DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS

U.S. Department of Justice

National Institute of Corrections

Case Studies in Their Development 

and Implementation
U.S. Department of Justice

National Institute of Corrections

320 First Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20534

Morris L. Thigpen, Director

Larry Solomon, Deputy Director

Susan M. Hunter, Chief, Prisons Division

Sammie D. Brown, Project Manager

National Institute of Corrections

World Wide Web Site

http://www.nicic.org
Internal Prison Classification Systems:

Case Studies in Their Development 

and Implementation

Patricia L. Hardyman, Ph.D.

James Austin, Ph.D.

Jack Alexander, Ph.D.

Kelly Dedel Johnson, Ph.D.

Owan C. Tulloch, M.C.P.

January 2002
The research for this report was funded by National Institute of Corrections under cooperative agreements

#93P045HV5, 97P06GIE8, and 98P06GII0 with the National Council on Crime and Delinquency and

partially subcontracted to The George Washington University. Points of view or opinions stated in this

document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice or the National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
We would like to sincerely acknowledge the National Institute of Corrections (NIC)

for its continuing commitment to the development of the literature on internal classification systems. In particular, we want to acknowledge and thank our program

manager, Sammie D. Brown, for her guidance, expertise, involvement, and patience

with our efforts.

Assisting The Institute on Crime, Justice, and Corrections (ICJC) in this work were

Jack Alexander, James Aiken, and Lorraine Fowler, who provided a great deal of

expertise in the development and implementation of these internal systems.

The internal classification initiatives would have been fruitless without the dedication and endless hours of hard work expended by the steering committees from the

state correctional agencies participating in these initiatives. It was their creativity,

determination, and tenacity that created, tested, and refined the models. Thank you.

The efforts were led by Brian Bemus, Jim Maras, and Brian Belleque in Oregon;

Stan Repko and Michelle Ricci in New Jersey; S. Fred Roesel, Chuck Manning, and

William Maust, Jr., in Florida; Jean Ann Johnson, Nick Noll, Mike Kemna, and

Terry Page in Missouri; Laurie Feiler and Ed Ligtenberg in South Dakota; Major

Christine Whidden in Connecticut; James Thatcher in Washington state; and

Benjamin Griego, Warden Robert Furlong, and Captain Ron Carter in Colorado.

iii

Acknowledgments

The diversity of the

models developed

suggests that there is

no “best model,” nor

should there be one.

Instead, the instruments and process

must be tailored

and validated to the

specific populations

for which they will

be used.

NIC, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD), and ICJC worked

with eight states over a 7-year period to develop, pilot-test, implement, and evaluate internal prison classification systems. Seven unique models were tested. Florida,

Connecticut, and Colorado developed computerized objective, behavior-based

models for housing and program assignments. Oregon developed an objective

model based on behavioral and compatibility indicators for its female population,

although preliminary results suggest that the system works equally well for its male

population. New Jersey developed a behavior-based model for identifying the

aggression levels of its maximum-custody inmates. Washington state analyzed the

utility of the Adult Internal Management System (AIMS) for case management of

minimum-custody inmates with long sentences. South Dakota and Missouri developed a personality-based system, the Adult Internal Classification System (AICS),

modeled after AIMS.

The barriers to the development and implementation of these diverse systems led to

the development of a model process and timetable for designing and implementing

internal classification systems. The importance of clearly identifying the targeted

inmate population and the issues to be addressed by the system was a critical lesson learned by each state. The diversity of the models developed suggests that there

is no “best model,” nor should there be one. Instead, the instruments and process

must be tailored and validated to the specific populations for which they will be

used. A set of standards applicable to all internal classification systems was identified, however.

v

Abstract

vii

Acknowledgments ..............................................................................................iii

Abstract ................................................................................................................v

Executive Summary ...........................................................................................xi

Chapter 1. Introduction .....................................................................................1

Statement of the Issues ...............................................................................1

The Role of Internal Classification Systems ..............................................1

NIC Internal Prison Classification Initiatives.............................................6

NIC Internal Prison Classification Initiative Tasks.....................................7

Chapter 2. Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives .....11

Connecticut Department of Correction.....................................................11

Colorado Department of Corrections........................................................17

Washington State Department of Corrections ..........................................25

Oregon Department of Corrections...........................................................31

Florida Department of Corrections...........................................................40

New Jersey Department of Corrections ....................................................53

South Dakota Department of Corrections.................................................63

Missouri Department of Corrections ........................................................65

Missouri and South Dakota Internal Classification Initiative...................66

Chapter 3. Common Problems, Issues, and Solutions...................................77

Lessons Learned........................................................................................77

Step-by-Step Process for Designing and Implementing an Internal 

Classification System................................................................................81

Implications and Future Steps...................................................................86

Contents
Notes ..................................................................................................................89

References...........................................................................................................93

Suggested Readings...........................................................................................95

Appendix.............................................................................................................99

State of Missouri Department of Corrections Checklist for the 

Analysis of Life History Records of Adult Offenders (CALH) .............101

State of Missouri Department of Corrections Correctional 

Adjustment Checklist..............................................................................102

IDOC Internal Classification Form: Maximum Security Facilities .......103

viii

Contents
List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Overview of External and Internal Classification Systems ..................3

Exhibit 2. MacDougall Internal Housing Plan ....................................................14

Exhibit 3. Partial List of MacDougall Job and Program Assignments ...............15

Exhibit 4. MacDougall Correctional Institution New Admission 

Classification Form..............................................................................................16

Exhibit 5. State of Colorado Department of Corrections Admission Data

Summary ..............................................................................................................22

Exhibit 6. Colorado Internal Classification Master Program 

Scheduling System...............................................................................................23

Exhibit 7. Assaults at Limon Correctional Facility, Fiscal Years 1995–96 

to 1998–99 ...........................................................................................................25

Exhibit 8. Washington State AIMS Pilot Test Results: Comparison 

of Disciplinary Infractions...................................................................................30

Exhibit 9. Sentence Disciplinary Grid for Oregon Internal 

Classification System...........................................................................................36

Exhibit 10. Oregon Corrections Information Systems, Recommended 

Inmate Cell Mates................................................................................................37

Exhibit 11. Florida Risk and Needs Instrument ..................................................45

Exhibit 12. Institutional Disciplinary Index (INDI) by Housing Assignment ....50

Exhibit 13. Housing Placement Results by Gender ............................................51

Exhibit 14. Program Placement According to First Recommended 

Assignment ..........................................................................................................52

Exhibit 15. Program Placement According to Second or Third 

Recommended Assignment..................................................................................53

Exhibit 16. Percent Agreement Between Reception Center and Facility 

Staff on Risk and Needs Items ............................................................................54

Exhibit 17. NJDOC Internal Classification Form: Maximum 

Security Facilities.................................................................................................60

ix

Internal Prison Classification Systems
Exhibit 18. AICS History Checklist ....................................................................68

Exhibit 19. AICS Initial Behavioral Checklist ....................................................69

Exhibit 20. AICS Reclassification Behavioral Checklist ....................................70

Exhibit 21. Missouri and South Dakota Pilot Test Reliability Rates Percent

Agreement Between Raters One and Two...........................................................72

Exhibit 22. Comparison of Assaults by AICS and AIMS Classification 

Types for Reclassification Cases: February–March 2000 ...................................73

Exhibit 23. AICS and AIMS Classifications Compared for All Cases 

Classified: February–March 2000 .......................................................................74

Exhibit 24. Racial Distribution of Inmates Under AICS for 

Reclassification Cases Classified: February–March 2000 ..................................75

Exhibit 25. Standards and Guidelines for Internal Prison 

Classification Systems .........................................................................................79

x

Contents
xi

The past decade has witnessed tremendous growth in the number of adult prison

systems that employ objective external classification systems to determine the

appropriate custody levels for increasing numbers of adult inmates. In addition,

several systems have implemented internal classification systems to guide housing,

program, and/or work assignment decisions to promote better inmate management

at the facility level.

Recognizing the critical need to develop and refine internal classification systems,

the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) funded three initiatives to work with

state correctional agencies to develop, implement, and assess the impact of objective internal classification systems. The specific goals of these NIC initiatives were:

¢ Phase I: Field test internal prison classification systems in three states

(1993–96).

—Design and pilot-test internal classification systems in three states

(Connecticut, Colorado, and Washington state).

—Conduct a national survey of existing internal classification methods.

¢ Phase II: Design, develop, and implement internal prison classification systems

(1997–98).

—Develop a training curriculum that addresses internal classification issues,

including the design, development, implementation, evaluation, and operation

of an internal classification system.

—Provide training and technical assistance to five state correctional departments that were committed to improving the internal management of their

inmates (Oregon, Florida, Missouri, South Dakota, and New Jersey).

—Assess the outcome and impact of the training and assistance provided

through this initiative.

¢ Phase III: Implement and assess internal prison classification systems

(1998–2000).

—Provide continued technical assistance to help state correctional agencies

implement the internal classification systems developed and tested during the

Phase II initiative.

—Assess the progress to date and impact of the Phase I internal classification

systems.

—Develop a publication that discusses the state of the art in internal classification and provides guidance to state correctional agencies regarding the design

and implementation of internal classification systems.

Executive Summary

Several systems have

implemented internal

classification systems

to guide housing,

program, and work

assignment decisions

to promote better

inmate management

at the facility level.
NIC sought a diversity of correctional

systems in terms

of the size of the

inmate population,

geographic location,

and the type of system to be developed.

Executive Summary

xii

Eight states were selected for these initiatives based on the sophistication of their

external prison classification systems, the operation of automated inmate tracking

systems, a strong commitment from system and facility administrators, the appointment of a working steering committees to move the project forward quickly, and the

clarity with which the states could identify problems to be targeted by the internal

classification systems. NIC also sought a diversity of correctional systems in terms

of the size of the inmate population, geographic location, and the type of system to

be developed. The eight states and their initiatives are summarized below.

The Connecticut Department of Corrections developed an objective method for

making work and program assignments for high-custody male inmates. Because

housing assignments within the test facility, MacDougall Correctional Institution,

are based on work and program assignments, the primary objective was to provide

structure to the housing assignment process.

The Washington Department of Corrections sought to enhance the effectiveness

of institutional case management and control of inmates by developing programs

specific to the inmates’ needs and providing better transition links between correctional facilities and the community.

The Colorado Department of Corrections sought to improve the quality and

accessibility of information for internal classification decisions (especially housing

decisions) by developing an automated master program scheduling system to structure program placement based on the inmates’ risk and needs, program eligibility,

and phase of confinement.

The Oregon Department of Corrections implemented a behavior-based system to

improve the specificity and compatibility of housing assignments in both men’s and

women’s correctional facilities. The original plan was to create independent systems,

with different criteria and scoring procedures, for its male and female populations.

Analysis showed, however, that separate systems for male and female inmates did not

appear to be warranted. The system originally designed for the female population has

been automated and implemented successfully throughout the system. Continued

research is needed, however, to ascertain its validity and reliability.

The Florida Department of Corrections embarked on an ambitious process for

systemwide implementation of a complex Risk and Needs Model that would identify internal management issues as well as program and job-related needs. The

model’s complexity required sophisticated software and automation. Despite these

significant challenges, Florida has successfully implemented and automated this

system in all of its 141 correctional facilities.

The New Jersey Department of Corrections identified maximum-custody

inmates for an objective assessment of inmate aggression levels. The original plan

called for the transfer of highly aggressive inmates to a centralized housing unit, but

New Jersey encountered significant fiscal barriers to this task. Instead, contingent
Internal Prison Classification Systems

xiii

on the results of a validity and reliability study, New Jersey plans to establish separate high-aggression units at each of its maximum-security facilities.

The Missouri Department of Corrections used the Adult Internal Management

System (AIMS) before this initiative to classify its inmates according to behavioral

typologies that dictated housing compatibility. To improve the accuracy and utility

of this system, Missouri (in partnership with South Dakota) developed the Adult

Internal Classification System (AICS), modeled after AIMS. The pilot-test results

indicated low inter-rater reliability for the internal classification process. Additional

staff training and modifications of the instruments were undertaken to improve the

reliability of AICS.

The South Dakota Department of Corrections developed AICS, an internal classification system modeled on AIMS, for the internal management of its facilities, in

partnership with Missouri. Full implementation of AICS was delayed pending the

resolution of validity issues. South Dakota continues to work with Missouri to

refine the system.

The barriers to implementing these diverse internal classification systems and the

strategies for overcoming them have led to several important lessons for this and

future initiatives. First, proper implementation requires increased specificity at the

beginning of the planning phase and additional opportunities for further refinement

toward the end. The major steps for developing and implementing an internal classification system are as follows:

1. Obtain a formal commitment from the central office.

2. Designate a strong project manager and establish a working steering committee.

3. Identify stakeholders and include them in the process.

4. Define problems to be addressed and set realistic goals and measurable 

objectives.

5. Select the type of internal classification system to be adopted.

6. Select the pilot site.

7. Analyze current housing, work, and program assignment procedures.

8. Conduct a facility program and work assignment inventory.

9. Conduct a facility housing and bed inventory.

10. Develop a prototype instrument and policy manual.

11. Pilot-test policies and instruments.
Future internal classification system initiatives must respond

to the diversity of

facilities, populations,

factors, and models.

This diversity suggests that there is still

much to learn about

internal classification.

Executive Summary

xiv

12. Develop a full implementation plan.

13. Monitor and evaluate the system.

In addition to encouraging states to identify the targeted inmate management problems clearly at the outset of the initiative, states are also encouraged to simplify

their proposed instruments to reduce staff training needs and make the system more

flexible. No distinct set of ideal, generalizable factors was identified to be included

in an internal classification system. Instead, the critical risk factors, operational definitions, processes, and timing appeared to be unique to each state and dependent

upon its specific goals, resources, and system composition. In other words, there is

no “best model,” nor should there be; instruments and processes must be tailored to

and validated on the population for which they will be used.

Future internal classification system initiatives must respond to the diversity of

facilities, populations, factors, and models. This diversity suggests that there is still

much to learn about internal classification. At the same time, state and local correctional and detention systems continue to face growing inmate populations and

declining resources. The need to develop new management techniques for controlling and servicing the prison population with fewer resources becomes more critical with each new prisoner admitted to the system. Future technical assistance

efforts should focus on helping states develop systems that are both practical and

feasible, given these harsh realities.
Statement of the Issues

During the past decade, prison systems have experienced increased pressure to

improve their system of classifying inmates according to custody, work, and programming needs. Fueled by litigation and overcrowding, classification systems are

viewed as the principal management tool for allocating scarce prison resources efficiently and minimizing the potential for violence or escape. These systems are also

expected to provide greater accountability and forecast future prison bed-space

needs. In other words, a properly functioning classification system is seen as the

“brain” of prison management, which governs many important decisions, including

those that heavily influence such fiscal matters as staffing levels, bed space, and

programming.

