needs for treatment management with correctional resources.
The improvement of correctional operation and performance reduced costs and recidivism has also been affected. In the prison systems, classification refers to the process of having prisoners in different custody levels. These levels include maximum, close, medium and minimum prison security levels. This classification is done such that it matches the needs of the offender with the resources available in the respective correctional facility. For instance, different levels of offenders are placed in different types of correctional facilities and are given different levels of supervision once there. Prison classification is intended to distinguish among prisoners posing various levels of security risks and is surrounded by different security issues.
In the recent past, prisoners’ population has changed drastically, and classification measures have had to change to accommodate these changes and to distinguish between various prisoners categories (Wooldredge, 2003). Most categorization procedures take into consideration sex, male and female prisoners; mental health condition, mental inquest detainee and other prisoners and mentally ill and mentally retarded prisoner and other prisoners.
In addition, chemically incapacitated prisoners and others and prisoners with communicable diseases and prisoners with higher vulnerability to be harmed, to harm or that need administrative segregation and other prisoners are considered (Jail standard review advisory commission, 2012). For the other prisoners, the classification criteria takes into consideration the prisoner’s nature of offense and sentence; past attempts to escape; the day to day behavior of a prisoner and appropriate prisoner classification reevaluation.
During prisoners’ classification, the classification specialists establish individual profiles of individual inmates. The profile consists of information such as social background, offenders’ crime, job skills, education, health and criminal record and work history. Using prisoner’s profile information, an offender is assigned the most appropriate prison and custody classification. The two main prisoners’ classification programs are subjective and objective classifications and internal and external classification and reclassification.
Subjective and objective classifications
Subjective classifications rely on prison administrators’ experience and judgment. This classification program was used during the ancient times of corrections in the United States. The placement of inmates and their supervision and security then was determined by prison officials. Although all state prisons have adopted objective classifications, subjective prisoners’ classification has not completely been adopted. For instance, correctional staffs use overrides to change scored classification levels.
The number of overrides account for 5-15% of all classified cases of inmates (anonymous, 2012). This necessitates the need to combine both objective classification and the professional judgment of trained personnel responsible for the classification process. In objective classification, the criterion is reliable and valid as there are well trained and classification-specialized personnel and the storage of each classification decision for analysis and examination. These classification programs have mainly focused on determining inmate’s custody level e.g. minimum, maximum and medium. These programs have also focused on determination of the facility where the inmate will be taken to.
Internal and external classification and reclassification
This classification program focuses on how inmates should be housed and programmed upon the arrival of the prisoner to the correctional facility. In this program all inmate undergo through initial, internal and reevaluation processes. Initial classification process is also known as external prison classification. During this process, the offender gets into the prison system through a classified facility at custody level and remains there. Prisoners’ custody levels are numbered in levels –level 1, 2, etc or maximum, medium, or minimum. Both the minimum and level inmates pose least degree of danger to self and others (Austin, 2003).
Basically, the external inmates’ classification programs make use of scoring forms. These forms are used to evaluate the inmate’s behavior currently, previous criminal history and record and other traits suggesting his or her background like mental health status. Objective classification program has the prisoner evaluated for different factors some of which have little inmate predictability capacity but are used for inmate custody designation process like sentence length.
Once a prisoner gets to the correctional facility, he or she undergoes internal classification. During this process, the prisoner’s unit and cell which they will be assigned are determined (Seiter, 2012). These cells and units must be in such a way that they match the prisoner’s risk and needs in terms of the program and unit’s security and treatment characteristics. There are several approaches to prisoners’ internal classification programs (Berk, Ladd, Graziano, Jong-Ho, 2003). These approaches vary on the basis of purpose, staff, process, and automation level.
Internal classification programs in Oregon, Florida, Connecticut, Missouri and Colorado (Austin, 2003).
Once the offender is in prison, they undergo reclassification after a specific time duration determined by the institution officials. This period can be annual, quarterly or semi annually among others. Using the obtained information, the prisoner’s current classification level is revised and updated. At times, the prisoner can undergo interim reclassification given changes in their conditions.
In order for reclassification to be considered effective, the prisoner has to undergo an evaluation process that pays more emphasis on the conduct of the prisoner in the course of incarceration. Inmate conduct issues considered for reclassification include the amount of participation to the program, gang membership, violence history, and recent actions of disciplinary (anonymous, 2012). Classification in community corrections consists of identification and selection of strategies for inmates’ supervision based on the assessment of risks and offenders’ needs.
