Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:15 pm
Time: 8:15 pm
Results for inmate classification
8 results foundAuthor: O'Keefe, Maureen L. Title: One Year Longitudinal Study of the Psychological Effects of Administrative Segregation Summary: One of the most widely debated topics in the field of corrections – the use of long‐term administrative segregation (AS) – has suffered from a lack of empirical research. Critics have argued that the conditions of AS confinement exacerbate symptoms of mental illness and create mental illness where none previously existed. Empirical research has had little to offer this debate; the scant empirical research conducted to date suffers from research bias and serious methodological flaws. This study seeks to advance the literature in this regard. This study tested three hypotheses: (1) offenders in AS would develop an array of psychological symptoms consistent with the security housing unit (SHU) syndrome, (2) offenders with and without mental illness would deteriorate over time in AS, but at a rate more rapid and extreme for the mentally ill, and (3) inmates in AS would experience greater psychological deterioration over time than the comparison groups. Study participants included male inmates who were placed in AS and comparison inmates in the general population (GP). Placement into AS or GP conditions occurred as a function of routine prison operations. GP comparison participants included those at risk of AS placement due to their institutional behavior. Inmates in both of these study conditions (AS, GP) were divided into two groups – inmates with mental illness (MI) and with no mental illness (NMI). A third comparison group of inmates with severe mental health problems placed in San Carlos Correctional Facility, a psychiatric care prison facility, was also included. A total of 302 inmates were approached to participate in the study, and 55 refused to participate or later withdrew their consent. Participants were tested at 3‐month intervals over a yearlong period. Standardized test data were collected through self‐report, correctional staff and clinical staff measures. Tests with demonstrated reliability and validity were selected to assess the eight primary constructs of interest: (1) anxiety, (2) cognitive impairment, (3) depression‐hopelessness, (4) hostility‐anger control, (5) hypersensitivity, (6) psychosis, (7) somatization, and (8) withdrawal‐alienation. Extensive analyses of psychometric properties revealed that inmates self‐reported psychological and cognitive symptoms in remarkably reliable and valid ways. The results of this study were largely inconsistent with our hypotheses and the bulk of literature that indicates AS is extremely detrimental to inmates with and without mental illness. Similar to other research, our study found that segregated offenders were elevated on multiple psychological and cognitive measures when compared to normative adult samples. However, elevations were present among the comparison groups too, suggesting that high degrees of psychological disturbances are not unique to the AS environment. In examining change over time patterns, there was initial improvement in psychological well‐being across all study groups, with the bulk of the improvements occurring between the first and second testing periods, followed by relative stability for the remainder of the study. Patterns indicated that the MI groups tended to be similar to one another but were significantly elevated compared to the NMI groups, regardless of their setting. Contrary to our hypothesis, offenders with mental illness did not deteriorate over time in AS at a rate more rapid and more extreme than for those without mental illness. Finally, although AS inmates in this study were found to possess traits believed to be associated with long‐term segregation, these features cannot be attributed to AS confinement because they were present at the time of placement and also occurred in the comparison study groups. Implications for policy and future research are discussed. Details: Colorado Springs, CO: Colorado Department of Corrections; University of Colorado - Colorado Springs, Department of Psychology, 2010. 150p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 14, 2011 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232973.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232973.pdf Shelf Number: 120766 Keywords: Inmate ClassificationInmate SegregationMaximum SecurityMentally Ill Inmates |
Author: Weber, Kasey Title: An Evaluation of the Use of the LSI-R with Colorado Inmates Summary: This evaluation is a formative evaluation of the current processes in place at the Colorado Department of Corrections specific to the utilization of the LSI-R. This evaluation seeks to examine how the LSI-R is administered in the department during an offender's assessment and classification. The second part of the study includes a survey of other U.S. state correctional agencies to gain a more comprehensive understanding of how the LSI-R is administered and utilized by these department. Details: Colorado Springs, CO: Colorado Department of Corrections, Office of Planning and Analysis, 2010. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 24, 2011 at: http://www.doc.state.co.us/sites/default/files/opa/LSI_Evaluation_2010_1.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.doc.state.co.us/sites/default/files/opa/LSI_Evaluation_2010_1.pdf Shelf Number: 120866 Keywords: Inmate ClassificationInmates (Colorado)Risk Assessment |