Although objective prison classification systems were adopted by many states in the

1980s, the late 1990s witnessed significant improvements in classification practices. The level of overclassification has been reduced, custody decisions are made

more consistently, criteria for custody decisions have been validated, inmate program needs are assessed systematically, and institutional safety for both staff and

inmates has been enhanced.

Despite these improvements, additional issues remain unresolved within prison

classification systems. In particular, decisions at the institutional or internal level

that guide housing, program, and work assignments need to be as structured and

organized as those made at the system or external level. As correctional facilities

become more crowded, internal classification decisions play a more significant

role. The widespread use of double-celling in high-security units and the expanding use of dormitories for low- and medium-custody inmates have triggered the

need for a systematic process for assigning inmates to beds or cells. As inmate populations continue to increase, decisions governing housing and programs, especially

for inmates with extremely long sentences, will become increasingly difficult. For

correctional officials to make more informed decisions, a second layer of prison

classification—internal classification—is now required.

The Role of Internal Classification Systems 

To deal effectively with the varying degrees of risk presented by inmates, some

prison systems have begun to classify inmates by personality or behavioral typologies

Introduction

Chapter one

1

A properly functioning classification

system is seen as the

“brain” of prison

management, which

governs many important decisions, including those that heavily

influence such fiscal

matters as staffing

levels, bed space,

and programming.
The task of an internal system is to devise

appropriate housing

plans and program

interventions within a

particular facility for

inmates who share

a common custody

level (minimum,

medium, close, or

maximum). In short,

external classification

models influence

interinstitutional

placement, whereas

internal management

systems focus on

intrainstitutional

placement and program assignment.

(Megargee et al., 1979; Quay, 1984). Some offender typology systems are designed

by psychologists and are reasonably well researched. Others are simply sets of

additional criteria applied by individual institutions to augment the external classification system. All of these systems endeavor to address housing, program, and

compatibility issues to improve inmate management at the facility level.

Internal classification systems are designed to complement the previously established objective custody-classification (or external) systems. The task of an internal

system is to devise appropriate housing plans and program interventions within a

particular facility for inmates who share a common custody level (minimum, medium, close, or maximum). In short, external classification models influence interinstitutional placement, whereas internal management systems focus on

intrainstitutional placement and program assignment.

Exhibit 1 illustrates how an internal classification system should function within

a prison classification system. On admission, inmates are first assessed using

the external, systemwide classification system to determine their custody level

(maximum, close, medium, minimum, or community), program needs, and other

needs that may require special housing. This custody classification determines the

type of facility or housing unit in which inmates should be housed. For example,

maximum-custody inmates will be transferred to a maximum-security facility.

On arrival at the appropriate facility, inmates undergo a second formal classification review—the internal classification process. Given their behavior, personality

traits, and specific program needs, classification staff identify the appropriate housing unit or cell block, programs, and work assignments for them. As with external

classification systems, formal internal classification systems may include structured

scoring instruments, staff specialists who have been formally trained to use them,

and a reclassification process to update previous classification records.

To date, formal internal classification systems have not been widely implemented,

although many informal systems do operate. A 1994 survey of state correctional

agencies by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency found that only nine

states had a formal internal classification system (Alexander et al., 1997). Some

kind of internal classification process exists in all prison systems to assign newly

arrived inmates to housing units, work assignments, and programs, but these

processes are usually informal and rely on subjective criteria. Most respondents to

the NCCD survey expressed strong interest in developing a formal internal classification system. Three types of formal internal classification systems that have

some level of documentation are listed below.

Adult Internal Management System (AIMS)

AIMS, developed by Herbert Quay more than 20 years ago, is one of the best

known internal management systems.1 Its purpose is to reduce institutional predatory behavior by identifying predators and separating them from vulnerable

inmates. AIMS is used by several facilities in the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the

2

Chapter 1
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. The South Dakota and Missouri

Departments of Corrections also have fully implemented AIMS for their male

inmate population. The South Carolina Department of Corrections implemented

AIMS, but has stopped using it as a housing assignment tool.

AIMS attempts to identify and separate inmates according to a personality typology. This classification relies on two instruments (copies of the AIMS checklists

used by the Missouri Department of Corrections are provided in the appendix):

3

Introduction

Admission to prison

¢ Custody assessment

¢ Program needs assessment

¢ Facility designation

Transfer to facility

¢ Housing assignment

¢ Program assignment

¢ Work assignment

Transfer to designated housing area

¢ External classification

– Custody

¢ Internal classification

– Programs – Facility

– Housing – Community

– Work

Initial classification

Internal classification

Reclassification

programs

Exhibit 1. Overview of External and Internal Classification Systems
AIMS identifies

inmates who are likely

to be incompatible in

terms of housing

and inmates who are

most likely to pose a

risk to the safe and

secure operation of

a facility.

¢ Life history checklist. This checklist includes 27 items designed to assess

inmates on personality dimensions known to relate to their ability to be housed

successfully with other types of inmates. Checklist items focus on the inmate’s

adjustment and stability during time spent in the community.

¢ Correctional adjustment checklist. This checklist includes 41 items that are

designed to profile the inmate’s behavior while in a correctional setting. These

items focus on the inmate’s record of misconduct, ability to follow staff directions, and level of aggression toward other inmates.

On the basis of these scores, inmates are classified into one of five groups.

Originally, group labels described personality types (e.g., aggressive-psychopathic,

manipulative, situational, inadequate-dependent, and neurotic-anxious), but they

have since been revised to the following most common schema: Alpha I, Alpha II,

Kappa, Sigma I, and Sigma II. Inmates in these groups are assumed to have different rates and types of institutional misconduct. More specifically, Alpha I and II

inmates are characterized as the offenders most likely to be a threat to the safety and

security of the facility. Alpha I inmates are more likely to openly exhibit aggressive

or assaultive behavior than other types of inmates, whereas Alpha II inmates are

more likely to be manipulative. Sigma I and II inmates are unlikely to be assaultive,

but they pose other management problems, such as disregarding direct orders and

disrupting the orderly operation of the facility. Kappa inmates are least likely to

present management problems. Alpha I and II inmates are characterized as predators, whereas Sigma I and II inmates are characterized as inmates at risk of being

victimized. Kappa inmates are neither predators nor prey. Thus, AIMS identifies

inmates who are likely to be incompatible in terms of housing and inmates who are

most likely to pose a risk to the safe and secure operation of a facility. Washington

state pilot-tested AIMS as a strategy for housing and program planning for minimum-custody inmates with lengthy sentences. AICS, an internal classification system modeled after AIMS, was pilot-tested by Missouri and South Dakota.

Prisoner Management Classification System (PMC)

PMC, developed by Gary Arling and Ken Lerner of the Wisconsin Division of

Corrections, was adapted from an offender management system developed originally for probation and parole services (Lerner, Arling, and Baird, 1986). This system is also commonly called Client Management Classification (CMC) or

Strategies for Case Supervision (SCS). NIC has widely supported training in the

use of this system, and an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 staff nationwide have been

trained in its use.2

PMC requires a semistructured interview to assist staff in identifying potential

predators and victims and those inmates who require special programs or supervision. The interview (a series of forced-choice responses) and ratings of objective

background factors are used to classify each inmate. Once inmates are classified,

detailed case handling guidelines provide staff with management techniques for

safe and appropriate handling of inmates within their designated housing units.

4

Chapter 1
Equally important, these guidelines highlight programming approaches to prepare

inmates for readjustment to the community.

On admission, the PMC interview is conducted by a specially trained classification

officer and requires approximately 45 minutes. The interview protocol includes 45

attitudinal items that deal sequentially with the inmate’s attitudes regarding the current offense; criminal history (including juvenile justice history); family relationships; relationships with staff, inmates, and peers; current difficulties

(psychological, sexual harassment, etc.); and plans after release. In addition to these

attitudinal items, 11 factual ratings assess the inmate’s social status and offense history and 8 behavioral ratings assess the inmate’s demeanor during the interview.

The assessment concludes with the interviewer’s impressions of the inmate’s most

and least urgent problem areas.

Inmates are assigned to one of four groups: Limited Setting (LS), Casework Control

(CC), Selective Intervention (SI), and Environmental Structure (ES). LS and CC

inmates are expected to be more aggressive and harder to control, whereas SI and

ES inmates require minimal supervision and should be separated from LS and CC

inmates. When necessary, however, SI inmates can be housed with LS and CC

inmates.

Although experimentally validated and shown to be useful in managing correctional populations, PMC requires significant staff training for inmate assessment,

supervision, and interaction.

Behavior-Based Systems

As an alternative to these systems and their accompanying training requirements, a

third type of system has been developed that assesses inmates according to behavioral measures, as reflected by disciplinary records and work performance, in contrast to a personality-based assessment. The strength of behavior-based systems is

their high degree of structure, which builds directly on the inmate’s custody score

by surveying dynamic measures of in-custody behavior.

This type of system has been implemented by the Illinois Department of Corrections

(IDOC) in its three maximum-security facilities. Inmates are scored according to

their level of aggression, which is largely determined by the severity and frequency

of disciplinary conduct and gang-related activities. Several items that are commonly part of external classification systems, such as current offense and age, are

also included. A historical assessment of the type of disciplinary incidents and resulting days spent in segregation provides a dynamic measure of the likelihood of

aggression. (See the appendix for the internal classification form used in IDOC’s

maximum-security facilities.) This ability to assess the change in risk level over time

is one of a behavior-based system’s key strengths. Three behavior-based classification systems pilot-tested by three sites in Florida, New Jersey, and Oregon are

described in this report.

5

Introduction

The strength of

behavior-based

systems is their high

degree of structure.
NIC Internal Prison Classification Initiatives

Recognizing the critical need to develop and refine internal classification systems,

NIC funded three initiatives to work with a total of eight states to develop and

implement internal classification systems. The specific goals of these initiatives

were as follows:

¢ Phase I: field-test internal prison classification systems in three states

(1993–96).

—Design and pilot-test internal classification systems in three states

(Connecticut, Colorado, and Washington state).

—Conduct a national survey of existing internal classification methods.

¢ Phase II: design, develop, and implement internal prison classification systems

(1997–98).

—Develop a training curriculum that addresses internal classification issues,

including the design, development, implementation, evaluation, and operation

of an internal classification system.

—Provide training and technical assistance to five state correctional departments (Oregon, Florida, Missouri, South Dakota, and New Jersey) committed

to improving the internal management of their inmates.

—Assess the outcome and impact of the training and assistance provided

through this initiative.

¢ Phase III: Implement and assess internal prison classification systems

(1998–2000).

—Provide continued technical assistance to state correctional agencies to help

implement the internal classification systems developed and tested during

Phase II.

—Assess the progress to date and impact of the Phase I internal classification

systems.

—Develop a publication that discusses the state of the art in internal classification and provides guidance to state correctional agencies on the design and

implementation of internal classification systems.

In 1993, for Phase I, NIC developed a cooperative agreement with NCCD to initiate internal classification systems in three states (Connecticut, Colorado, and

Washington). The goal of this effort was to design and prepare to implement three

different internal classification systems. NIC endeavored to create not a single

6

Chapter 1
model or system to be adopted by all correctional agencies, but, rather, a standard

process for designing and implementing internal classification systems (Alexander

et al., 1997).

The second NIC internal classification initiative was intended to build on the foundation established in Phase I and to further the use of internal classification systems

by adult prison systems. The primary goal of Phase II was to assist five state departments of corrections in developing, implementing, and evaluating internal classification policies and procedures to improve their systems’ overall operations.

NIC’s third initiative was intended to continue the technical assistance available for

full implementation of the systems in the five Phase II states and to assess the status and impact of the internal classification systems implemented by the Phase I

states. This report, a product of this third initiative, documents the activities, methods, and outcomes of NIC’s work with the eight states involved in the three internal classification initiatives. The remainder of this section describes the process by

which the eight states were selected for participation and outlines the processes

undertaken by the states. The next chapter of this report is organized by state and

describes—

¢ The problems, issues, and goals of the internal classification initiative and

current classification system.

¢ The internal classification design process.

¢ The internal classification system’s impact on prison operations, its current

status, and the next steps to be taken.

The third chapter documents the common problems, issues, and solutions encountered across the states, provides a step-by-step process for designing and implementing internal classification systems within state prison systems, and highlights

future directions for the development of internal classification systems.

NIC Internal Prison Classification Initiative Tasks

The processes for selecting states to participate in the respective NIC internal prison

classification initiatives were similar for the three phases. The Phase I participants—Connecticut, Colorado, and Washington—were identified through data collected by NCCD during the national survey of the use of internal classification

systems among state correctional agencies. The primary criterion for participation

in Phase I was that the state had to have a fully automated external classification

system. In addition, the sites were selected to reflect a diversity in geographic location and size of the prison system.

For Phase II, NIC sent a letter of invitation to the director of each state department

of corrections introducing the internal classification demonstration project. States

7

Introduction

NIC endeavored to

create not a single

model or system to

be adopted by all

correctional agencies,

but, rather, a standard process for

designing and implementing internal

classification systems

NIC endeavored to

create not a single

model or system to

be adopted by all

correctional agencies,

but, rather, a standard process for

designing and implementing internal

classification systems.
were offered an opportunity to develop a comprehensive internal classification system tailored to their specific needs. Included with the invitation was an application

that asked each state to provide an overview of its current external classification

system,3 indicate the level of automation of its external classification system,

describe its classification staffing pattern, identify and describe the facility for the

pilot test, indicate the composition of the proposed steering committee, and identify the current problems that might be solved or alleviated by an internal classification effort.

Applications were received from more than 20 states, representing the entire spectrum of state correctional systems—small to large, all regions of the country, and

diverse levels of sophistication with respect to automation and current classification

systems. This diversity suggested that internal classification was still a critical issue

faced by many correctional agencies.

States selected to participate in Phase II had to have—

¢ A validated and established external classification system.

¢ An automated system for accurately tracking inmate transfers and assignments

within and across facilities.

¢ High levels of commitment from the warden and key staff at the pilot-test facility.

¢ A steering committee composed of representatives from all major operational

areas within the department.

¢ Adequate resources for staff to design and pilot-test the classification system

and to travel to the two national workshops.

¢ Clearly identified goals for the internal classification system.

The five states chosen were diverse in terms of region of the country; rated capacity and custody level (maximum, close, medium, minimum, special management,

and females) of the pilot-test facility; system needs and goals; and type of internal classification system to be evaluated (behavioral, personality traits, etc.).

This diversity was sought deliberately; by choosing sites with differing circumstances and questions, NIC could be assured that the initiatives would have broad

generalizability.

