1

Classification

Current Issues and Concerns

2

We have a high rate of subjective overrides of the scored

custody level. How high is too high? My classification system is outdated. It has not been

updated since it was originally implemented. How do we link custody, program needs, and institutional

housing assignments? Reclassifications – how frequently? Event or time-driven? Are our criteria for classifying inmates to minimum

security too restrictive?

Issues Prompting Classification Assessments/Requests for Assistance

3

How do we strike a better balance between

reintegration and public safety when identifying and supervising inmates for work assignments outside of minimum-security facilities?

Which is better a centralized versus decentralized classification process?

Is the classification system valid? Should we create a gender-specific classification system? Is the classification system reliable? Does our classification system meet national and

regional standards?

Issues Prompting Classification Assessments/Requests for Assistance

4

1. Reliability/Subjectivity:

Scoring relies on prisoner self-reported or incomplete information;

Categories within the risk factors are vague, leaving extensive leeway for interpretation by the scorer;

Lack of training; and/or Outdated or No classification handbook for case

management staff.2. Discretionary Overrides -- Too many, Not enough,

wrong reasons

Classification System Process: Problems Observed

5

3. Mandatory Restrictors --

Too Many and/or Not clearly articulated4. Numerous Redundant Assessments or Meetings. 5. Absence of Systematic Audit and Monitoring Processes.6. Outdated – has not been updated for 15-20 years.7. Not gender-specific, original system based on male

population.

Classification System Process: Problems Observed

6

1. Own Your Classification System:

Review and Update P&P to reflect current/desired process; and Articulate value and commitment to case management staff.

2. Reliability and Subjectivity – No Reliability = No Validity: Conduct assessment of intra-rater reliability – Is your classification

system facility/user specific? Reliability study results direct training and rewrites of the classification

manual. Training:

Comprehensive training when roll out major changes; Everyone needs to hear the same instruction and questions; &

On-going service – cross-facility to ensure all on the same page.

Classification Process: Suggestions

7

3. Audit Process – Annual review of accuracy of a random sample

custody assessments. Assess:

Risk factor scoring;

Use of the mandatory restrictors and discretionary overrides;

Timeliness of the custody assessments; and

Documentation of deliberations and decisions.

Classification Process: Suggestions

8

4. Monitoring Process –

Periodic observation of the classification processes;

Statistical reports to track use of mandatory and discretionary overrides and custody distributions by assessment type by gender;

Log indicating custody assessments due/overdue by unit/CM;

Log of Time required from due date/admission to classification; and

Build Accuracy and Timeliness into case managers’ performance reviews.

Classification Process: Suggestions

9

5. Discretionary Overrides:

Rule of Thumb = 5 - 15 % of custody assessment Acceptable reasons – Escape threat, Management Problem,

Good behavior, Severity of Current or Prior Convictions Unacceptable reasons – Overcrowding, Program need

6. Mandatory Restrictors: Reflect Policy, but whose? Analyses of number inmates/restrictor and rates of misconduct Symptoms of Excessive use of Mandatory Restrictors:

Empty minimum/community beds; Inmates lack access to programs; and/or Competition for low risk inmates.

Classification Process: Suggestions

10

Analyses of Overrides

11

The LSI-R, Compas, results from other tests and evaluations are

not incorporated in the classification/case management processes to determine where the prisoner should be placed to facilitate program participation. Staff indicate that the LSI-R/Compas are useful for case planning,

but map between needs, programs, and custody is convoluted. Absence/outdated listing of programs and services/facility. No program services table that links specific programs to specific

need levels. Programs are in the wrong locations. Programs limited to specific custody levels.

Relationship between the custody assessments and the criminogenic needs assessment for

programming and case planning

12

1. Generate an Accurate Program Listing:

Load into information system/server KEEP IT UP-TO-DATE Link programs to need categories/levels Automate prioritization/wait lists. Number of slots by facility by custody Show and Tell among CM/facilities so all will be familiar

2. Generate Profiles of Inmate Population by Custody by Gender Scored NOT Final Custody level Program needs – based on a standardized assessment Mandatory Restrictions Priority for Program Current location

Custody vs Program: Suggestions

13

3. Move/Duplicate Programs according

to Inmate Profiles/Risk

4. Modify programs according to inmate needs/profiles: Shorten the program for inmates

at lower custody levels Change the mode of delivery or

time(s) of day provided Programs location should be

driven by inmate needs/risk rather than staff or contractor preference

5. Examine why inmates refuse/dropout: Is one group dominating the

program/assignment? Staff conflicts/style Prefer work/need $$ Good-time Location Housing

Custody vs Program: Suggestions

14

My classification system is outdated. It has not been updated since it was originally

developed/implemented.

Is it Valid?Gender-Specific?

Revise Classification System

Budget

New Laws

New Facility

15

Classification Validation Issues

Gender-

Specific

Over-ride

Rate > 15%

Offender Pop –

STG, # Violent, Women

Closing Facility(s

)

Time - > 5 yrs

Minimum

Medium

Close

Maximum

.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000

.691

1.680

1.911

1.692

1.957

2.038

3.532

3.308

.039

.109

.127

.115

Predatory Overall Disruptive

Custody Levels Poorly Differentiated Rates of Misconducts

16

Minimum

Medium

Close

Maximum

.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000

.033

.242

1.600

4.000

.260

1.939

5.400

7.000

.000

.030

.200

3.000

Predatory Overall Disruptive

Rates of Misconduct Among Male Inmates by Scored Reclassification Custody Level

17

18

Prison Rate Elimination Act Compliance

Two Type of Assessments: Sexual Predators/Aggressive Vulnerable Inmates

Gender-Specific Re-Assessment – not just at initial classification/intake KISS – Keep it Simple** Pilot Test for your Populations!! Housing Unit Assignment Plans

Other Issues

19

http://nicic/Library/Topic/440-prison-classification

Helpful Resources

20

21

“GO BLUE FOR PBMS!”

1. Enter All Agency Characteristics,

2. Enter All Facility Characteristics,

3. Enter ALL Agency indicators, and

4. Enter All Facility indicators.