Results from a survey "designed to obtain information on the procedures used to classify high-risk inmates, particularly those in protective custody or administrative segregation, and inmates with mental illness or medical problems" are presented (p. xvi). Six chapters follow an executive summary:
- Overview of risk assessment;
- Risk assessment systems and instruments;
- Findings of the National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates;
- Identification and review of model programs;
- And issues and recommendations.
An overview of the work done by collaborative partnerships to design and validate gender-responsive risk and needs assessments for female offenders is provided. This article discusses issues surrounding female offender classification and the current National Institute of Corrections (NIC) study regarding gender-responsive approaches to risk and needs assessment.
"[A]reas in which jails tend to be deficient, suggesting the need for new or revised forms of NIC assistance" are identified (p.2). Issues examined include: age of facilities; accreditation; compliance with policy and procedure standards; adequacy of policy and procedure manuals; adequacy of staffing; staff turnover; compliance with staffing standards; compliance with staff training standards; exceeding capacity; coordinating councils; pretrial services programs; availability of specific pretrial services; use of jail alternatives; compliance classification standards; objective jail classification; housing configurations; compliance with security standards; adequacy of security capabilities; compliance with documentation standards; quality of documentation; use of automated jail management systems; data exchange with other criminal justice agencies; Internet access; funding authority relations; compliance with standards concerning fire codes; compliance with work site safety standards; compliance with health and sanitation standards; and cleanliness and sanitation.
This issue includes: Foreword, by Richard Geaither, National Institute of Corrections Jails Division; You Can Do It: Putting an End to Pharmacy Cost Increases, by Mike Kalonick, Milwaukee County Sheriff's Office, Detention Bureau; Accreditation for Adult Local Detention Facilities: Moving from Process Measures to Outcome Measures, by Bob Verdeyen, American Correctional Association; Got Training? Training as a Strategic Management Tool for Performance Enhancement, by Tom Reid, National Institute of Corrections Academy, and Connie Clem, NIC Information Center; The Sheriff's Office as a Community Resource in a Hurricane, by Michael L. Wade, Henrico County Sheriff's Office; Inmate Access to Legal Resources & Materials - How Do We Provide Inmates Access to the Courts? by Mark S. Cacho, Orange County Corrections Department; Urban County Issues in New Jail Planning, Design, and Transition, by Barbara Krauth with Michael O'Toole and Ray Nelson; Harris County Sheriff's Office Teams with Community College to Train Inmates, by Jim Albers, Harris County Sheriff's Office; Mission Creep and the Role of the Jail in Public Health Policy, by Donald Leach, Lexington/Fayette Urban County Government; Multnomah County Model Partnership for Custody and Health, by Timothy Moore, Multnomah County Sheriff's Office, and Gayle Burrow, Multnomah County Health Department; Strategic Planning: A 10-Step Approach, by Barry L. Stanton, Prince George's County Department of Corrections, and B. Jasmine Moultri-Fierro
Proceedings from this two-day national forum on classification and information system related problems are provided. Topics discussed include: linking all the pieces; external and internal classification; classification data for planning; linking DOC to local jails; prison internal classification systems; automated risk and needs; AICS - personality based model; managing high risk offenders; responding to litigation; winning classification systems -- Montana; responding to litigation -- Michigan; classification of women offenders; BOP's work with revalidation and classification of women offenders; a dynamic instrument for women; reentry -- linking prison classification to reentry to the community; reentry -- incarceration planning; and wrap-up and next steps. Appendixes include presenter bios and contact information for all of the participants.
Objective jail classification (OJC) is a process of assessing every jail inmate's custody and program needs and is considered one of the most important management tools available to jail administrators and criminal justice system planners. An effective system of inmate classification will reduce escapes and escape attempts, suicides and suicide attempts, and inmate assaults. OJC systems use locally developed and validated instruments, one at intake and another after a period of confinement, that identify the level of risk and needs presented by an inmate so that appropriate housing and program assignments can be made. The data generated through the classification process can also be used for operational, management, and planning purposes. This guide to OJC is intended for both jail administrators and other officials involved in local criminal justice system issues. It discusses key components of an OJC system, including instruments that use reliable and valid criteria, overrides by classification staff, staff training and commitment to OJC, and a housing plan that is consistent with classification outcomes. The author outlines specific aspects of system implementation, automation, monitoring, and evaluation of OJC systems. Policy implications and recommendations are also discussed.
These proceedings are comprised of: Highlights of the Meeting Sessions; Stay Awake or You Will Trip Over the Future by Tom Esensten; Video Presentation: Beyond the Myths: Jails in Your Community introduced by Virginia Hutchinson; Defining the Future and Exploring Organizational Strategies by Esensten: Future Trends and Their Impact on Jail Management by Marilyn Chandler Ford; Jail Population Growth: Sources of Growth and Stability by Allen Beck; Jail Standards and Accreditation: Are There Still Advantages? by Tim Ryan et al; Accreditation: Open Forum Discussion; Use of New Technology by Barry Stanton and Otto Payne; Wrap-Up Issues; Use of Existing Technology for New Purposes by Joe Russo; Use of Technology: Open Forum Discussion; and Announcements and Discussion of Next Meeting by Richard Geaither and meeting participants.
The use of an objective classification system (OCS) is described. This guide explains: classification analysis in general; designing a classification system; benefits of implementing a classification system; potential drawbacks of objective classification; some additional considerations; identifying individuals with substance abuse/dependence issues; and balancing objectivity and practicality.
"Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex (LGBTI) and gender non-conforming inmates represent particularly vulnerable populations with unique medical, safety, and other needs. Though some of the concerns and vulnerabilities faced by these populations are similar, transgender and gender non-conforming inmates are distinct from gay, lesbian, and bisexual inmates in important respects. Basic principles of risk-based classification should be applied with LGBTI populations, accounting for unique characteristics that may affect their risk of victimization. For transgender inmates, this includes making individualized decisions regarding gender placement (i.e., whether the inmate will be housed in a facility for females or for males). Reception staff must have clear guidelines allowing for the consistent identification of LGBTI inmates and collecting key information relevant to individualized risk assessment. Like other important characteristics, an inmate’s sexual orientation or transgender status will not always be immediately obvious at reception, but can typically be identified with relatively simple procedures" (p. 1). This 60-minute training session explains how to improve the correctional intake and classification process for LGBTI inmates. Contents of this zip file include: "Respectful Classification Practices with LGBTI Inmates: Trainer’s Manual" comprised of the following four lessons—Why LGBTI Responsive Intake and Classification Matters, LGBTI Terminology, Implementing Promising Intake and Classification Practices, and Moving Forward; 14 "Myth or Truth" flash cards; and presentation slides.
Work undertaken by the participating states is described, an outline of the fundamental tasks required for a revalidation effort is provided, and external classification trends and lessons learned from these classification reforms are summarized within this report (p. x). This report is comprised of the following sections: executive summary; introduction; NIC classification goals and objectives; description of the ten states' external classification initiatives (Virginia, Montana, Oregon, Oklahoma, Texas, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Tennessee); recommended methodology for testing, implementing, and monitoring classification reforms; and common issues, problems and solutions, and next steps. Appendixes provide copies of external classification instruments validated by select states and statistical tables.