Once the applications were reviewed, the proposed chair of each steering committee was interviewed to clarify the information provided on the application and

assess the state’s commitment to the project. States were asked if they were willing

to commit staff time and resources for travel to the national seminars and if they

were fully prepared for the system changes required to develop and implement an

internal classification system.

8

Chapter 1
Based on a review of the applications, additional documentation submitted by the

states, and the interview data, Florida, Oregon, New Jersey, South Dakota, and

Missouri were selected to serve as the demonstration sites for the Phase II internal

classification initiative.

For Phase I and II initiatives, the selected states were asked to complete the

following tasks:

¢ Establish a steering committee and identify a pilot facility for the project.

¢ Assess the department’s current external and internal classification systems.

¢ Develop preliminary internal classification instruments and procedures.

¢ Pilot-test the draft system on a sample of inmates at the selected facility and

make any necessary revisions to the system.

¢ Develop a plan to implement and monitor the internal classification system.

In addition, each Phase II state was asked to participate in two seminars with the

four other Phase II states to review internal classification systems, develop implementation plans, and define strategies for monitoring their systems.

During Phases I and II, NIC conducted comprehensive onsite assessments of the

states’ current external and internal classification systems, practices, policies, and

plans. An onsite protocol was developed to ensure comprehensive, consistent, and

comparable data. The site assessment protocol included the following activities:

¢ Orientation meeting with the steering committee.

¢ Interviews with central office and facility administrative staff.

¢ Observations of the external classification process. 

¢ Review of written external classification policies and procedures.

¢ Observations of the internal classification process.

¢ Review of written internal classification policies and procedures.

¢ Examination of MIS (management information systems) data and analytic

capabilities.

¢ Exit interview with the steering committee.

The next chapter of this report describes each state’s activities and the outcomes

resulting from these initiatives.

9

Introduction

During Phases I and

II, NIC conducted

comprehensive onsite

assessments of the

states’ current external and internal

classification systems,

practices, policies,

and plans. An onsite

protocol was

developed to ensure

comprehensive,

consistent, and

comparable data.

11

Connecticut Department of Correction

As of April 1, 1995, the Connecticut Department of Correction (CT DOC) housed

13,654 inmates in 16 facilities.4 An examination of the prison population indicated

that most of the population was black (45.6 percent) or Hispanic (26.8 percent) and

did not have a high school degree (62.5 percent). The modal age group was 20 to

29 years of age with a mean age of 29.8 years. Analyses of the CT DOC population

by crime type indicate that 30.9 percent were committed for an offense against persons, 17.5 percent for property offenses, 25.5 percent for drug-related offenses, and

23.5 percent for public order offenses. The average sentence was 6.8 years. Women

made up 6.9 percent of the prison population.5 CT DOC identified the MacDougall

Correctional Institution near Hartford as the pilot-test facility for the internal classification system initiative.

Description of Pilot Site

MacDougall Correctional Institution is a modern, 1,017-bed, high-security facility

(Level 4 in a five-level security rating system) built in 1993 for male inmates. In

1995, approximately 450 staff were employed at the facility, 210 of which were correctional officers. The average daily population at MacDougall has remained stable.

In 1996, for example, the average daily population (ADP) was 959; in 1999, the

ADP was 975.

The main housing unit consists of five general population units, a 20-cell (doublebunked) restrictive housing unit, and a 22-cell medical unit. The general population

housing units are managed as direct supervision or unit management divisions.

Each general population housing unit is divided into two housing pods of 48 cells

each, most of which are double-bunked. This adds up to a total bed capacity of 955

general population inmates, the primary target of this initiative.

The MacDougall facility was designed to hold sentenced, high-custody male

inmates with long prison terms. Inmates with long prison terms are likely to be

transferred directly from CT DOC’s reception center; they are not viewed as management problems, but must be held in a high-security facility for the initial portion

of their term. MacDougall also receives inmates from other institutions who have

demonstrated an inability to adjust to lower security facilities and have been transferred with the hope that they will respond positively to the higher security and will

Description of the States’ Internal

Classification Initiatives

Chapter two
not have to be transferred to the state’s only Level 5 facility, which houses extremely disruptive inmates.

The facility was designed to operate large-scale industrial, vocational training, and

educational programs. All inmates are assigned to a work detail or are enrolled in

vocational training, academic programming, or drug treatment. The primary goal

for the internal classification initiative was to develop a mechanism for assigning

inmates to these program and work assignments.

Comparisons between MacDougall’s population and the overall CT DOC population indicated that in 1995, during the development process, MacDougall had a

larger proportion of inmates considered to be a “severe” risk than did the CT DOC

system as a whole (95.5 percent versus 29.1 percent, respectively) (Connecticut

Department of Corrections, 1999). The MacDougall inmates differed from other

CT DOC inmates on two key risk factors: offense severity and history of violent

offenses. Three-quarters (74.5 percent) of MacDougall inmates were incarcerated

for major offenses, and one-quarter (23 percent) had a history of major or severe

violent offenses. In contrast, one-third (33.6 percent) of the overall CT DOC population was incarcerated for a major offense, and less than one-seventh (13.7 percent)

had a history of major or severe violent offenses.

The MacDougall population had some critical issues to be addressed. Sixty-seven

percent of the inmates had significant medical needs and 43 percent had significant

mental health needs. In addition, 79 percent of the MacDougall inmates had a history of substance abuse and 22 percent had a known history of sex-related offenses. More than half of the MacDougall inmates (54 percent) were at or below the

eighth-grade education level. Their vocational history scores could be attributed to

their apparent lack of education. More than half (55 percent) had only a moderate

work history and one-third (33 percent) had limited or no work skills.

A review of the 1999 statistics indicates that MacDougall’s population has not

changed substantially in the past 5 years. The only exception to this observation

was that average sentence length has increased from 15.5 years to 18.6 years. The

overall risk level has remained the same since 1995: 95 percent of the inmates are

classified as a “severe risk” to the safety and security of the institution.

Connecticut’s Classification Process

CT DOC’s external classification system was implemented in 1992; the most recent

revisions were implemented in June 1999. The goal of the external classification

system is “to ensure the safety and well being of the community, facility, staff, and

the inmate” (Connecticut Department of Correction, 1999: 2). The classification

system was designed to assess inmates’ security, custody, and treatment needs using

objective risk factors. The system is used by facilities for all inmates, regardless of

legal status or sentence length. The classification ratings track individuals throughout the term of confinement. The Office of Offender Classification and Population

Management at the Central Office is responsible for the development, implementa12

Chapter 2
tion, training, oversight, and management of the external classification function

within the department.

The objective classification system is based on inmates’ risk and treatment needs.

Inmates’ overall risk levels are determined by evaluating their escape history, history

of violence, current offense severity, length of sentence, presence of pending charges

or detainer, discipline history, and security risk group membership. Each factor is

independently assigned a rating between one and five, with one representing the lowest risk and five representing the highest risk. Overall risk level is determined by the

highest rating assigned on any one of the seven categories. The risk levels primarily

dictate the structure or security required to house the inmates. In addition to the custody risk assessment, the classification process also assesses inmates on seven key

areas of need: medical, mental health, education, vocational, substance abuse treatment, sexual treatment, and residence. Housing and work assignments are the

responsibility of the classification committee at the receiving facility.

Connecticut’s Internal Classification Initiative

CT DOC’s internal classification initiative intended to establish an objective method

for housing inmates in high-security facilities (Level 4 of 5). CT DOC was not interested in a personality-based system, but preferred a behavior-based system similar to

the one developed for Illinois at its maximum-security facilities. Facility administrators were especially concerned about the lack of structure and purpose in the

housing and programming decisions for inmates with long sentences. Additionally,

they wanted to reduce the possibility of improper work or program assignments for

these inmates. At the outset of this project, MacDougall was preparing to expand its

work and industrial opportunities. It was hoped that a more structured internal classification process would improve the “fit” between inmates and their work and program assignments. After a 3-month planning process during which the facility and

central office staff reviewed current practices and policies at MacDougall, a formal

policy for internal classification was issued. This policy declared that “MacDougall

Correctional Institution will classify inmates to program and job assignments

according to their overall risk score and needs assignments as outlined in

Administrative Directive 9.2, Inmate Classification. Inmates shall be assigned to a

housing unit based upon their program and/or job assignment.”

The last sentence in the policy statement was critical. There was considerable discussion during the development phase as to whether inmates should be housed

according to program assignments. From a logistics perspective, housing by program or job assignment greatly facilitates inmate movement, but it may also limit

an inmate’s ability to participate in a work assignment or program because of lack

of space within the housing unit. Moreover, housing by program or work assignment may intensify or consolidate the influence of gangs over the housing unit.

Despite these challenges, CT DOC determined that a match between housing

assignment and work or program placement was important to the smooth operation

of the facility. Once the decision to house inmates according to work and program

13

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives

Connecticut’s internal classification initiative intended to

establish an objective

method for housing

inmates in highsecurity facilities.
assignment was made, housing units within MacDougall were classified according

to the major job and program assignments available. (Exhibit 2 lists the facility’s 12

major housing units and programs.) A detailed description was made of every job

and program within the facility, identifying the restrictions, location, pay scale, classification level, number of positions, and number of days per week required. These

descriptions are updated periodically as the number and types of positions change.

(Exhibit 3 is a sample listing of the job descriptions throughout the facility.)

On admission to the MacDougall facility, each inmate is initially assigned to the 95-

bed H–1 unit for assessment and orientation unless he has already been targeted for

some type of special housing (e.g., medical transfer to the hospital unit or L–1). As

14

Chapter 2

Exhibit 2. MacDougall Internal Housing Plan 

Housing Number Type of Inmates Assigned to Unit1

Unit of Beds

H–1 95 New inmates admitted to MacDougall from the reception

center or interfacility transfer. Inmates admitted 

for inpatient medical reasons will not go through the 

orientation process.

H–2 96 Unassigned inmates due to program failure or discipline

problems.

I–1 95 Inmates assigned to vocational programs.

I–2 96 Inmates assigned to vocational programs.

J–1 95 Inmates assigned to institutional jobs.

J–2 96 Inmates assigned to institutional jobs.

L–1 96 Inmates assigned to institutional jobs.

L–2 95 Special needs inmates unassigned due to a specific 

medical condition.

M–1 96 Inmates assigned to the morning session of an academic

school program.

M–2 95 Inmates assigned to the afternoon session of an academic

school program.

Restrictive 40 Inmates placed in accordance with Unit Directive 9.4.

Housing

Hospital 22 Inmates admitted by Health Services staff. Provides 

Inpatient services/beds for the entire department.

Unit

1

Housing unit janitors are assigned to their respective housing unit.
part of the orientation process, a counselor reviews with the inmate the facility’s

mission and the range and criteria for all programs and work assignments. The orientation process also provides the inmate with an opportunity to indicate any special housing needs. Based on this interview and a review of the inmate’s record, the

counselor completes an initial classification form and recommends a housing and

program assignment. As shown in Exhibit 4, the internal classification form is a

simple list that identifies the most critical programming and job assignments. This

form is also used for reclassification, which occurs every 6 months or upon change

of need or job status. All inmates who do not have a high school diploma or general equivalency diploma (GED) are enrolled in the academic program.

Once the counselor has completed the classification assessment, the unit manager

reviews and approves the recommendation. An inmate may request a work or program assignment by submitting a work application to the program or job supervisor. The supervisor reviews the application and recommends approval or denial. All

recommendations are reviewed by the classification committee, which consists of a

counselor supervisor and staff representing security and inmate programs. The

committee makes the final decision and informs the inmate of his work and housing assignment. Inmates are not permitted to refuse any program, work, or education assignment (except substance abuse treatment, which is voluntary). Such a

refusal is subject to a major disciplinary action. In such situations, the inmate is

placed in an unassigned status with minimal privileges. If the preferred work or program assignment is not available, the inmate’s name is placed on a waiting list and

he remains in orientation (or his current assignment) until the desired assignment

becomes available.

In sum, the Connecticut model is quite straightforward. The overall goal is to place

the inmate in the most appropriate work or program assignment. The highest priority is for the inmate to obtain a GED before any institutional or vocational assign15

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives

Exhibit 3. Partial List of MacDougall Job and Program Assignments

Job Description Location Number Custody Pay Days/ Job 

Assignment of Slots Level Level Week Code

Student Education School 181 4 or 3 5 1

below

Vocational Vocational Vocational 15 4 or 3 5 9

education: education education below

Business

education

Housing Janitor H–1 Unit 10 4 or 1–4 7 21

janitor below

Institutional Painter Various 4 4 or 1–4 7 46

painter below
16

Inmate Name Number: 

Estimated Release Date: Maximum Release Date: 

Parole Eligibility: 85% 50%

Level Reduction Review Date: 

(MM DD YY)

Detainer Score: (Reviewed for accuracy, circle) Yes /No

High Security Status: (Circle) Yes/No (Next Hearing Date):

Escape Risk Score: 

Education Level: School Referral: Yes/No DOB:

Next Regular Review Date: 

(MM DD YY)

Data Inmate Orientation Completed: 

Recommended Unit Placement: M L I J

Inmate Requested Placement: DNA: (Circle) Yes/No

Police Report in File: Yes/No (If No, Data Requested) 

Comments: 

Completed by: Date Completed: 

cc: Master File - (White)

Satellite File - (Canary)

Inmate's - (P ink)

Exhibit 4. MacDougall Correctional Institution New Admission Classification Form
ment. Housing units are organized around the program and work assignments, and

inmates are not classified according to psychological categories or “risk” levels

(other than the external classification rating). Because of the simplicity of this system, the amount of staff training required is minimal.

A followup visit to the MacDougall Correctional Institution was conducted in

February 2000 to assess the current status of the internal classification system. By

1995, the system was fully implemented, and it appears to work well for the facility. A written manual documenting policies and procedures has been developed

(MacDougall Correctional Institution, 2000). The system has been modified only

minimally since its implementation. The only substantive changes in the system

were that vocational programs were added and the substance abuse treatment program no longer functions as a separate housing unit. Participation in the substance

abuse program is voluntary and is scheduled around work, educational, or vocational programming. All job and housing assignments are stored on CT DOC’s

automated information system. According to staff, the system’s strengths are that:

¢ It is simple to understand and apply.

¢ Disciplinary incidents are minimized.

¢ There is a high rate of successful completion of programs.

¢ Inmates demonstrate high self-esteem and satisfaction with work and program

assignments.

¢ It enhances security within the facility.

¢ Unit and case managers are well aware of the inmates assigned to their areas.

Staff also indicated that the system also provides for accountability by both staff

and inmates. A review of the number of assaults on staff and inmates indicated that

assaults on staff have dropped from 18 in 1996 to 4 in 1999. Assaults among

inmates have remained relatively stable: 46 were committed in 1996, 67 in 1997,

46 in 1998, and 67 in 1999. Even though 95 percent of the inmate population is

classified as “severe” risk, these data suggest that the internal classification system

provides for a safe institutional environment.

