The Future of Offender Classification

Abstract

Selected offender classification practices, past and present, are reviewed and evaluated in light of minimal criteria. Megargee's (1977) requirements for a "good" classification system are amplified, and a critique of several current approaches is provided. The role of classification deficiencies in prison conditions litigation is summarized. The author also draws together in Appendices several sets of guidelines from commissions, courts, scholars, and government institutes.

Gender, Culture, and Prison Classification: Testing the Reliability and Validity of a Prison Classification System

“…During this era of assessment, criminologists employed questionable practices that were not substantiated by empirical evidence (Bonta, 2002;Gottfredson, 1987). Clinical and professional judgment resulted in inconsistent classification, bias, discrimination, and often created a more punitive environment for inmates (Austin, 1983;Clements, 1981;Bonta, 2002). Bonta (2002) pointed out that 28% of states still rely on House-Tree-Person (a Jungian-based psychological test) for influencing parole decisions.…”

“…Proponents believed this would ensure a fairer and less prejudiced approach to treatment of inmates (Austin & Hardyman, 2004;Bonta, 2002;Gottfredson, 1987). Lawsuits filed by inmates against state and federal prisons played a major role in mandating use of objective classification versus clinical or professional judgment (Clements, 1981). The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently argued that implementation of a valid objective classification system is essential to protecting inmate rights and that systems need to be updated and re-validated frequently (Kupers et al, 2009).…”

“…The push toward objectification was fueled by prison litigation, reduction of resources, and overcrowding (Austin, 1986;Clements, 1981). Prison litigation outcomes required fair and consistent treatment for inmates and reduction of resources demanded development of more efficient measures to assess and classify inmates (Austin, 1986;Clements, 1981). Yet, to be in compliance with the latest correctional practices, many prison systems appropriated new objective classification tools without understanding how to implement them successfully (Austin, 1986).…”

“…Yet, to be in compliance with the latest correctional practices, many prison systems appropriated new objective classification tools without understanding how to implement them successfully (Austin, 1986). Employing an objective classification system does not guarantee fair treatment, effective use of resources, or reduction in prison violence (Austin, 1983(Austin, , 1986Clements, 1981). All objective classification systems must be tested for reliability and validity to ensure they are effective -one size does not fit all (Austin, 1986).…”

“…Early empirical studies of 2G instruments focused on validating specific variables that predicted risk and assessed meaningful differences between groups of inmates (Clements, 1981). Most 2G tools have between six and twenty-four weighted variables and assess a combination of the following: current offense, sentence length, offense severity, prior institutional behavior, detainers/warrants, prior criminal history, social demographic data, and drug/alcohol abuse (Austin, 1983;Clements, 1981). Points are calculated and cut-off scores determine risk and assign a security level.…”