Author: Brennan, Tim Title: A Need/Risk Explanatory Classification of Female Prisoners Incorporating Gender-Neutral and Gender-Responsive Factors Summary: Correctional institutions must understand the women who enter their care if they are to achieve their key correctional goals. Assessment and classification are the main techniques used by correctional agencies to describe, understand, “name” and guide inmate management and treatment. Criminal justice institutions – like most people-processing bureaucracies –must first transform the unique “person” into a policy based category (e.g. minimum security) before any formal processing can begin (Prottas 1979; Litsky 1980). A major danger is that inadequate or oversimplified classification may produce systematic misunderstandings of women offenders that may lead to inappropriate processing and treatment of women offenders. Thus, there is much at stake in these classifications and the consequences of errors are damaging to both the detainee and the institution (Clear 1988; Blanchette and Brown 2006, Hardyman and VanVoorhis 2004; Brennan 1987b). Many aspects of the woman detainee’s life quality, e.g. housing placement, privileges, program eligibility, access to services and visitation arrangements all depend on classification decisions. It is thus disquieting that several recent reviews argue current classification procedures for women offenders lack adequate validity and are substantially misaligned with women’s needs and risks (Blanchette and Brown 2006, Hardyman and Van Voorhis 2004, Bloom 2000, Bloom et al., 2003; Reisig et al. 2006, Brennan 2008). The main criticisms include over-simplified and irrelevant risk and need factors, weak clinical guidance and poor predictive validity. Each of these deficiencies may produce systematic misclassification. Several research groups at both the State and National levels have called for more appropriate classifications for women offenders. The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has mounted a multifaceted initiative on the classification of women offenders (Hardyman and Van Voorhis 2004, Wright et al 2007; Salisbury et al 2008). The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has established a Gender Responsive Strategies Commission (GRSC) to assist in developing a master plan for female offenders. One of their first tasks was to implement a gender-responsive classification for female offenders. In Canada substantial efforts have also focused on re-designing classification procedures for female offenders (e.g. Blanchette and Brown 2006; Hannah-Moffatt and Shaw 2001). At the core of these issues is the problem of misalignment of classification design with organizational purposes. Any confusion over the purposes of classification can result in classification systems being designed and implemented that are “misaligned” with correctional goals of an agency and thus incapable of achieving these goals (Hardyman and Van Voorhis 2004; Brennan 1987). Appropriate alignment means that the design features of the classification are well matched to, and can achieve the policy purposes of an agency (Walton 1980). Misalignment occurs when a correctional agency implements a poorly designed classification that has little chance of achieving the agencies purposes e.g. when an agency implements a predictive risk classification but then uses this for treatment decisions; or when the agency omits female relevant factors from it’s classification but uses this system to classify women detainees. In the present project we will design two separate classifications matched to two different purposes. One aims to optimize risk prediction for women inmates, the other aims to optimize explanatory power and treatment relevance for women prisoners. This paper focuses on the latter classification. Details: Golden, CO: Northpointe Institute for Public Management, 2008. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 27, 2013 at: http://www.northpointeinc.com/files/research_documents/A_Need-Risk_Explanatory_Classification_of_Females.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.northpointeinc.com/files/research_documents/A_Need-Risk_Explanatory_Classification_of_Females.pdf Shelf Number: 127729 Keywords: Female Offenders (U.S.)Female PrisonersInmate ClassificationRisk Assessment |