Colorado Department of Corrections

As of September 1, 1995, the Colorado Department of Corrections (CO DOC)

housed approximately 11,540 inmates; by December 1999, the population had

grown to 15,372 inmates distributed across 24 facilities. An examination of the

1995 prison population indicated that the majority of the population was white

(44.7 percent). The largest minority population was Hispanic (26.3 percent), and

blacks represented 25 percent of the inmate population. The modal age group was

17

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives

Housing units are

organized around the

program and work

assignments, and

inmates are not classified according to psychological categories

or “risk” levels.

Because of the simplicity of this system,

the amount of staff

training required is

minimal.
30 to 39 years, with a mean age of 33 years. Analysis of the CO DOC population

by type of offense indicates that 47.2 percent were committed for offenses against

persons, 23.2 percent for property offenses, 11.9 percent for drug-related offenses,

and 17.6 percent for offenses against public order and other crimes. The average

sentence was 12 years. Women make up approximately 7 percent of the prison population (Colorado Department of Corrections, 1999). CO DOC identified the

Limon Correctional Facility, located 75 miles east of Denver, as the pilot facility for

the internal classification system initiative.

Description of Pilot Site

Limon Correctional Facility is a modern 953-bed, close-security facility that was

constructed in 1991 for male inmates. It is rated as a Level III facility on a scale of

one to five. There are positions for 348 employees, 182 of which are corrections

officers (Soares, 1999). The average daily population at Limon has remained stable. In 1995, the average daily population (ADP) was 963, and on December 31,

1999, the 1-day count was 939 inmates.

The main housing unit consists of 6 living units with 120 cells; each living unit is

subdivided into 3 pods. There is also a 28-cell segregation unit. Approximately 25

percent of the cells are double-bunked, resulting in a total capacity of 953. All cells

are electronically controlled from an enclosed command center in each living unit.

Each pod can be isolated from the other two pods within the living unit, thus providing a great deal of control over inmate movement. The prison is surrounded by

a double fence with electronic sensors and razor ribbon. There are three guard towers and a 24-hour perimeter patrol. In sum, Limon is very secure.

Like the MacDougall facility in Connecticut, Limon was designed to hold highcustody male inmates sentenced to long prison terms. About one-third of the

inmates are transferred directly from the CO DOC diagnostic center; the remainder

are transferred from other general confinement prisons.

Limon has a wide variety of academic and vocational educational programs, as well

as counseling programs, jobs, and athletic facilities. There are program and work

slots for approximately 90 percent of the inmates.

A comparison between Limon’s population and that of the CO DOC system as a

whole indicated that in 1995, during the development process for the internal classification system, Limon had a larger proportion of close-custody inmates than the

system as a whole (55.0 percent versus 17.3 percent, respectively) (Colorado

Department of Corrections, 1995). The Limon inmates differed from the total CO

DOC inmate population on the basis of three key risk factors: offense severity,

escape history, and severity of prior convictions. Seventy percent of the Limon population was incarcerated for a highest severity offense, and 15 percent had a history of escape from a Level II or III facility. In contrast, 51.7 percent of the total CO

DOC population was incarcerated for a highest severity offense, and only 9 percent

had a history of escape from a Level II or III facility.

18

Chapter 2
The Limon population had some significant needs to be addressed. About 30 percent of the inmates did not have a high school diploma or GED, 16 percent had significant medical needs (Level 3 or Level 4), 77 percent had mental health needs, 35

percent required sex offender treatment (20 percent had Level 5 sex offender

needs), and 95 percent had substance abuse treatment needs (Colorado Department

of Corrections, 2000). A review of the most recent criminal history data for the

Limon population indicated that the population has changed somewhat during the

past 5 years. As of March 2000, a majority (64.4 percent) of the inmates were classified as close custody. Yet the average sentence length increased only slightly, from

26.5 years to 28.0 years. There appeared to be a shift between 1995 and 2000 in the

crimes for which the Limon inmates were incarcerated: Offenses against persons

dropped from 66.9 to 61.2 percent, and substance abuse related crimes decreased

from 4.8 to 2.8 percent. Although the number of property offenders dropped from

18.5 to 13.1 percent, the proportion of offenders convicted of offenses against public order and other crimes increased sharply, from 4.5 to 22.8 percent (Colorado

Department of Corrections, 2000: 3).

Colorado Classification Process

In 1983, CO DOC implemented an objective classification system modeled after

the NIC system. Four studies of the Colorado system have been completed, each

prompting significant changes. The most recent, completed by Austin et al. (1996),

found that although the system is fairly well structured, it was both over- and underclassifying the inmate population. Based upon these recommendations, the system

was revised and the modifications were fully implemented by 1998.

The classification system was designed to assess objectively an inmate’s security,

custody, and treatment needs. The Office of Offender Services within the Central

Office is responsible for the development, implementation, training, oversight, and

management of the external classification function within the department. All

inmates (male and female) are admitted to CO DOC’s main reception center, where

they undergo a fairly extensive and detailed initial classification process.

The initial classification assessment is based on 13 scoring items that are grouped

into 11 categories. The first six items—history of institutional violence, severity of

current offense, number of current convictions, offenses resulting in death, severity

of prior convictions, and escape history—constitute Part A of the form. These items

are tallied to determine whether the inmate should be automatically placed in close

custody without considering the Part B items, which include alcohol or drug abuse,

current or pending detainer, number of prior felony convictions, stability factors,

and time to parole eligibility date. The scores from the Part B items are added to the

Part A score to determine the inmate’s final custody level. The system provides for

both mandatory and discretionary override considerations. In addition to the custody risk assessment, the classification process evaluates the inmate’s need for medical, mental health, and sex offender treatment. These scores have a direct bearing

on the type of facility to which the inmate can be transferred.

19

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives
Colorado was not

interested in developing a risk-based

system, but rather

sought more structured information to

ensure that inmates

were housed and

assigned to programs

according to their

needs. 

The reclassification process parallels the initial classification process, but has only

6 items in both Parts A and B, for a total of 12 risk factors. Part A factors include

history of institutional violence, recency of institutional violence, severity of current offense, number of current convictions, offenses resulting in the death of one

or more victims, and severity of prior convictions. As with the initial classification,

these items are tallied to determine whether the inmate should be automatically

placed in close custody. Part B items include detainer or pending charges, escape

history, number and type of disciplinary reports, total number of disciplinary

reports, and time to parole eligibility date.

Colorado’s Internal Classification Initiative

CO DOC’s internal classification initiative went a step beyond Connecticut’s internal classification system by automating the housing and program criteria. Colorado’s

interests were similar to Connecticut’s in that Colorado was not interested in developing a risk-based system, but rather sought more structured information to ensure that

inmates were housed and assigned to programs according to their needs. The specific goals for the Colorado internal classification effort were to—

¢ Improve the quality and accessibility of information on which internal classification decisions (especially housing decisions) were based.

¢ Reduce the level of inmate idleness.

¢ Reduce the number of inmates assigned to inappropriate housing, work, or

rehabilitative programs.

The primary impetus for the development of the Colorado internal system was the

difficulty of accessing and updating information required for making informed

housing decisions. Since accessing this information created major inefficiencies

and delays in assigning an inmate to a housing unit, job slot, or programs, it was

often ignored. Two particularly sensitive areas were separation needs (codefendants, family members, staff conflicts, etc.) and security threat group membership.

Relevant information either was not documented or was scattered throughout the

CO information system. Information on gang membership, for example, was stored

by the automated information system but was accessible only to the gang coordinator. Staff were frequently faced with inmate problems that could have been avoided had the proper information been accessible. Thus, a major goal of this initiative

was to improve the reliability and validity of the information on which internal classifications decisions were based. The intent was to create a standardized inmate

profile within the information system.

CO DOC had previously completed an assessment of the data required for internal

classification decisions. Staff had indicated that the primary inmate-related decisions were housing unit, treatment, and job or work assignments. The staff identified the inmate’s medical, psychiatric, and separation needs, as well as security

threat group membership, as important considerations for these decisions.

20

Chapter 2
Along with improving the validity and reliability of the inmate profile within the

information system, the major objectives of the Colorado internal classification initiative included—

¢ Encouraging good conduct among inmates;

¢ Increasing inmate productivity on work assignments;

¢ Establishing a realistic program sequence for long-term inmates; and

¢ Increasing the program completion rate.

The main strategy for accomplishing these internal classification objectives was to

develop a Master Program Scheduling (MPS) system. MPS is an automated system

that includes specific criteria for program and housing eligibility at each step of

confinement. MPS compiles and tracks information regarding the inmate’s profile;

institutional housing, job, and program vacancies; and the facility’s eligibility criteria for internal classification assignments.

Admissions Data Summary (ADS). This screen provides general inmate-related

information. As part of this project, data fields were added to the screen based on

the DOC staff survey regarding information required for internal classification decisions. (Exhibit 5 is a sample ADS.)

Access grid. Varying levels of access to the ADS were established so that users

could retrieve or enter information within specific data fields. Since access to correctional information is always a sensitive issue, staff information needs and suitability for data entry were identified. Procedures for coordination of information

between the central office and facility staff were defined.

Data-entry responsibilities. A new policy established lines of responsibility for

updating information. Intake and orientation case managers were made responsible

for interviewing each new inmate and reviewing and updating the inmate’s ADS.

Case managers within the general population housing units were made responsible

for updating specified fields. An intelligence coordinator was made responsible for

compiling and maintaining data on security threat groups.

Data dictionary. A standardized definition was developed for each data element.

This definition includes the source and reliability of the information.

One major challenge to the system was to regulate the flow of information within

MPS. As the system became more accessible and reliable, concerns emerged that

the collection and entry of data would become so time consuming that staff would

have time for little else. Internal custody information had to be carefully limited and

structured or chaos would result. To address this problem, CO DOC developed procedures for structuring MPS custody information.

21

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives
22

Date of Report / / /

Date of Interview / / /

Name 

DOC# FBI# SID # SSN 

 PHOTO AKA 

Height Weight Eyes Hair 

Sex DOB Birthplace 

Age Complexion Ethnicity Citizenship

Disruptive Group Orientation 

Marks and Scars 

SENTENCE DATA

Defendant Admission Date / / Parole Eligibility Date / / Sentence Discharge / / 

County Sentence Date / / Effective Date / / Pre-Sentence Confinement 

Court District Attorney Defense Attorney 

Co-Defendants 

Offense Class Docket Number Offense Date Sentence (Yr, Mo, Day)

 

COURT DATA Comments 

Vocational Medical/Dental Work Alcohol/Drug Sexual Violence 

Psychological Leisure Time Pre-Release Conduct 

Warrants Pending Charges 

HISTORICAL CRIMINAL DATA Prior Colorado DOC# 

Arrests Misdemeanor Arrests Prior Probation Probation Revocation 

Paroles Parole Absconds Parole Revocation Community Placement Revocation 

Escapes Through Security Walk Away Last Escape Date Last Escape Location 

Type Year Offense Disposition

PERSONAL DATA

Emergency Notification Phone 

Address 

Place of Residence Marital Status Dependents 

Military (Branch) Dates Discharge Viet.Vet Religion 

Performance Level Claimed Educ. Level Apticom Math Language 

THIS SENTENCE DATA DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY CHANGES MADE AFTER DATES OF REPORT.

CONTACT LOCAL RECORDS OFFICER FOR CURRENT INFORMATION. 

Exhibit 5. State of Colorado Department of Corrections Admission Data Summary
23

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives

Once MPS was established, internal classification decisions could be tracked

through the system. The process begins when inmates first enter the correctional

system at the Reception and Diagnostic Center in Denver and continues throughout

their tenure at the facility. One priority element for the internal classification

process among the intake staff was the availability of information about inmates

prior to their arrival at the facility. Exhibit 6 is a flowchart representing the MPS

system. At Limon, inmates are temporarily housed in the Intake/Receiving area for

orientation, observation, and assessment. To meet prison needs, all newly admitted

inmates are assigned to kitchen or general maintenance details. The most desired

work assignment at Limon is with the industrial sewing plant because it has the

highest pay rate. Yet facility policy dictates that all inmates must spend some time

Offender Services monitors system via online reports

Work

Education

Vocation

Mental health

Earned time performance

Mental health Job

Medical Substance abuse

Housing

Offender assignment

Vacancies

Inmate attendance

Job positions

Offender

assessment

Offender/

program

wait list

Offender

schedule

Facility

schedule

Staff

schedule

Offender

skills and

needs

Master program

Exhibit 6. Colorado Internal Classification Master Program

Scheduling System
Despite its complexity, MPS has undergone few changes

since its implementation in 1995.

Staff attributed this

durability to the

thorough planning

process and the

involvement of multiple stakeholders.

in the less attractive and less lucrative kitchen assignments; inmates are eligible for

maintenance assignments before becoming eligible for the sewing assignment. In

addition to making basic job assignments, MPS schedules inmates for rehabilitative

and treatment programs according to their prioritized need for treatment or other

programs, time left to serve, custody rating, special housing flags, the program’s

availability, and the program’s eligibility criteria.

When inmate-based data are entered into MPS, the optimal time for the inmate to

participate in the recommended programs is automatically determined by MPS

using the inmate’s profile, program eligibility criteria, and program availability. If

an inmate is eligible but cannot be admitted because of limits to program capacity,

he is placed on the waiting list. The overall intent is to place inmates in the most

appropriate treatment program available. One key issue resolved by the steering

committee was the timing for program participation for long-term inmates (i.e.,

whether participation in academic, vocational training, or substance abuse treatment should occur at the beginning or end of the inmate’s prison term). Staff decided that programs should be required at the beginning of an inmate’s prison term and

should be a prerequisite for the desirable industries assignments. These policies

were incorporated into MPS programming.

A followup visit to Limon was conducted in February 2000 to assess the current

status of the internal classification system. As of June 1995, MPS had been fully

implemented, and it continues to work well for the facility today. Written policies

and procedures are available that document the process, responsibilities, and data

compiled by MPS (Limon Correctional Facility, 1999). Upon inmate request, the

system was incorporated in the Marquiz settlement agreement, and thus has been

integrated into the daily decisionmaking processes.6

Despite its complexity, MPS has undergone few changes since its implementation in

1995. Staff attributed this durability to the thorough planning process and the

involvement of multiple stakeholders. The steering committee, for example, included

representatives of all major operational areas in the facility and central office.

