NCJ Number
189681
Date Published
August 2001
Length
47 pages
Annotation
This report presented findings of a national assessment of State and Federal practices for classifying women offenders conducted under the National Institute of Corrections’ Classification of Women Offenders Initiative.
Abstract
The call for the improvement of classification and programming for women predates the surge in the numbers of women in prison. The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) assumed the task of addressing issues pertinent to women offenders. This report focused on one of theses issues, the research and development of improved strategies for classifying women offenders. Under the auspices of the NIC’s Classification of Women Offenders initiative, this report presented results from a national assessment of State and Federal practices for classifying women offenders. A detailed description was sought of current practices in use for women offenders. A telephone assessment was conducted of representatives from 50 State correctional agencies and the Federal Bureau of Prisons with several issues posed and addressed. Study findings included: (1) with many respondents reporting differences between men and women offenders, regarding needs and risk, few States had incorporated these differences into their objective prison classification instruments; (2) the majority of respondents stated security and public safety as the central purpose to be served by incarcerating and classifying women; (3) women offenders were seen as less dangerous then male offenders suggesting a move to lower custody and community levels for women; and (4) many States found existing systems over-classified women offenders. States currently participating in the NIC cooperative agreement are changing their classification models. Over-classification problems were seen as a result of a few variables which could produce misleading scores among women offenders. These included: (1) the seriousness of the current offense for women who killed an abuser; (2) variable without options pertinent to women; (3) timeframes on reclassification variables; (4) staff training; (5) gender-responsive needs; and (6) use of community risk assessment instruments rather than custody classification instruments. This assessment, work on the cooperative agreements, and focus groups paints a picture of little change since 1991. Most States continue to use identical system for men and women and are unaware whether the system offered accurate classifications. The observation is made that practices involving women offenders, custody, and risk is a very confusing concept. References