Author: U.S. General Accounting Office Title: Bureau of Prisons: Improvements Needed in Bureau of Prisons’ Monitoring and Evaluation of Impact of Segregated Housing Summary: The U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons confines about 7 percent of its 217,000 inmates in segregated housing units for about 23 hours a day. Inmates are held in Special Housing Unit (SHUs), Special Management Units (SMUs), and Administrative Maximum (ADX). GAO was asked to review BOP’s segregated housing unit practices. This report addresses, among other things: (1) the trends in BOP’s segregated housing population, (2) the extent to which BOP centrally monitors how prisons apply segregated housing policies, and (3) the extent to which BOP assessed the impact of segregated housing on institutional safety and inmates. GAO analyzed BOP’s policies for compliance and analyzed population trends from fiscal year 2008 through February 2013. GAO visited six federal prisons selected for different segregated housing units and security levels, and reviewed 61 inmate case files and 45 monitoring reports. The results are not generalizable, but provide information on segregated housing units. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that BOP (1) develop ADX-specific monitoring requirements; (2) develop a plan that clarifies how BOP will address documentation concerns GAO identified, through the new software program; (3) ensure that any current study to assess segregated housing also includes reviews of its impact on institutional safety; and (4) assess the impact of long-term segregation. BOP agreed with these recommendations and reported it would take actions to address them. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2013. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-13-429: Accessed June 1, 2013 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654349.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654349.pdf Shelf Number: 128885 Keywords: Corrections ManagementInmate ClassificationInmate SegregationPrison AdministrationPrisons (U.S.)U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons |
Author: New South Wales. Inspector of Custodial Services Title: Lifers: Classification and Regression Summary: Recent media reports have been critical of the Corrective Services NSW (CSNSW) inmate classification system; in particular, how this system is applied to inmates serving life sentences ('lifers'), and the access of the lifer cohort to other than a maximum-security classification. Many of the reports contained misinformation about the purpose and operation of the classification system and about the level of 'privileges' afforded to inmates. The media reports also indicate an absence of understanding with regard to information sharing between CSNSW and registered victims, and expectations related to security conditions for offenders serving life sentences. The media reports have also implied that, in recent years, there have been changes to the policies and practices by which lifer inmates, and other maximum-security inmates, are managed. The tenor of these suggestions, in essence, is that the management of the correctional system in general, and of lifer inmates in particular, does not meet community expectations. The terms 'soft treatment', 'cushy treatment', 'privileges' and 'social reform' have been used repeatedly in media reports. Objective This report will examine the classification of life-sentenced inmates. This is an issue that has attracted media and community interest recently. Commentary not based on evidence does little to promote public confidence in the justice system. This report will outline the purpose and importance of the inmate classification system in the NSW correctional system. It will examine the structure of the inmate classification system in NSW with particular reference to lifers. The ways in which CSNSW engages with victims of crime and shares information with them will also be discussed. It is the view of the Inspector that concerns around lifers and their classification warrant inspection under the provisions of the Act as they are in the public interest. Details: Sydney: NSW Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 5, 2015 at: http://www.custodialinspector.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Lifers%20Classification%20and%20regression.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.custodialinspector.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Lifers%20Classification%20and%20regression.pdf Shelf Number: 136941 Keywords: Inmate ClassificationLife ImprisonmentsLife Sentence |
Author: New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on Law and Justice Title: Security classification and management of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment Summary: In July 2015 it became publicly known that some inmates sentenced to life imprisonment had been reclassified to a medium or minimum security level. This became a prominent matter in the media following an outcry from the public and victims' families. The Commissioner of Corrective Services subsequently reclassified these inmates from their lower security classifications to maximum security. This inquiry was established soon afterwards to consider how lifers should be classified and whether they should have access to rehabilitation programs. Summary of recommendations Recommendation 1 32 That the NSW Government amend the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 to establish a separate classification for inmates sentenced to life imprisonment with little or no prospect of release from custody that is based on the risk they pose to the community, preserves the good order of correctional facilities and ensures the safe and effective management of the inmates. Recommendation 2 32 That Corrective Services NSW develop and action a comprehensive communication