Surprisingly, MPS was implemented with only minimal costs. The only startup costs

were physical changes to the intake and reception unit and one full-time employee

position for the internal classification specialist. Inmate profile, housing, job, program, and special needs data were already stored in the Colorado information system; thus, the primary task of this initiative was to organize the information to make

it more accessible and useful. According to staff, the system has led to—

¢ A decrease in serious assaults within the facility, both inmate-on-staff and

inmate-on-inmate;

¢ Suppression of drugs and contraband;

¢ Improvement in the quality and reliability of security group intelligence and

separations;

24

Chapter 2
¢ Appropriate work and program assignments; and

¢ Better control of inmate movement.

As shown in Exhibit 7, assaults on staff have remained low despite the influx of

higher risk inmates since 1995. This, together with the staff’s confidence in and satisfaction with MPS, suggests that the internal classification system creates a safe

environment and provides staff with valid and reliable data.

Staff also identified elements that were essential to the implementation of MPS.

Since MPS created more work (e.g., data entry and retrieval), full participation and

commitment from central office and facility staff were critical. All staff readily

agreed that the internal classification system had to be a high priority for the facility. Another key ingredient for proper implementation was experienced, motivated

staff. Attempts to implement a similar internal classification process at another

Colorado facility have been slowed because staff lacked the proper experience and

training with internal classification systems.

Washington State Department of Corrections

As of June 30, 1995, the Washington Department of Corrections (WA DOC) housed

approximately 11,440 inmates; by July 1999, the population had grown to 14,307

inmates in 13 facilities and 18 work-release and prerelease centers (Washington

Department of Corrections, 2000). Examination of the prison population at the

onset of the internal classification initiative revealed that a majority of the 1995

population was white (71.6 percent). The largest minority population was black

(22.5 percent); Native Americans and Asians were small minorities (2.9 and 2.2

percent, respectively). Nearly three-quarters of the population did not have a high

school education. The modal age group was 30 to 39 years, with a mean age of 30.6

25

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives

Inmate-on-Inmate Inmate-on-Staff

Fiscal Year Assaults Assaults

1995–96 10 16

1996–97 7 14

1997–98 17 19

1998–99 14 14

Exhibit 7. Assaults at Limon Correctional Facility, Fiscal Years 1995–96 to

1998–99

Note: Colorado’s fiscal year begins on July 1st and ends on June 30 of the

following calendar year.

Another key

ingredient for proper

implementation

was experienced,

motivated staff.
years. Analysis of the WA DOC population by type of offense indicated that 61 percent were committed for offenses against persons, 14 percent for property offenses,

and 25 percent for drug-related offenses. The average sentence was 10 years.

Women made up approximately 7 percent of the prison population (Washington

Department of Corrections, 2000).

WA DOC identified the Airway Heights Correctional Center (AHCC), 4 miles west

of Spokane, as the pilot-test facility for the internal classification system initiative.

AHCC was chosen because it was a new institution in which staff were open to suggestions and not committed to “old ways.” The superintendent was new and known

to be innovative. The population was considered unique in that the institution was

used to house inmates with a minimum 3 (MI 3) custody rating. These offenders

scored as minimum custody, but were not eligible for placement within a minimumsecurity facility because they were not within 3 years of release, as required by WA

DOC policy; had medical requirements precluding minimum assignment; or were

too high a security risk to be assigned to a camp. By WA DOC policy, MI 3 inmates

are housed in medium-security facilities with a reduced staffing pattern.

Description of Pilot Site

AHCC features a 400-bed, minimum-security component that was opened in

1992 and a 1,536-bed medium-security facility that opened in 1994. In 1994

Airway employed 525 staff, 187 of which were corrections officers (Alexander et

al., 1997: 40–43).

The medium-security facility consists of six 256-bed units and a 20-bed infirmary.

Three of the units have “wet cells,” while the other three have “dry cells.” Each unit

is shaped like an “X” with four two-tiered wings. A central control station at the

intersection of the “X” regulates and monitors inmate movement. The perimeter

consists of a double fence with razor ribbon, a tower, and a perimeter patrol. About

half of the inmates come directly from the DOC reception center, and the other half

are transferred from other confinement facilities. Several academic, vocational, and

education programs, as well as a wide range of jobs and athletic facilities, are available to the inmates.

A comparison of the AHCC population with the overall WA DOC population indicated that in 1995, during the development process, AHCC had a larger proportion

of inmates classified as minimum risk than the state’s total prison population (92

versus 56 percent, respectively) (Washington Department of Corrections, 1995). In

1995, need-factor data were not available for the WA DOC population, but analyses of criminal history data suggested that AHCC inmates had the same average

sentence length and time left to serve as the total prison population. Although 92

percent of the AHCC population was classified as minimum custody, 64 percent of

the population was incarcerated for crimes against persons; 61 percent of the total

WA DOC population was incarcerated for such crimes. As suggested by their MI 3

status, the AHCC inmates who had been incarcerated for serious offenses had

adjusted well to institutional life (92 percent of them were classified as low risk),

26

Chapter 2
yet had at least 3 years remaining to serve (75 percent). The only need-related data

available indicated that about 57 percent of the AHCC inmates did not have a high

school diploma or GED. This suggested that the educational attainment of the

AHCC population was higher than that of the WA DOC population as a whole.

Washington State’s Classification Process

WA DOC implemented its current objective (external) classification system in

1989. The classification system was designed as a risk management tool to place

offenders in the least restrictive custody designation possible while providing for

the safety of the public, community, staff, other offenders, institution guests and

visitors, and the orderly operation of the institution (Washington Department of

Corrections, 1996). The Office of Correctional Operations, Classification, and

Treatment is responsible for the development, implementation, training, oversight,

and management of the department’s external classification function.

The classification system is designed to encourage offender participation in work,

education, treatment, and vocational programs in a manner that results in movement

to less restrictive custody levels. Negative behavior is discouraged by ensuring that

offenders face consequences for infractions, detainers, escapes, and refusal to participate in programs. The system is designed to help offenders understand how conduct and program efforts affect their custody designation and subsequent placement

in correctional facilities.

The WA DOC classification has four components: assignment of custody designation, assignment of facility designation, assessment of needs, and review of offender programming needs and case planning. The classification process begins with the

reception center’s intake process, which determines the inmate’s custody designation

and facility placement. The initial classification assessment is based on five scoring

items: severity of current offense, history of violence (institutional and community),

detainers, escape history, and age. These items are tallied to determine the inmate’s

custody level. The system provides for mandatory overrides based upon the offender’s crime, detainer, and sentence. Discretionary overrides are permitted based on the

offender’s behavior, mental health, medical, dental, or program needs. Institutional

security concerns may also override the scored custody level. Multiple levels of

review are required for all overrides. A facility placement assignment is also made

during this process. The placement recommendation addresses custody, security,

program, medical, mental health, and dental needs; case management and planning;

and other specific offender or institutional needs. Offenders are placed in the least

restrictive environment consistent with their initial custody designation.

The reclassification process is similar to the initial classification process. Regularly

scheduled reviews are conducted according to the time remaining for the inmate to

serve. For example, inmates with less than 5 years to serve are reviewed semiannually. Inmates with more than 5 years to serve are reviewed annually. Reclassification

is based on the inmate’s current custody designation, institutional infractions during

27

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives
WA DOC sought an

internal classification

model that would

enable it to both

classify and manage

inmates. The idea

was to have an internal classification

system that indicated

not only the appropriate housing or

programming for the

inmate, but strategies

for managing the

inmate as well.

the past 24 months, program participation, detainers, and escape history. As with the

initial classification, these items are tallied to create the custody review score. Again,

mandatory and discretionary override factors are considered and reviewed.

As previously noted, program needs and case planning must be documented and

addressed as part of the initial and custody review processes. Individual goals and

steps for addressing the offenders’ needs must be coordinated with their eligibility

for placement in a minimum-security facility. Housing, program, and work assignments are based upon individualized case plans.

Washington State’s Internal Classification Initiative

WA DOC began developing new approaches to internal classification in the late

1980s. The Case Management Classification (CMC) system described earlier was

developed and implemented at the Clallam Bay Correction Center. In December

1993, WA DOC expanded the use of CMC as a tool for identifying offenders’ needs

and developing individualized case management plans.

WA DOC’s major goal for this initiative was to pilot the Adult Internal Management

System (AIMS) in AHCC’s K–Unit. As previously described, AHCC’s population is

unique in that it is a minimum-custody population that is homogenous with respect

to several key criminal history and demographic factors. WA DOC wanted to explore

several issues with this population:

¢ Use of case management as a classification tool to better manage inmates

according to risk of escape and disruptive behaviors;

¢ Improvement of institutional strategies for managing and controlling offenders;

¢ Development of programming responsive to offender needs;

¢ Development of better ties for offender transition to the community; and

¢ Development of indicators for comparing offenders across facilities.

In short, WA DOC sought an internal classification model that would enable it to

both classify and manage inmates. The idea was to have an internal classification

system that indicated not only the appropriate housing or programming for the

inmate, but strategies for managing the inmate as well. To build on its unit management team concept, WA DOC was particularly interested in a model that would

require staff involvement at all levels. After reviewing the current literature, AIMS

was identified as a unit management strategy that could be implemented in combination with the CMC approach to manage individual behavior. AIMS was selected

for the following reasons:

¢ It involves both correctional officers and classification staff in the classification

and management of offenders.

28

Chapter 2
¢ The checklists provide for the collection of criminal history and personality

data useful for comparative analyses across facilities.

¢ It had been validated as strategy for reducing institutional violence among male

inmates.

Washington state was particularly interested in case management as a tool for predicting offender behavior and matching risk factors to specific programming to

enable the department to better manage offenders in the institution and to better prepare for their transition into the community.

WA DOC developed a three-phase planning and implementation strategy for this

internal classification initiative. Phase I included pilot-testing AIMS at AHCC to

compile a profile of the offender population. This phase required the identification

of control and study groups at AHCC and other comparable WA DOC facilities,

which were further subdivided into two groups according to the inmates’ time to

release. Inmates with less than 3 years to serve were placed in the “short term”

group, and inmates with more than 3 years to serve were considered “long term”

inmates. Staff were trained on the use of AIMS and data were collected on the characteristics and programming needs of offenders. The groups were compared in

terms of rates of infractions and grievances filed by the inmates. Phase II was envisioned as an analysis and planning period to determine the required resources and

develop the operational structures to support the case management and community

transition model. In Phase III, the case planning and community transition services

would be fully implemented.

During the 2-month pilot test, data were collected on infractions, classification

movement, and complaints or grievances. The major indicator of offender behavior

was infractions. In the total AHCC population, the rates of infractions by AIMS category (Alpha, Kappa, and Sigma) conformed to expectations, in that the Alphas had

the highest rate of infractions. As shown in Exhibit 8, comparison of the infraction

rates for the various groups suggested that the study sample behaved better than

expected and the AHCC control groups behaved worse. Although this pilot test was

not designed to yield definitive findings, the results were promising. The pilot test

was also intended to investigate the usefulness of the AIMS profile data. One key

success of this pilot test was the collection of inmate data for program planning.

Although a formal study of staff satisfaction with the use of AIMS was not conducted, the issue was discussed at AHCC’s annual inservice training. Virtually all

staff agreed that AIMS would greatly enhance the operation of AHCC and would

provide key information for case management. Staff also believed that AIMS gave

supervisors insight into offender management strategies.

Most staff believed that full implementation of AIMS would benefit the facility, but

several staff members expressed concerns that housing Alpha offenders together

would put undue stress on officers supervising those units. Staff also expressed concern that the Beta units would be called the “rape units” because of the lifestyle and

29

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives

Most staff believed

that full implementation of AIMS would

benefit the facility,

but several staff

members expressed

concerns that housing Alpha offenders

together would

put undue stress on

officers supervising

those units.
Despite its preliminary success, the

internal classification

initiative based on

AIMS was not implemented because the

offender groups identified via AIMS duplicated the offender

typology developed

under CMC.

behavior of inmates classified as Betas.7 Staff endorsed further exploration of AIMS

at AHCC. AIMS was perceived as more accurate than CMC because it provided a

profile of the inmate while incarcerated. More important, AIMS does not rely on

offender statements, but is based on both the institutional record and the officer’s

direct observation of the offender’s behavior.

Despite its preliminary success, the internal classification initiative based on AIMS

was not implemented because the offender groups identified via AIMS duplicated

the offender typology developed under CMC. Completion of AIMS checklists

essentially doubled the staff’s workload without providing additional information.

Therefore, a Phase III followup site visit was not conducted.

Ultimately, CMC was preferred to AIMS because it provided more direct input into

the development of case management plans. AHCC staff also observed that housing offenders according to their “personality” type created greater stress and disruption, particularly within the Alpha units, whereas separating high-risk offenders

tended to dilute tensions across all housing units. To date, housing, case management, and program decisions at AHCC are based on CMC. In July 1999, however,

WA DOC adopted the LSI (Level of Service Inventory) as a tool for identifying the

criminogenic needs or risk factors associated with offenders’ likelihood of recidivism (e.g., substance abuse, peer relationships, education, etc.) and to develop individualized case plans for institutional programs and transition to the community.

LSI will also be used to determine community supervision strategies and to allocate

resources among offenders.

30

Chapter 2

AIMS Test Group Control Groups

AHCC AHCC Other Facility

Long- Short- Long- Short- Long- ShortDisciplinary Term Term Term Term Term Term

Adjustment Group Group Group Group Group Group

Percentage with one 21 23 37 41 23 29

or more infractions 

during preceding year

Percentage with one 6 4 15 14 5 12

or more infractions 

during pilot test

Exhibit 8. Washington State AIMS Pilot Test Results: Comparison of

Disciplinary Infractions
Oregon Department of Corrections

As of October 1998, the Oregon Department of Corrections (OR DOC) housed

approximately 8,363 inmates in 13 facilities. Approximately 160 inmates were

housed in out-of-state facilities. Because population forecasts predict that the prison

population will more than double by 2006, the state embarked on an ambitious

prison construction program to build seven new prisons between 1997 and 2005. An

examination of the prison population by type of offense indicated that 41 percent

were convicted of offenses against persons, 29 percent for property offenses, and 31

percent for status offenses. Women comprise 11 percent of the prison population

(Oregon Department of Corrections, 1998).

OR DOC identified two facilities for its internal classification system initiative.

Initially, OR DOC identified Oregon State Correctional Institution (OSCI) as the

pilot-test facility. When NIC expressed interest in developing and pilot-testing an

internal classification process for a women’s correctional facility, OR DOC readily

agreed to expand its initiative to include the Oregon Women’s Correctional Center

(OWCC). Both facilities are located in Salem, Oregon, about 3 miles apart. Because

of the institutions’ close proximity to each other and to the department’s headquarters, a single project steering committee was organized with subcommittees to

address the specific issues for the two facilities.

Description of Pilot Sites

Oregon State Correctional Institution. The Oregon State Correctional Institution

(OSCI) is a medium-security, 840-bed facility that houses males from all counties

in Oregon serving sentences for felony convictions. The average daily population

during 1997 was 860 inmates. The facility was established by action of the 1955

Oregon state legislature and became fully operational on June 1, 1959.

