Classification

1. Classification Current Issues and Concerns

2. Issues Prompting Classification Assessments/Requests for Assistance • 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 • My classification system is outdated.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?

3. Issues Prompting Classification Assessments/Requests for Assistance • 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?

4. Classification System Process: Problems Observed • 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the risk factors are vague, leaving extensive leeway for interpretation by the scorer; • Lack of training; and/or • Outdated or No classification handbook for case management staff. • Discretionary Overrides -- Too many, Not enough, wrong reasons

5. Classification System Process: Problems Observed • Mandatory Restrictors -- • Too Many and/or Not clearly articulated • Numerous Redundant Assessments or Meetings. • Absence of Systematic Audit and Monitoring Processes. • Outdated – has not been updated for 15-20 years. • Not gender-specific, original system based on male population.

6. Classification Process: Suggestions • Own Your Classification System: • Review and Update P&P to reflect current/desired process; and • Articulate value and commitment to case management staff. • 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.

7. Classification Process: Suggestions • 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.

8. Classification Process: Suggestions • 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.

9. Classification Process: Suggestions • 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 • 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.

10. Analyses of Overrides

11. Relationship between the custody assessments and the criminogenic needs assessment for programming and case planning • 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.

12. Custody vs Program: Suggestions • 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 • 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

13. Custody vs Program: Suggestions • Move/Duplicate Programs according to Inmate Profiles/Risk • 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 • Examine why inmates refuse/dropout: • Is one group dominating the program/assignment? • Staff conflicts/style • Prefer work/need $$ • Good-time • Location • Housing

14. My classification system is outdated. It has not been updated since it was originally developed/implemented. Is it Valid? Gender-Specific?

15. Classification Validation Issues Gender-Specific Over-ride Rate > 15% Time - > 5 yrs Closing Facility(s) Offender Pop – STG, # Violent, Women

16. Custody Levels Poorly Differentiated Rates of Misconducts

17. Rates of Misconduct Among Male Inmates by Scored Reclassification Custody Level

18. Other Issues • 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

19. Helpful Resources http://nicic/Library/Topic/440-prison-classification

22. “GO BLUE FOR PBMS!” Enter All Agency Characteristics, Enter All Facility Characteristics, Enter ALL Agency indicators, and Enter All Facility indicators.