strategy to educate the public on the operation of the New South Wales correctional system. Recommendation 3 44 That the NSW Department of Justice consider merging the victims registers of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, Juvenile Justice and Corrective Services NSW. Recommendation 4 45 That Corrective Services NSW trial an opt-out Victims Register for victims of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment. Recommendation 5 45 That, as part of the opt-out system at recommendation 4, Corrective Services NSW establish a policy whereby the Victims Register conduct a one-off follow up of victims of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment who have opted-out of the register to ask if the victim would like to reconsider joining the register, and that victims be informed of this policy when they initially make the decision to opt-out. Recommendation 6 49 That Corrective Services NSW establish a policy whereby, as soon as possible following sentencing, the Victims Register provide an information package to victims of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment and offer to telephone or meet with them to explain the correctional system, custodial management practices and the day-to-day life of an inmate and that it consider doing this in the presence of a counsellor. Recommendation 7 49 That Corrective Services NSW develop, in consultation with victim support groups and the Commissioner of Victims Rights, a form to be provided to victims of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment following sentencing that includes a list of matters that victims can nominate to receive updates about, and that this form also be made available to current victims of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment. Recommendation 8 55 That the NSW Government amend the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 to state that, in cases where the Commissioner for Corrective Services does not adopt the recommendations of the Serious Offenders Review Council, reasons as to why the recommendations were not adopted must be provided. Recommendation 9 62 That the NSW Government consider measures to improve the capacity of the prison system to adequately house, manage and care for aged and frail inmates, including to establish designated units and areas in more correctional centres in New South Wales. Details: Sydney: NSW Parliament, 2016. 94p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2016 at: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/344106974ffada7bca257f8a0082b906/$FILE/Final%20Report%20-%20Security%20classification%20and%20management%20of%20inmates%20sentenced%20to%20life%20imprisonment.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/344106974ffada7bca257f8a0082b906/$FILE/Final%20Report%20-%20Security%20classification%20and%20management%20of%20inmates%20sentenced%20to%20life%20imprisonment.pdf Shelf Number: 138627 Keywords: Inmate ClassificationInmatesLife ImprisonmentLife SentenceLifersPrisoners |
Author: Bellmore, Aimee Ryan Title: Gender, Culture, and Prison Classification: Testing the Reliability and Validity of a Prison Classification System Summary: Research consistently shows actuarial classification instruments have equal or higher predictive validity than clinical judgment and can lead to more ethical and fair treatment of incarcerated men and women (Austin, 1983, 1986; Bonta, 2002; Clements, 1981; Holsigner, Lowenkamp, & Latessa, 2006; Meehl, 1954; Salisbury, Van Voorhis, & Spiropoulos, 2009). Best correctional practice recommends all objective classification systems are tested for reliability and validity to ensure they are effective for the population they intend to serve (Austin, 1986; Holsinger et al., 2006; Salisbury et al., 2009). This study examined the reliability and validity of the classification and assessment instruments currently used by Golden Grove Adult Correctional Facility (Golden Grove), located on St. Croix in the United States Virgin Islands (USVI). Golden Grove is a mixed-gender, mixed-security status prison managed by the USVI territorial government, and is subject to United States Federal laws and mandates. Data from archival files were used to assess the internal reliability, construct validity, and predictive validity of the classification and assessment instruments used with incarcerated men and women at Golden Grove (N = 200). Primary objectives of this study were separated into four main categories: 1) examine the construct validity of Golden Grove's custody assessment tools; 2) investigate the predictive validity of Golden Grove's custody assessment tools across gender; 3) determine reliability and assess to what extent the primary classification officer's decisions have higher predictive validity than the actuarial tool; and 4) investigate the relationship between items on the needs assessment form and level of custody (minimum, medium, or maximum). Results were mixed but generally indicated weak reliability, construct validity, and predictive validity. Contrary to most research on gender and classification, a significant correlation between the initial custody score for incarcerated females and disciplinary reports (r = .26, n = 56, p < .05) indicated the initial custody tool predicted misconduct for maximum custody females better than for males. The mean number of disciplinary reports for maximum women (M = 1.12) was significantly higher compared to maximum men (M = .46). The classification officer overrode the instrument at a high rate for both the initial assessment instrument (44%) and the reassessment instrument (36.4%) rendering the objective assessment overly subjective. Overall, findings show the classification system at Golden Grove is not functioning as intended and improvements are recommended. Details: Portland, OR: Portland State University, 2011. 