Traditionally, this institution has housed younger inmates, including those remanded to adult prison from juvenile facilities.

Since the primary purpose of this facility is long-term confinement, intake and

reception activities are limited; most inmates are transferred from other OR DOC

facilities. OSCI also serves as the OR DOC facility for inmates with medical or

physical problems who do not need to be hospitalized or confined in an infirmary.

Additionally, the facility houses OR DOC’s younger inmates, including those

remanded to adult prison from juvenile facilities. Although it is a rare occurrence,

inmates are sometimes released to the community from OSCI. The types of housing within OSCI include 179 dormitory beds, 246 double cells, 124 segregation

cells (88 doubles and 36 singles), and a 64-bed special dormitory for those with

medical or physical problems.

Oregon Women’s Correctional Center. Oregon Women’s Correctional Center

(OWCC), the state’s only medium-security, adult women’s prison and the only fullservice OR DOC prison, opened in January 1965 with a design capacity of 76 beds.

Remodeling and double-bunking have expanded the capacity to 190 beds in cells

31

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives
and dormitories. It maintains a close supervision unit (North Hall), a disciplinary

segregation unit, and maximum-custody housing. It also operates as an intake

and release center for women of all custody and program levels. Inmate programs include transitional substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, selfhelp classes, educational and professional technical programs, and an assortment

of innovative industrial programs. OWCC has multiple work opportunities for all

eligible inmates.

Oregon’s Classification Process

OR DOC originally designed and validated its objective external classification system in 1989.8 The system was revalidated and amended in June 1993 and again in

October 1994. During the fall of 1997, OR DOC undertook another revalidation of

the external classification system to update its risk factors. At that time, the department specifically examined the validity of the system for female inmates. Based on

this validation effort, minor revisions to adapt the instrument for use with female

inmates took effect on May 1, 1998. The purpose of the external classification system is to identify and assign an appropriate custody level to each inmate committed

or transferred to the Department of Corrections and housed in an OR DOC-operated or contracted facility.9 The classification and transfer unit of OR DOC’s central

office is responsible for the development, implementation, training, oversight, and

management of the department’s external classification function.

OR DOC’s external classification instrument incorporates numerically weighted

public and institutional risk criteria and a scoring matrix to determine the appropriate custody level. The public risk criteria include crime severity (current offense),

extent of violence, use of weapons, history of violence, escape history, time left to

serve, and felony detainers. The institutional risk criteria include frequency of institutional misconduct, severity of institutional misconduct, primary program compliance, gang affiliation, substance abuse, and age. Based on these criteria, inmates are

classified into one of four custody levels: maximum, close, medium, or minimum.

Data to score the risk criteria are drawn from OR DOC’s computerized information

system, the presentence investigation report, rap sheets, health screening, sentencing or commitment papers, and an interview with the inmate. Results from the battery of tests completed at the inmate’s admission to OR DOC are also available.

Overrides of the proposed custody level based on the classification score are

approved in approximately 12 percent of the cases. At the OR DOC intake center,

overrides require two levels of approvals: from the unit manager and from the classification and transfer unit. Classification reviews must be approved by the program

supervisor, the unit manager, the superintendent, and the classification and transfer

unit. The most common reasons for increasing the custody level include psychological problems, time remaining to serve, and special management concerns. The

most frequently cited reasons for reducing a custody level are to allow inmates

access to prerelease programs, to allow them to participate in a work or treatment

program, or to allow them to remain in minimum custody because they are not an

apparent risk to public or institutional safety.

32

Chapter 2
Oregon’s Internal Classification Initiative

Oregon decided to participate in NIC’s internal classification initiative for the following reasons:

¢ To alleviate problems related to biased housing assignments that had led to a

lawsuit resulting in a financial award to inmates.

¢ To match inmates more effectively with jobs and programs.

¢ To improve institutional population management.

¢ To balance the operational needs of special program units with the needs and

risks of the inmate population.

¢ To develop a prototype for managing inmate populations to minimize intrafacility transfers and interfacility transports.

¢ To reduce the severity and frequency of institutional misconduct.

OR DOC envisioned an internal classification system that supported the inmates’

program and work priorities and tried to assign them cellmates who were compatible with respect to age, sentence, conduct history, and work or programs. The

underlying assumption was that if cellmates were compatible, there would be less

tension, fewer transfer requests, and fewer institutional infractions. The goal was to

develop a system for collecting, prioritizing, and monitoring inmates’ program and

work activities. These data would be used to make housing assignments that supported inmates’ individualized institutional case plans. The plan was to fully automate institutional case plans, work assignments, and program activities so the

computer could identify optimal housing, work, and program assignments for each

inmate. Although the two facilities’ current internal classification systems differed,

their goals were similar. OWCC differed slightly from OSCI in that it wanted to

integrate the external and internal classification processes into one sequential decisionmaking process.

Potential barriers to the completion of this project were overcrowding, limited

staffing resources, and setbacks in the development and implementation of the

incentive level system. Because overcrowding restricted flexibility in housing

inmates, the facilities’ ability to pilot-test the new system was limited. Traditionally,

housing assignments depended on the first available bed, rather than the optimal

slot identified by the new internal classification system. Given the already high

demands on the counselors and program staff, OWCC staff were concerned about

their ability to complete the project tasks within the period allotted by the NIC

grant. This internal classification initiative relied heavily upon the development and

implementation of the incentive level system. Thus, delays or barriers encountered

by this process would likely hamper the internal classification initiative.

33

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives

OR DOC envisioned

an internal classification system that supported the inmates’

program and work

priorities and tried to

assign them cellmates

who were compatible

with respect to age,

sentence, conduct

history, and work

or programs.
One primary task was to identify the issues and concerns associated with the development of the internal classification system. Their discussions centered on the following questions:

¢ Can any internal classification system work effectively in a department suffering from overcrowding?

¢ Does a system like AIMS or PMS that separates “aggressors” from “victims”

really improve the security and resource utilization of the facilities?

¢ Where does housing “compatibility” fit into the internal classification system?

¢ What resources and training are necessary to adopt an internal classification

system?

¢ Could an internal classification system make it harder to fill minimum-custody

beds?

¢ Where does facility architecture figure into the internal classification system?

The steering committee summarized their ideal system as one that was—

¢ Dynamic—the system should reflect changes in the inmate’s performance.

¢ Consolidated—the system should link existing fragments of information into

a concise format.

¢ Efficient—the system should improve safety, security, and the utilization of

resources.

¢ Valid and Defensible—the system should place inmates appropriately and

withstand court review.

¢ Individualized—the system should provide flexibility for “special management” cases.

¢ Simple—the system should not be overly complex and must be user friendly

for all staff.

¢ Compatible—the system should complement the current external classification instruments.

¢ Flexible—the system should operate effectively in a variety of facilities.

¢ Useful—the system should provide input to work and program assignments.

¢ Improved—the system should incorporate the strengths of the current housing

process while correcting its deficiencies.

34

Chapter 2
To achieve these objectives, the steering committee concluded that a customized

system, rather than a modification of an existing system (e.g., AIMS or PMC), was

preferred. Although a single steering committee directed this initiative, the differences in the design of the respective facilities and the differing risks and needs

posed by male and female inmate populations led the two facilities to undertake

separate design processes.

OWCC Internal Classification Design Process. A preliminary step in developing

the prototype system at OWCC was a survey of the inmates regarding the factors

that they perceived to be important for cellmate “compatibility.” This survey indicated that the most critical factors for women were age, education, participation in

treatment, misconduct record, time to serve, number of visitors, criminal history,

and hobbies.

Building on these data, several prototype instruments were developed and rejected

because the large number of variables, categories within variables, and the possible

combinations of variables and categories meant that there were too few inmates per

profile to provide sufficient latitude in making housing decisions. This issue was

resolved by reducing the number of classification criteria. The OWCC prototype

instrument considered age, institutional misconduct, time remaining to serve,

external custody level, incentive level,10 needs assessment, gang affiliation, relationships, and programs. These factors were cross-tabulated into grids that identified the inmate’s housing “type.” The most critical factor was incentive level. No

deviation up or down was permitted; all cellmates were to have identical incentive

levels. In the areas of “age/disciplinary reports” and “sentence/custody,” deviations up or down one score were assumed not to affect the roommates’ compatibility. A “treatment/program needs” factor was used to differentiate among

inmates with identical scores. The assumption was that inmates with similar needs

were more compatible.

For the OWCC pilot test, all assignments during October 1998 that resulted in twoperson cell combinations were scored according to the prototype instrument. A total

of 157 assignments were considered, 42 of which resulted in two-person combinations. The results indicated that only 10 percent of long-term or initial housing

assignments were compatible for all factors on the prototype instrument. Based on

these preliminary results, OWCC concluded that the system was feasible in that it

was easily scored and compatible cellmates could be identified.

Beginning in December 1998, the H Unit of Eastern Oregon Correctional

Institution (EOCI) opened as a female housing unit. Because EOCI’s housing configuration and level of services were similar to those of OWCC, a full-scale pilot

test of the prototype system was designed. For this pilot test, half of the inmates

were assigned according to the prototype instrument and the remainder were

assigned randomly to any available cell. The prototype internal classification system was implemented in December 1998 for the female population at EOCI’s H

35

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives
Although separate

systems were originally developed

for male and female

inmates, with the

automation of the

internal classification

system and its implementation in March

2000, the same system is now used for

males and females

alike.

Unit. In February 1999, the system was implemented at OWCC. Between February

1999 and March 2000, the instrument underwent the following modifications:

¢ Incentive level (IL) was removed as an element of the model because roommate

compatibility and IL did not appear to be correlated. In addition, IL had not

been automated and was subject to frequent changes.

¢ A grid of six categories for major acts of misconduct during the past year and

sentence remaining was built into the instrument to better reflect the misconduct

patterns of the female offenders. (See Exhibit 9.)

¢ Age by misconduct categories were replaced with more stringent categories for

misconduct per time remaining to serve. Age alone appeared to be the most

important of all housing criteria; age by misconduct categories produced “false”

matches.

¢ Custody level was eliminated, as it was essentially duplicated by the other elements of the model.

Using these modifications, the system has been automated so that the computer

searches the database to identify the optimal matches among the cells available

within the facility. Exhibit 10 shows sample output from the automated internal

classification system. Eight potential matches were identified for inmate Hardyman.

The optimal match is inmate Suguwara, because both the age and combined SR/DR

factors are identical. Prior to making a final assignment, however, relationships and

conflicts with other inmates (e.g., gang membership, codefendants, etc.), medical

status, previous housing history, inmate incarceration and transition plans, interactions with staff; and public information are also considered. After considering these

factors, inmate Kossa is determined to be a potential optional cellmate.

36

Chapter 2

Major Acts of Sentence Remaining (in years)

Misconduct in Past Year 

(number of incidents) <1 1–2 2–3 3–5 5–10 10–20 20+

0 1 1 3 11 12 19 20

1 2 2 3 11 13 19 21

2 2 4 4 12 13 20 21

3 6 6 8 15 16 23 24

4 7 7 8 15 16 23 25

5+ 8 9 9 16 17 24 26

Exhibit 9. Sentence Disciplinary Grid for Oregon Internal

Classification System 
Although separate systems were originally developed for male and female inmates,

with the automation of the internal classification system and its implementation in

March 2000, the same system is now used for males and females alike. Although it

is still too early to assess the impact of the internal classification system on the male

facilities, initial reports from the facilities have been positive.

As of March 2000, the results from the use of the internal classification system at

the female facilities were quite promising. Since the pilot tests in February 1999, the

internal classification system was manually implemented and tracked at EOCI and

OWCC. The key findings from this first year were reductions in the numbers of

major acts of misconduct filed, inmates placed in the segregation unit, and housing

assignment transfers.

37

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives

Offender: 11763831 Hardyman, Patricia L.

List Openings In: SRCI, Snake River Correction Institution

Location: SRCI Cell Number: DSB18A Major RV–1 Year: 1

Max Incarc. Date: 10/30/04 PRD: 10/30/04 Sent. Remaining: 5

Gang: Crip Northside 72nd DR/SR Score: 11

Birthdate: 12/10/77 Age Score: 2

Position to age score:_____ SRDR score:____

Enter option.....2=Assign bunk

OPT ID NBR NAME CELL AGE SR DR COMB GANG

____ 11763831 Hardyman, Patricia DSBA 22 2 5 11 Crip

____ 12310363 Dedel, Kelly 1E25B 21 2 4 11

____ 12357722 Kossa, Susan 2C37A 22 2 4 11

2 11875757 Suguwara, Stephanie 2J37B 21 2 5 11 Crip

____ 11929741 Ceridini, Ophelia 2J31A 22 2 7 13

____ 12565117 Capik, Deborah 1A23B 29 2 6 9

____ 8896693 Tribble, Cassandra 3B24A 30 3 5 9 Hisp.

____ 12309472 Hale, Jacqueline 1A12B 31 3 4 11

Information 

Windows: R Relationships/Conflicts H Housing History

X Medical I IIP Inmate Incarceration Plan

C Counselor chronos P Public Information

Exhibit 10. Oregon Corrections Information Systems, Recommended

Inmate Cell Mates

The key findings

from this first year

were reductions in

the numbers of major

acts of misconduct

filed, inmates placed

in the segregation

unit, and housing

assignment transfers.
The system’s built-in

reliability is one of its

greatest assets.

Use of the objective internal classification system (ICS) resulted in a 30-percent

reduction in the number of institutional acts of misconduct among the female population since its implementation in February 1999. Before ICS, there were an average of 50.42 major misconduct reports issued per month. After ICS was established,

the 12-month average was 34.67 per month.

Before February 1999, between 10 and 15 percent of the total OWCC population

was in the segregation housing unit. Since implementation of ICS, the percentage

of OWCC inmates placed in segregation has remained below 7 percent. A longer

term analysis of this population is required, however; inmates are transferred to segregation at OWCC from other facilities. The percentage of the EOCI population in

segregation has remained low, approximately 5 percent of the population.

Unfortunately, there are no baseline data with which to compare this figure.

An analysis of the number of noninitial transfers to and from two-person cells at

OWCC after implementation of ICS indicated a sharp drop. Between September

1998 and February 1999, there were an average of 138 cell transfers per month.

With the implementation of ICS in February 1999, the average number of OWCC

noninitial cell transfers per month has dropped to 87, a decrease of 37 percent. With

this drop in cell transfers, there has been a 400-percent increase in the length of time

OWCC inmates have remained with the current cellmate.

EOCI noninitial transfers during the first 6 months after ICS was implemented

dropped from 41 to 24 percent of the population per month. This rate is expected to

continue to decrease because the initial process of filling H Unit is complete and,

therefore, fewer transfers are required for the regular management of the dorm.

These data suggest that ICS has achieved the goals set forth by the steering committee. The system appears to be flexible and easy to use in that “matches” are readily identified through the automated program, major disciplinary infractions have

dropped significantly (by 30 percent), and the number of cell transfers has dropped

dramatically. Another important outcome was that the number of OWCC inmates

placed in disciplinary segregation dropped by 40 percent. It is important to note that

this system is completely void of subjectivity; the data required to “match” the

inmates are contained with the department’s information system. The system’s

built-in reliability is one of its greatest assets.

As of March 2000, automation and full implementation across the department has

been accomplished. Research and evaluation of the system will continue and

changes will be made as necessary.

OSCI Internal Classification Design Process

Although OWCC and OSCI took different tracks in designing and testing their

respective internal classification systems, the results were very similar. The most

critical issue addressed by the OSCI model was the number of inmate-initiated

“convenience” moves. Between September 1997 and September 1998, there were

38

Chapter 2
9,400 in-house convenience moves among the OSCI population. OSCI identified

five specific goals and objectives for its model:

¢ Reduce convenience moves and use assignment office staff more efficiently;

¢ Increase cell compatibility among inmates;

¢ Offer an incentive for all inmates to work and participate in programs;

¢ Enhance program compliance; and

¢ Reduce institutional misconduct.

The specific factors identified by OSCI to be included in the model were (in order

of priority):

¢ Inmate incentive level—cellmates must be housed within one incentive level.

¢ Age—cellmates must be within 5 years of age.

¢ Custody—cellmates must be within one custody level (up or down).

¢ Gang affiliation—if an inmate is a recognized gang member, he will not be

housed with any other known gang member.

The sophistication of OR DOC’s database made it possible to simulate the search

for compatible inmates based on the number of matches of these criteria. The simulation database included a random sample of 200 inmates housed in OSCI on

October 23, 1998. The simulation query was designed to identify the number of

matches, or potential placements, for a given inmate. For example, when a query on

the State Identification Number for an inmate was submitted, a list of potential cell

locations for housing the inmate was produced. As in OWCC’s internal classification system, incentive level was originally the most critical housing assignment factor, although OSCI’s standard was more flexible (within one incentive level). Thus,

the query was designed to select the “best” matches, as well as other acceptable

matches, to maximize flexibility and minimize the number of transfers required to

house any one inmate. The incentive-level criterion could not be violated, but

matches were acceptable if one of the other assignment factors was violated.

These simulations indicated that multiple potential cellmates could be readily identified for each inmate. This suggested that the model was sufficiently flexible to

meet the identified goals and objectives. Even with this success, several tasks and

barriers prohibited full implementation. These included—

¢ Full automation of the model into the OR DOC information system; unlike the

female population, the OSCI population is too large to manage manually.

39

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives
¢ Full implementation of the incentive level system, the key internal classification housing factor, had not been completed by OR DOC. Thus, the inmate’s

incentive level had to be calculated manually, a time-consuming task for the

entire OSCI population.

¢ Reduction of the OSCI population; a more manageable number of inmates

would permit greater flexibility in the housing assignment process.

As previously indicated, although the separate systems were originally developed

for male and female inmates, with the automation of ICS and its implementation in

March 2000, the same system is used for both males and females. Although it is still

quite early to assess its impact on the male population, initial reports from the facilities have been positive.

Florida Department of Corrections

The Florida Department of Corrections (FL DOC) is one of the largest adult criminal justice systems in the country. As of April 1999, it had approximately 64,700

offenders in custody (5.3 percent of whom are women) in its 141 facilities

statewide, which include 60 major institutions, 32 community corrections centers,

5 road prisons, 32 work camps, 3 forestry camps, and 9 drug treatment centers. In

addition to these 141 facilities, there are 5 reception centers in which inmates are

classified according to their medical needs, security requirements, and work and

program eligibility (Florida Department of Corrections, 1999).

FL DOC selected the Columbia Correctional Institution (CCI) in Lake City as the

pilot facility for the internal classification system initiative for several reasons.

First, it houses a variety of inmates (close, medium, and minimum custody inmates;

violent and nonviolent inmates; and escape risks), so the sample would be generalizable to the entire FL DOC population. Second, CCI staff were familiar with the

internal classification initiative because it had served as the pilot facility in earlier

phases of the development of the FL DOC internal classification system.

Description of Pilot Site

CCI was a “quick build,” or modular, facility built in 1992. At the time of the onsite

assessment, the complex included 10 housing units of the following types:

¢ General population open-bay units (five units: A, B, C, D, and E): Each unit has

two open dormitory-type living units separated by a wall, each of which has

separate toilets and showers. Both bays are under the continuous observation of

control room staff. Inmates have access to work and program assignments outside of their living area.

¢ Secure living units/quads (two butterfly units: F and G): Housing with twoperson cells; four housing units are located in each building. Inmates have

access to work and program assignments outside of their living area.

40

Chapter 2
41

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives

¢ Close management unit (one single-cell unit: X): Inmates are housed in single

cells. There are three housing units in each building. Inmates remain in their

housing unit and do not have outside work assignments.

¢ Work-release population open-bay units: (two dormitories: J and K): Units are

located within the work camp outside the main facility and fence.

Florida’s Current External Classification Process

FL DOC has an automated, objective custody classification system implemented in

1991. The system was designed to place inmates into one of four custody levels:

minimum, medium, close, or maximum. Although the classification system appears

to be adequate, increased pressure for public safety, changes in state sentencing policies, and changes in the characteristics of the inmate population prompted the need

to revalidate the external classification system. Currently, the same nine risk factors

are considered for both initial classification and reclassification: time remaining to

the earliest release date, severity of offense, prior violent offenses, number of recent

disciplinary reports, escape history, and stability factors (age, education, and

involvement in vocational programs). In addition to these numerically scored risk

factors, three mandatory override factors are considered that preclude an inmate

from being assigned to minimum custody: active felony detainer, failure to participate in sex offender treatment, or (for inmates who are not U.S. citizens) deportation or a pending decision from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Upon an inmate’s admission to a FL DOC Reception Center, an automated case file

is built based on the rap sheet, NCIC (National Crime Information Center) report,

commitment documents, medical evaluations, county jail records, and a personal

interview. The objective classification instrument is scored automatically from

these data. A classification team makes the initial classification and program decisions within the first 30 days of admission. This process includes a second interview with the inmate, during which he receives a copy of the classification

instrument. The inmate is then transferred to a permanent facility.

On arrival at the permanent facility, a classification specialist reviews the classification instrument and program plans with the inmate. During an interview with the

inmate, internal classification placement decisions regarding work assignments,

programs, and institutional objectives are made. Once an inmate has been initially

classified at the reception center, the Reclass Custody Questionnaire (DC4–869A)

is used for all subsequent assessments. The initial and reclassification processes are

identical, but the instruments differ in that the risk factors have different weights.

Reclassifications are scheduled according to the time remaining for the inmate to

serve.

Florida’s Internal Classification Initiative

FL DOC undertook this internal classification initiative to develop an objective,

systematic process for housing the inmate population that was cost effective and

legal and that ensured community safety. The specific goals were to—

FL DOC undertook

this internal classification initiative to

develop an objective,

systematic process for

housing the inmate

population that was

cost effective and

legal and that

ensured community

safety.
¢ Develop an internal classification system that maximizes limited program dollars.

¢ Identify those inmates in greatest need and who are most likely to benefit from

program participation.

¢ Increase the safety of both staff and inmates by developing an objective, internal system to identify those inmates who need long-term confinement, such as

close management.

In 1996, FL DOC contracted with the Department of Sociology and Criminal

Justice at the University of North Florida (UNF) to develop a draft internal classification system called the Risk and Needs Model. The purpose of this system was

to establish a framework for identifying offenders’ medical, mental health, emotional, educational, vocational, drug or alcohol abuse, or any other needs in conjunction with the external classification process.

To identify effective models for separating violent inmates, the department, with the

assistance of UNF, completed a survey of FL DOC classification staff, conducted

focus groups with staff and inmates, and reviewed classification literature. Based on

the data collected and stakeholders’ expectations, a preliminary Risk and Needs

System was developed.11

During March 1997, a manual pilot test using a paper version of the Risk and Needs

instrument was conducted at the Columbia, Jefferson, Lancaster, and Marion

Correctional Institutions and the North Florida Reception Center. The results suggested that the system was useful, but required further refinement and automation.

The software automation design process indicated that, to fully integrate the internal and external classification systems and to resolve security concerns, the current

external objective classification system should be revalidated.12

The Florida internal classification system was part of a departmental initiative to

automate FL DOC’s reception, case management, and release processes. The

department intended to design an automated classification system that served the

needs of multiple system stakeholders in the following ways:

¢ For the central office and facility-based classification staff, it would assess and

group offenders according to appropriate security and custody levels.

¢ For Program and Labor Office staff, it would determine programs, services,

vocational training, educational programs, and work assignments based on the

inmate’s need and the availability of services.

¢ For Security Operations and Security Threat Group staff, it would determine

the custody level and appropriate housing placement within a facility.

42

Chapter 2
¢ For facility-based classification staff, it would schedule reviews of security,

custody, and program placement and reassess needs and progress for possible

reclassification.

¢ For probation and parole staff, it would assess inmates for placement in community transition programs.

Essential elements to the initiative’s success included time and MIS staff overload.

The deadline for systemwide implementation of the inmate Risk and Needs System was close of business on December 31, 1998. Although information management consultants had multiple, complex projects, the department gave the project

top priority.

The multiple goals and needs of the stakeholders were translated into 16 risk and

need factors:13

¢ Attitude and motivation: The inmate’s attitude and motivation toward participating in primary programs.14

¢ Restructuring potential: The inmate’s potential to benefit from primary program participation.

¢ Academic education: Academic education program needs.

¢ Vocational education: Vocational education program needs.

¢ Substance abuse: Substance abuse program needs (does not include dual diagnosis assessment).

¢ Work competency: General work assignment needs.

¢ Work release: Potential work release suitability.

¢ Outside work: Potential outside work assignment suitability.

¢ PRIDE/PIE: Potential PRIDE or PIE assignment suitability.15

¢ Custody: Inmate’s external classification (custody) risk level.

¢ Internal management: The inmate’s internal classification risk level, a composite score of the inmate’s prior institutional violence and the classification

specialist’s categorization of the inmate into one of the AIMS personality types.

¢ Outside influences: Assessment of the influences (positive and negative) that

may affect an inmate’s adjustment. Included are family relationships, concern

for children’s welfare and safety, associates or friends, intimate relationships,

enemies, attorneys or legal representatives, etc.

43

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives
The system automatically generates work

and program placement recommendations and a housing

assignment, which

can be updated by

the classification

specialist, if necessary.

The system automatically generates work

and program placement recommendations and a housing

assignment, which

can be updated by

the classification

specialist, if necessary.

¢ Housing: Internal housing recommendations by bed type (secure cell, room, or

open day dorm), based upon the inmate’s external custody level and recent

institutional misconduct.

¢ Wellness: Wellness program needs, i.e., the inmate’s need for a course in holistic living habits and positive leisure activities.

¢ Go lab/life skills: Go lab, life skills, and other selected self-betterment program needs.

¢ Transition program: Transition program participation suitability, based on the

inmate’s projected release date.

The primary components of the FL DOC internal classification system are the Risk

and Needs Instrument and the Inmate Management Plan. The Risk and Needs

Instrument (Exhibit 11) collects information about the 16 criteria listed above, as

well as information on gang membership via an interview with the inmate. The factors are rated on a scale of one to five (with five representing the greatest need)

based on the inmate’s life history, institutional adjustment, and participation in recommended programs and jobs.

The Risk and Needs interview data are integrated with the automated Offender

Based Information System (OBIS) data to form the foundation for the Inmate

Management Plan. Objective data from OBIS, the classification specialist’s observations, and the inmates’ self-reported information are combined to form a categorical score for each of the 16 risk and need factors. The Inmate Management Plan

is the means by which key classification decisions are documented and carried out.

The plan tracks the inmate’s primary work or program referrals, goals, short- and

long-term objectives, housing recommendations, and current status on each of the

risk and need categories. The system automatically generates work and program

placement recommendations and a housing assignment, which can be updated by

the classification specialist, if necessary.

The initial Risk and Needs interview is conducted by the classification specialist

during the reception process, with subsequent interviews mandated at regularly

scheduled intervals and whenever the inmate is transferred to a different facility.

Classification staff may also conduct unscheduled interviews at their discretion.

The Inmate Management Plan is updated at each reassessment and the inmate is

given a written notice of what is expected over the next 6, 12, or 24 months.

FL DOC’s internal classification initiative was quite ambitious and complex. In

addition to the “paper” pilot test at CCI, the fully automated software that generates

the 16 risk and need factor scores and recommendations was tested at 6 other FL

DOC facilities between June and September 1998. The primary purpose of the CCI

pilot-test process was to determine whether the system was user friendly and useful to the classification specialists during their regular reassessment process. The

pilot test included a presentation to CCI staff on the Risk and Needs System; hands44 on training of staff with the relevant computer screens; scoring of inmates on the

Chapter 2
45

DC# INMATE NAME DATE OF ASSESSMENT / / /

STAFF ID # STAFF SIGNATURE TIME ASSESSMENT BEGAN : 

Section I. Internal Management (IM-41) 

Complete either “A” if it is the inmate’s first plan, or “B” if the inmate has an existing plan.

A. Initial Security Threat Group Membership Identification. Initial questions designed to determine if the inmate may have

participated in gang activity. These questions are asked during the reception process or if the inmate has not previously had a

risk and needs interview. A positive response to any of the questions will result in a referral (CDC generated automatic

report) to the institutional inspector and the central office STG office.

1. Are you a member or associate of a neighborhood clique?

 A. Yes

 B. No

2. What is the name of the gang or group? 

3. What is the place of affiliation?

A. Street 

B. City 

C. State 

D. Prison 

4. What groups are allies with your group? 

5. What groups are enemies with your group? 

B. Subsequent Security Threat Group Membership Identification. Complete this section if the inmate has received at least one

risk and needs assessment interview. Your goal is to discover if the inmate has connections to gang activity or is aware

of any gang activity. You do not have to establish such a relationship as a fact. Any positive response to the questions,

indicate such, and a report will be automatically forwarded to the STG Coordinator at your facility.

1. Have you joined any groups for protection or any other reason? If yes, what is the group’s name?

2. Since you have been here, were you asked to join any group? If yes, what group?

3. Have you had problems with any group? If yes, what is the group’s name?

4. Do you know of any groups or gangs in this or any other institution? If yes, what is the group(s) name(s)?

Exhibit 11. Florida Risk and Needs Instrument
46

Section II. Outside Influences (IM42)

Your goal is to discover if the inmate has any current positive or negative influences that primarily exist beyond the correctional

environment that would affect the inmate’s behavior during incarceration.

