Centenial Celebration

Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.

Date: April 30, 2024 Tue

Time: 2:46 am

Results for inmate classification (california)

1 results found

Author: Farabee, David

Title: Expert Panel Study of the Inmate Classification Score System

Summary: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) uses an inmate classification system to ensure that inmates are properly housed and supervised. The proper housing and supervision of inmates serves goals that are paramount to the correctional setting: protecting staff and inmates from in-prison misconduct, protecting the public from inmate escapes, and safeguarding opportunities for inmates to benefit from rehabilitative programming. All three goals serve public safety by promoting institutional order and inmate rehabilitation. California’s prison system presents a multitude of housing and supervision options to achieve these goals. Housing types range from camps to open dormitories to cells. Some housing is protected by a low-security perimeter, some secured by an electrified fence. Some areas have armed coverage, others do not. Within those different types of housing, inmate supervision levels may vary as well, with some inmates more closely monitored than others. A successful inmate classification system utilizes this spectrum of choices to ensure an appropriate balance between liberty and security. Currently, CDCR uses a classification process that is based on two overlapping systems: the inmate’s placement score and the inmate’s Custody Designation. The placement score is determined by the Inmate Classification Score System (ICSS), which is further broken down into two parts – the preliminary score and any applicable Mandatory Minimums. The preliminary score predicts risk for institutional misconduct using several variables related to an inmate’s background and prior incarceration behavior. Additional Mandatory Minimum scores are then applied to inmates incarcerated for certain violent or sex crimes, crimes of public notoriety, or crimes carrying life sentences. Mandatory minimums restrict the housing level to which these inmates can be assigned. The final classification placement score is the maximum of either the preliminary or the Mandatory Minimum score. Final classification scores determine the institution or housing level in which an inmate will be placed by producing four levels of scores that correspond to four institutional housing security levels. Custody Designations attempt to mitigate an inmate’s risk for escape and threat to the community if escaped. They determine the level of in-prison supervision that inmates receive and also present a further opportunity for restricting program access and the housing levels to which certain inmates can be assigned. The purpose of this study was to evaluate CDCR’s classification system. The study aims to assist CDCR in best identifying factors that justify restrictions on liberty while avoiding factors that could lead to unwarranted impingements on inmate rehabilitation. Analyses focused on male offenders since the research design relied on the delineation between particular housing levels that are not applicable to female offenders. CDCR determined that the best strategy for carrying out the study was to work with outside correctional experts and statisticians. An “Expert Panel” was created, comprised of scholars with experience in studying correctional issues. To assist in conducting its analyses, the department contracted with the University of California (UC), Davis and UC Berkeley for statistical services. The major findings from this study are as follows: 1) There are no natural “breaks” in preliminary classification scores that indicate sharp changes in inmate behavior across housing levels, though the likelihood of behavioral infractions increases with preliminary score. 2) Mandatory Minimum scores appear to “trap” many well-behaving inmates into higher housing levels. Inmates crowded above the classification score cut points due to the Mandatory Minimum scores are relatively well behaved. This better behavior is explained entirely by age and the lower average preliminary scores of these inmates. In other words, age and the preliminary classification score provide a better predictor of behavior for those “trapped” at a specific placement classification score than does the actual placement classification score determined by binding mandatory minimums. 3) There is little evidence that housing inmates with preliminary scores slightly above the Classification Score Level I/II, Level II/III, and Level III/IV thresholds suppresses institutional misconduct. Furthermore, there is evidence of a criminogenic effect for inmates who have classification scores just above the Classification Score Level III/IV threshold who are placed in Level IV housing. 4) There are few escapes, particularly in institutions with electric fences. The risk of inmate escapes from facilities with electrified fences is nearly zero. Based on these findings, the Expert Panel developed the following recommendations: 1) Decisions to move inmates into lower housing levels should be guided by the safety risks those inmates pose to other inmates, staff, and the public. Estimates of risk should be grounded in the preliminary classification score and should not be overridden by CDCR Mandatory Minimum factors. Older inmates could also be given priority in downward housing placements. 2) Inmates with preliminary and placement scores at the threshold (or classification score cut points) of each housing level can be moved to lower levels with the expectation that it will not lead to increases in individual or overall rates of serious misconduct within levels. 3) CDCR should not use Custody Designation as a proxy for the risk of inmate misconduct. The custody classification system was not designed for this purpose and does not capture meaningful dimensions of an inmate’s likelihood of bad behavior. Downward movements in custody should be based upon preliminary classification score. 4) Moreover, Custody Designations may no longer be justified as a mechanism to reduce the likelihood of escape. CDCR should consider removing the use of Custody Designation as markers for escape risks. Changes to current policy need to be monitored. The Expert Panel advocates the use of random assignment as the best way to determine the impact. If that is not possible, quasi-experimental methods could provide some evidence of impact, although not as conclusive. Monitoring will require more extensive data collection on specifics of timing, location and the nature of violations than is currently collected in automated systems.

Details: Ssacramento: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Office of Research, Research and Evaluation Branch, 2011. 160p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 19, 2012 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports/docs/2010-2011-Classification-Study-Final-Report-01-10-12.pdf

Year: 2011

Country: United States

URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports/docs/2010-2011-Classification-Study-Final-Report-01-10-12.pdf

Shelf Number: 125024

Keywords:
Inmate Classification (California)
Prisoners
Prisons