144p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed May 19, 2017 at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1422&context=open_access_etds Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1422&context=open_access_etds Shelf Number: 145570 Keywords: Classification of OffendersFemale InmatesInmate ClassificationPrisoner Classification |
Author: Austin, James Title: Evaluation of the Sacramento County Jail Inmate Classification and T-SEP Systems Summary: Dr. James Austin was asked to assess the Sacramento County Jail inmate classification system and the T-SEP (or Total Separation) housing system. The larger inmate classification system is used to house prisoners within the jail's general population. Inmates are typically scored on a number of objective factors that are related to the current charges/offenses, prior criminal record, escape history, prior institutional conduct, demographic (age and gender), and several stability factors (education, residency, employment). Inmates assigned to the T-SEP status are so assigned based on other security factors that are intended to identify and house inmates who pose a significant and on-going threat to other inmates, staff and perhaps themselves. There are two dominant jail classification systems that are operational within the U.S. One is referred to as the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Objective Jail Classification system (OJC). It is based on the NIC prison classification system, which is the dominant inmate classification system in the U.S. All but two state prison systems have a version of the NIC objective prison classification system. The NIC Objective Jail Classification is an additive point system that is used for both initial and reclassification purposes. A system of over-rides is used to depart from the scored system. Because the NIC system was developed by NIC, there is no cost to the agency to implement it. A correctional agency is also able to customize the factor's weights, scale, and over-ride factors. Versions can also be developed for male and female inmates based on validation results. The other jail classification system was designed by the Northpointe company and is known as the decision-tree model. While using many of the same factors found in the NIC system, the format for scoring an inmate is much different. As the name implies, rather than using an additive point format, the Northpointe system uses a decision-tree format. The important difference is all the scoring items are not used in each assessment. Rather, only those items needed for each security level are sequentially applied. The early version of the Northpointe system had no reclassification component. Finally, because the system is owned by Northpointe, the user is not allowed to make any changes or customize the instrument. Also, no models have been developed specifically adapted for female inmates. Part of the inmate classification and housing system is what is referred to as the T-SEP (or Total Separation) housing unit where inmates are confined to single cells for extensive periods of time. At the time that study was initiated on January 11, 2017, there were approximately 172 inmates assigned to TSEP at the Main Jail out of 3,948 inmates (or about 4%). Significantly, by the end of April 2017 the T-SEP population had declined to 120. There is a much smaller T-SEP unit at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center (RCCC) which houses about 15-16 T-SEP male inmates at any given time The concept of "T-SEP" is unique to Sacramento County. In other jail and prison systems, inmates who are classified as highly disruptive, a threat to other inmates or staff are typically assigned to the status of "administrative segregation". In this status, they are separated from the general population and receive limited access to recreation, showers, services, visits and other aspects afforded other inmates. The remainder of this report summarizes the evaluation results of these two separate, but closely related classification and housing systems. Details: Sacramento: Disability Rights California, 2017. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 1, 2018 at: https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/system/files/file-attachments/%5B001-6%5D_Exhibit_F-Austin_Report_2018-07-31.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/system/files/file-attachments/%5B001-6%5D_Exhibit_F-Austin_Report_2018-07-31.pdf Shelf Number: 150993 Keywords: Administration SegregationDisabled InmatesInmate ClassificationIsolationJail InmatesJailsRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |