Revalidating External Prison Classification Systems: The Experience of Ten States and Model for Classification Reform

• NCJ Number: 230596
• Author(s): Patricia L. Hardyman, Ph.D.; James Austin, Ph.D.; Owan C. Tulloch, M.C.P.
• Date Published: January 2002
• Length: 146 pages
• Contract Number(s): 97P09GIF7; 98P09GII2; 99P04GIJ7
• Sponsoring Agency: National Council on Crime and Delinquency; National Institute of Corrections
• Corporate Author: George Washington University
• Sale Source: National Institute of Corrections; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Report (Technical Assistance)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This report describes the activities and presents the results and recommendations from two 15-month projects designed to assist 10 States in the revalidation of their external objective prison classification systems, which enable corrections managers to decide in which facility to house an inmate.

Abstract

The projects had five goals. One goal was to provide technical assistance to the 10 States in revalidating their external classification systems, so as to improve and facilitate the management, safety, and security of their prison systems. A second goals was to assist the States in implementing revisions to the classification process or instruments, including the development of classification system criteria for female inmates. A third goal was to provide onsite training for supervisory and line staff. A fourth goal was to revise and update written documentation of classification policies, procedures, and instructions. A fifth goal was to assess the outcomes and impact of training and assistance provided. This was a continuation of the National Institute of Correction's efforts to develop and improve the capacity of State correctional agencies' classification systems. The projects involved the departments of corrections of Virginia, Montana, Oregon, Oklahoma, Texas, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Tennessee. The revalidation initiatives were distinctive to each State regarding issues addressed, revalidation methodology, and recommendations for refining each system; however, all the States confronted common themes and problems in their efforts to validate their classification systems. These included delays caused by competition for staff time, attention to daily operational responsibilities, legislative demands, other departmental projects, data collection and/or entry, and staff turnover. Other challenges were difficulty in compiling the detailed data required to refine and test the classification items and in navigating the sociopolitical environment of the correctional system. 26 notes, 19 references, 35 suggested readings, and appended statistical tables and external classification instruments validated by select States