Importance of inmates’ classification
At the each level of inmate classification, there are some associated advantages. In the external classification process, the prisoner’s custody and facility assignment is done. During the internal classification process, the issues of where and with whom an offender will be housed are resolved. The type of programs and services a prisoner is subject to and work assignment that is best suitable for the prisoner is assigned. Internal prisoners’ classification also serves as the process where the prisoner at the risk of special management placement s is offered. Both internal and external classification processes serves to reduce classification errors in the classification systems compared to both objective and subjective classification systems.
Errors reduction in these classification systems owes to the automation of data systems that allow the digital storage of inmate’s data and information. The stored digital data allows for classification monitoring and increases the accuracy and efficiency of classification through the reduction of the need to reenter same inmate’s data at every classification stage. Reclassification requires that the prisoners’ conduct is reevaluated after a given period of time (Austin and Hardyman, 2004). This monitoring of the classification system ensures that the systems functions in relation to the prison’s current population.
Prisoners monitoring also ensures that prisoners are living within the required policies and procedures and that the classification system houses the inmate as is expected of it. The presence of automated systems ensure that prisoners records and other information are assessable such that the prisoner’s prior and current charges. At the internal classification level, there is emphasis on adherence to the housing plan as only prisoners with the same form of facility (Austin and Hardyman, 2004). External classification allows for timely and accurate classification or prisoner as all offenders admitted to any correctional institution are subjected to immediate screening is done to determine the inmates’ housing level and nature. From the initial screening, prison classification officials are used to help identify the emergent needs of the prisoners. This makes internal and external classification and reclassification very reliable and valid instruments.
The presence of a centralized form of control ensures that prisoners are assigned to housing units based on the classification system with the sole authority of the classification staff. This results to the centralization of the overall prison transfers and housing decisions reducing conflicts of interest (Austin and Hardyman, 2004). Internal classification leaves room for dedicated classification unit and staff each unit is assigned sufficient number dedicated and experienced staff which also allows for timely inmates’ classification.
Examination and contrast of current classification process in active prisons
Active prisons’ inmate classification involves the process where by the inmate’s risks that balance security requirements with program needs are assessed. Newly admitted inmates are transferred from jails to prisons and the assessment of risks begins. When an inmate is taken to prison, the process of admission, processing and evaluation starts. The inmates are put through various evaluation processes including mental and medical screening and individual profiles developed by the prison specialist. This information is then used to provide the most appropriate classification custody and prison. After this initial classification, the prison specialists will determine inmate’s progression through various levels of custody to minimum custody and then release.
In the courses of prison life, inmates are subjected to work, programs for self rehabilitation and improvements and treatment. The results on the participation of each inmate are used to determine whether the inmate progresses to minimum custody. In the case of prisoners who comply with the prison rules, do assigned work and are active in corrective programs, there are chances of progressing towards minimum custody. On the other hand, inmates violating prison rules are punished and are likely to move towards more restrictive custody and more secure prison. In order for prisoners to proceed to less restrictive custody classifications and prisons, they must show responsibility and improved behavior over time.
Upon classification, inmates are assigned custodial levels that are close, minimum I, minimum II and minimum III. Minimum III has the least perceived public safety risks while those in close custody present the highest risk. These custodial assignments subject inmates to various statuses of control which include maximum, death row, intensive, safe keeper, administrative, disciplinary and protective (Gaes and Camp, 2009). These controls restrict the prisoners’ privileges and freedom. The authorities in the division of prisons are responsible for the removal of inmates from any of these statuses. These controls are meant to maintain prison order, staff safety and protection and proviso inmate’s safety.
Prison security levels are used to classify and designate prisons. The three prison security levels used in the division of prisons are close, medium and minimum security. Maximum prisons are the most restrictive confinement levels and fall under close security prisons. Minimum security prisons are least restrictive. Each level of restriction defines the extent of the offender’s risk to public security.
Offenders’ classification in prisons is subjective classification. Here, the subjective judgment of prison officials is used to assign or remove inmates from various control levels to others. The assessment of new prison inmates serves as the basis for prisoners’ custody classification and prison level. The subjective mode of prisoners’ classification does not use standardized instruments for classification and may be subject to bias. On the other hand, inmates’ objective classification employs evaluation instruments that are standard and inmate assessment is not only done for purposes of classification. This eliminates instances of bias or discrimination which them makes it the most effective inmate management program
Critical analysis of past scholarly literature
Different levels of criminal custody imply different facilities. This means that when a prisoner moves from one custody level to the next, they have to be transferred to a new facility. In this case, relevant education is required for the new inmate on how to cope with life in the new facility. However, little has been researched in this area with much concentration being paid to the determination of custody level and where the inmate will be transferred.
According to Hardyman, Austin and Peyton (2004), inmates’ intake forms the basis for a prisoner’s sentence. The intake process consists of three components which are identification, classification and needs assessment. Inmate’s identification is mandatory nationwide where fingerprints, photographs and inventories of prisoners personal items are common. In the classification process, results from medical and mental health and education tests are presented to the classification officials who determine the inmate’s initial custody level, program needs and housing requirements.
The needs assessment is finally used to establish the program the inmate should get involved in while incarcerated. Although some are mandatory, there is need for inmate encouragement to participate actively and influence their custody level. The classification process in consists of initial classification and reclassification after custody assessment but does not provide a requirements assessment to determine what will be expected by the inmate upon reclassification to a different custody level (Hardyman, Austin and Peyton, 2004).
According to Austin (2003), typical external classification system consists of two scoring assessment forms which produce a scored and final custody level. Inmost states, the custody levels fall under the names of Minimum, medium, close and maximum security levels. Other states use the level system Level I, Level II, Level III and Level IV. Through discretionary and non discretionary overrides, the prisoner’s custody level can change and this occurs in 5-15% of all classified prisoners (Mohíno, Kirchner, & Forns, 2008).
The trained professionals do not only depend on professional judgment but also on other factors not necessarily used in the scoring process. During admission, a prisoner is classified using an initial classification instrument since little is known about their conduct within the prison facility. Within 12 months, the prisoner is subjected to reclassification which only emphases on the prisoner’s conduct and pays no attention to what is expected of the prisoner upon progression to the next custody level (Austin, 2003). The prisoner’s conduct information is obtained from participation in various programs and their performance at work. Some factors assessed during initial classification are no longer necessary as they have less influence.
Any implementation of classification process requires strong commitment, time and very careful planning (Hardyman, Austin, Alexandor, Johnson and Tulloch, 2002). The internal prison classification must be such that it is consistent with the external classification designation inters o work assignments, housing level and program. Internal classification programs should also be less restrictive in order to encourage restrictive custody and housing levels.
Internal classification should not be established if the facility does not have a well functioning external prison classification. This means hat it is important to have a purpose, goals and anticipated impacts of internal classification systems. However, there is no provision on how to deal with internal classification impacts that result to the shift from one custody level to the other. The only custody level shift is provided for how the prisoner should adapt is release. For level I prisoners who exhibit changes in their conduct, they are subjected to programs that will enable them confidently reenter into the community upon release.
Implications towards critical policy
The primary consideration for inmate classification has been the probability of an inmate to engage in serious misconduct while incarcerated. In addition, reclassification is currently based on the conduct of the incarcerated inmate. This research paper attempts to critically explore this conventional wisdom to determine the most effective predictors of inmate misconduct. Mindful that the goal of corrections is to be punitive, rehabilitative and restorative, the progress of an inmate to a different custody level during incarceration has much to be learnt about.
At the same time, federal, state and local classification continues to face inmate reformation resulting to need for inmate transfer to a different level. Development of new classification techniques for enabling the prisoners to adapt to the new facility and custody level becomes essential for each inmate. Future study should focus on the impact of inmates’ classification that requires reasonable efforts in terms of staff inmate training.
Conclusion
By classifying inmates at three different levels of incarceration, this will provide make the adaptation of the inmate easier and easy to manage. The inmates will also be empowered to meet their correctional goal. Further need for reexamination of the program will be directed as a conclusion.
References
Anonymous, (2012). Offender classification and assessment. Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Retrieved from https://www.google.co.ke/search?q=offender+classification+and+assessment&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Austin, j., Hardyman, P., and Brown, S., (2001).critical issues and development in prison classification. US department of Justice. Retrieved from www.nicic.gov/library/topic/440-prison-classification
Austin, J., (2003). Findings in prison classification. US department of Justice. Retrieved from www.nicic.gov/library/topic/440-prison-classification
Austin, J., and Hardyman, P., (2004). Objective prison classification. US department of Justice. retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/54576689/Objective-Prison-Classification-A-Guide-for-Correctional-Agencies
Gaes, G., & Camp, S., (2009). Unintended consequences. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(2), 139-162.
Hardyman, P., Austin, J., and Peyton, J., (2004). Prison intake systems. Retrieved from www.nicic.gov/library/topic/440-prison-classification
Hardyman, P., Austin, J., Alexandor, J., Johnson. K., and Tulloch, O., (2002). Internal prison Classification systems. US Department of Justice. retrieved from www.nicic.gov/library/topic/440-prison-classification
Mohíno, S., Kirchner, T., & Forns, M. (2008). Personality and coping in young inmates: A cluster typology. Psychopathology, 41(3), 157-64. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/233359219?accountid=38769
Seiter, P., (2012). Correctional Administration Integrating Theory and Practice Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education, Inc.
Wooldredge, J. (2003). Keeping pace with evolving prison populations for effective management. Criminology & Public Policy, 2(2), 253-258. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/200126939?accountid=38769
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