1. Family relationships (if the inmate has no family, score 3)

 (3) A. Positive influence

 (2) B. Neutral influence

 (1) C. Negative influence

 (0) D. CRISIS—death or severe illness of immediate family member

2. Concern for children’s welfare and safety:

 (3) A. Average–normal concerns or regular contact

 (2) B. N/A–no children; little or no concern

 (1) C. High—children in foster care or living with relatives other than parent and inmate feels

children’s welfare is suspect; children living with parent, but inmate feels children’s

welfare is suspect; inmate desires contact with children but has little or no contact.

3. Intimate relationships (husband/wife, girlfriend/boyfriend):

 (3) A. Positive influence

 (2) B. Neutral influence

 (1) C. Negative influence

 (0) D. None

4. Associates/friends (influence on criminal activity—good or bad?)

 (3) A. Positive influence

 (2) B. Neutral influence

 (1) C. Negative influence

5. Enemies (outside enemies, not within the correctional system):

 (3) A. No

 (2) B. Is not sure

 (1) C. Yes

6. Attorney/Legal Representatives

Select only one of the six choices available in A–C below that best describes the inmate’s present relationship

status with legal counsel:

 (3) A. Positive relationship with legal services, private or public, meets one of the following:

l Has present involvement with outside legal services and has a positive view of assistance

l Does not have present involvement with outside legal services but has a positive view of assistance received

 (2) B. Neutral relationship with legal services, private or public, meets one of the following:

l Has present involvement with outside legal services and has a neutral view of assistance

l Does not have present involvement with outside legal services but has a neutral view of assistance received

 (1) C. Negative relationship with legal services, private or public, meets one of the following:

l Has present involvement with outside legal services and has a negative view of assistance

l Does not have present involvement with outside legal services but has a negative view of assistance received

Exhibit 11. Florida Risk and Needs Instrument (continued)
47

Section III. Attitude and Motivation (IM43)

7. Others (not meeting one of the above categories–other inmates, religious, staff, professional, etc.) If none, mark

“B” Neutral Influence.

 (3) A. Positive influence

 (2) B. Neutral influence

 (1) C. Negative influence

Your goal is to first determine the inmate’s interest in recommended programs (Question 1). If the inmate has an

interest in programs, whether recommended or not, list the inmate’s specific primary program (education,

vocation, substance abuse) preferences (Question 2). Take this opportunity to seek the inmate’s preference for work

assignments, and list those as well (Question 3). Finally, based on the overall content of the interview so far, rate

the inmate’s apparent motivation to participate in programs (Question 4). 

1. The inmate is interested in participating in:

 A. All of the possible recommended primary programs

 B. Some, but not all, of the recommended primary programs

 C. None of the recommended primary programs

 D. N/A, no primary program recommendations (or all primary programs completed)

2. If the answer to #1 is A or B, indicate the inmate’s order of preference of programs (code=course code)

1st Preference: Code 

2nd Preference: Code 

3rd Preference: Code 

3. Does the inmate have a preference of work opportunities? (code=work assignment code)

 A. Yes

1st Preference: Code 

2nd Preference: Code 

3rd Preference: Code 

 B. No Preference

 C. Does not want work assignment

4. The inmate’s interest and motivation to participate in programs, either presently recommended programs or

possibly future programs (if none are presently recommended), is rated as:

 A. Good

 B. Fair

 C. Poor

Exhibit 11. Florida Risk and Needs Instrument (continued)
48

Section IV. Internal Management–Arrest History and Assessment (IM43)

Your goal is to make an overall assessment of the inmate’s internal risk status based on the information available

and the impressions developed as a result of the personal interview and a review of the inmate record. It is noted

that this subjective assessment is only a part of the evaluation that determines the inmate’s actual IM score.

A. Violent Felony Conviction during current incarceration only. Yes or No 

The data base will suggest a “yes” or “no” entry in this field, but the CPO shall review the inmate record to

ensure the data is accurate. The CPO may place an entry in this field if the data base “suggestion” is inaccurate

by changing the Y to an N, or vice versa. For instance, the data base may suggest a “yes” because the inmate

committed a violent offense (resulting in a conviction) on the same day the inmate was received (or released).

The CPO must determine whether the offense occurred while in prison (the “yes” would remain) or on the

streets (the CPO would change the suggested “yes” to a “no.”)

B. Overall rating based on a R & N interview, your expertise in classifying inmates, review of inmate record, etc.

The interviewer shall select the score utilizing the below guidelines that most accurately describe the inmate.

Score 5 if: The inmate displayed hostile, aggressive, and/or violent behavior during the interview, or if

such behavior is documented and the inmate is resentful of rules and regulations and staff efforts to enforce

them. Inmate appears to be easily bored and attempts to create excitement. Responses to questions indicate

little concern for the feelings or welfare of others. The potential is present that disciplinary problems in an

institutional setting may occur at a higher rate than other population. Is likely to be involved in fights,

assaults, threats of bodily harm, extortion, destruction of property and possession of weapons. This

assessment does not mean that the inmate will demonstrate this behavior; however, based on this

evaluation, this score best describes the inmate’s potential behavior. 

Score 4 if: The inmate has an increased potential to be hostile to authority figure(s) by demonstrating

conning or manipulative behavior. The inmate possesses the skill to organize inmate gangs, or illicit

enterprises within the institution. Viewed by staff as being very untrustworthy and unreliable by prison

standards. Is not usually directly confrontational but tends to cause problems by operating behind the

scenes. 

Score 3 if: The inmate is worried, anxious, afraid, jittery, easily upset, and unhappy. Appears sad,

depressed and tense. Is easily preyed upon by others. High potential to be influenced by others even

though is responsible for his/her actions. Usually does not have a high rate of disciplinary reports.

Score 2 if: The inmate appears withdrawn, passive, sluggish, and gives the impression of being

unconcerned, friendless, indecisive, and submissive. Can be viewed as demanding (verbal), whining, 

and clinging. Usually does not have a high rate of disciplinary reports. 

Score 1 if: The inmate is not excessively dependent, although the experience of being in prison may 

be demoralizing to him/her. Normally does not have an extensive criminal history and does not see 

himself/herself as a criminal. Is rarely involved in assaults, fights, threats, or extortion within the

institutional setting. Usually has a very low rate of disciplinary reports. 

Exhibit 11. Florida Risk and Needs Instrument (continued)
49

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives

Risk and Needs Instrument to update the qualitative factors according to their

progress, attitudes, and institutional adjustment; and structured feedback sessions,

during which staff identified the system’s strengths and weaknesses.16 An important

element of the pilot test was the participation of the computer software designers.

As problems with the screens were identified, the programmers updated the software and addressed coding errors. The pilot test also provided ample opportunity

for staff input into the design and refinement of the instrument.

Based on the observations and feedback from CCI staff, FL DOC concluded the

following:

¢ The Risk and Needs System provided an objective tool for making internal

classification decisions—housing, work and program assignments—yet was

flexible enough to permit individual decisions according to the characteristics

of a particular facility.

¢ The automated system was relatively easy to learn and use. It also saved time

and effort by providing an immediate electronic record of the Inmate

Management Plan.

¢ Resistance was inevitable because the system required changes in multiple divisions and disciplines across the department (e.g., programs, security, and classification).

¢ The system will provide the platform for other process improvements, such as

revision of the external classification system and automated progress reports.

¢ The system will provide a method of evaluating inmates’ performance in

achieving their restructuring goals as well as a means for evaluating the department’s ability to place inmates according to their needs and risk.

The Risk and Needs System was just one component of the FL DOC’s Strategic

Plan for 1998–2003. To assess its impact on FL DOC, a series of analyses were conducted based on Risk and Needs assessments completed between October 1998 and

October 1999, the first year of use of the Risk and Needs System. Data were

assessed according to the four key goals identified by FL DOC at the outset of this

initiative. These goals are listed below. In addition, data were compiled to assess the

system’s reliability. The results of these analyses suggested that the Risk and Needs

System had been implemented successfully.

Goal 1: Identify disruptive inmates utilizing objective, inmate behavior based

data. 

Objective 1–1: Use the Risk and Needs to score all inmates. A review of the offender profiles indicated that as of October 31, 1999, approximately 95 percent of the

FL DOC incarcerated population had been assessed according to the Risk and

Needs System. Most of those not assessed were males within close management or

on work release. Because the classification officers were not required to “score”

An important element of the pilot test

was the participation

of the computer

software designers.
50

Chapter 2

close-management inmates unless they were to be reassigned, it appeared that the

system had been fully implemented.

Goal 2: Maintain safe and secure environment for FL DOC staff and inmates.

Objective 2–1: Reduce inmate violent and disruptive behavior. To determine whether

implementing the Risk and Needs System had reduced institutional violence, the

levels of disciplinary infractions among inmates were compared within each housing type before and after inmates were placed according to the Risk and Needs housing recommendation. As Exhibit 12 suggests, the results were somewhat mixed.17 It

appeared that for high-risk inmates placed in a secured cell or room, disciplinary

infractions decreased under the Risk and Needs System. For those inmates placed

in an open bay or special housing, however, infractions increased. Comparisons

between inmates who were placed according to the housing recommendation and

those who were not showed that disciplinary infractions increased by 11 percent

among inmates who were placed according to the housing recommendation. These

data suggest that the Risk and Needs System correctly identified the most aggressive inmates and provided for their placement in more secure housing, such as a

room or secure cell. The increase in the disciplinary infractions among inmates

placed in an open bay, however, suggests the need for special analysis of those

inmates whose institutional misconduct increased after assessment to determine

whether the system should be refined to better identify inmates suitable for dorms.

The data also suggest a need to consider the staffing and supervision patterns for

inmates placed in special housing because disciplinary infractions increased dramatically among these inmates.

Housing Number Pre-Assessment Post-Assessment Percent

Assignment of Inmates INDI INDI Change

Special

Housing 1,390 24 31 29

Open Bay 8,444 26 30 15

Room 631 38 35 –8

Secured Cell 5,007 52 46 –12

Bed Not

Found 590 28 28 0

Total 16,062 34.95 35.43 1

Exhibit 12. Institutional Disciplinary Index (INDI) by Housing Assignment
Goal 3: Assign inmates to housing, work, and programming based upon their

risk, needs, and time to serve.

Objective 3–1: Assignment of inmates to housing, work, and program slots according to Risk and Need recommendations. A key goal for the Risk and Needs System

was to identify housing, work, and program assignments for inmates based on their

risk, needs, and time to serve. The first analysis focused upon the rate at which

inmates were housed according to the Risk and Needs housing assignment. During

the first year, 63.3 percent of the inmates were placed in the recommended type of

housing. Twenty-one percent (20.6 percent) were not placed, even though the recommended bed type was available. Another 12 percent were not placed because the

bed type was not available.18 Less than 1 percent (0.5 percent) were not placed in the

recommended type of housing due to discretionary management decisions. These

data suggested that most inmates were placed in the recommended housing type if

the bed space was available. The low rate of discretionary overrides suggested that

staff were comfortable with the system’s recommendations. Separate analyses of the

data by gender indicated more women (77 percent) than men (63 percent) were

placed in the recommended housing type (see Exhibit 13). When inmates were not

placed in the recommended housing type, it was usually because the bed type was

not available within the system.

To determine whether inmates were assigned to work and programming slots

according to the recommendations generated by the Risk and Needs System, the

actual work and program assignments were crosstabulated with the inmates’ first

recommendations.

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding.

Housing Males Females Total

Placement Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Met placement 24,350 62.5 1,722 76.8 26,072 63.3

Did not meet 8,267 21.2 212 9.5 8,479 20.6

placement

Community 1,646 4.2 2 0.1 1,648 4.0

No bed type 4,501 11.6 299 13.3 4,800 11.7

Discretionary 187 0.5 8 0.4 195 0.5

decision

Total 38,951 100.0 2,243 100.0 41,194 100.0

Exhibit 13. Housing Placement Results by Gender

51

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives
52

Chapter 2

Exhibit 14 illustrates that 93 percent of male inmates whose first recommendation

was work were assigned to a job. If the recommendation was for school, alcohol, or

vocational programming, however, the recommendation was not likely to be met. In

contrast, women who were recommended for programming were somewhat more

likely to be assigned to the appropriate program. It also appeared that there were

fewer work assignments for the women; only 85 percent of women whose first recommendation was work were assigned to a job.

Exhibit 15 illustrates that 74 percent of those inmates not assigned to work or a program according to their first recommendation received their second or third recommendation. The discretionary override rate (14 percent) among males suggested that

staff had confidence in the work and programming recommendations generated by

the Risk and Needs System, but among female inmates, the override rate was high

(28 percent). Further review of the data suggested that most of these were overrides

to work assignments. This, again, may indicate a shortage of appropriate programming slots. FL DOC may want to analyze the fit between the programming, vocational, and work slots available and the women’s needs.

Goal 4: Achieve consistency in housing and program recommendations. A fundamental question addressed by the assessment of the Risk and Needs System was the

reliability of the housing, programming, and work recommendations. Although the

Risk and Needs recommendations were based primarily on objective quantitative

data, subjective assessments by classification counselors and self-reported data from

inmates were also considered. In addition, discretionary overrides were permitted. To

assess the inter-rater reliability of the recommendations, the initial assessments completed at the reception center were compared with full assessments completed by the

classification staff at the long-term housing facility within 21 days of the inmate’s arrival. This was not an ideal test of the system’s reliability because new or different information may have been available to the classification staff at the receiving facility.

Program Males Females Total

Placement Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Substance 1,487 21.0 64 19.8 1,551 20.9

abuse

School 478 18.1 50 27.0 528 18.7

Vocational 17 7.2 15 27.3 32 11.0

Work 26,929 92.9 1,420 84.5 28,349 92.5

Total 28,911 74.2 1,549 69.1 30,460 73.9

Exhibit 14. Program Placement According to First Recommended Assignment
53

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives

As shown in Exhibit 16, the recommendations generated by the long-term housing

facility staff were consistent with those generated at the reception center for most

Risk and Needs items. A few key items were problematic; for example, the reliability ratings for the internal management and housing placement recommendations

were low. Housing recommendations generated by the reception center staff were

consistent with those of the long-term facility staff approximately 80 percent of the

time. This suggests that for 20 percent of the inmates, facility staff disagreed with the

reception center staff as to whether the inmate should be housed in a dormitory,

room, or secure cell. Even more troubling was the low rate of agreement between the

reception center staff and long-term housing staff regarding the offenders’ internal

management needs. These data suggest that FL DOC should review the scoring for

the items on which the rate of agreement was less than 85 percent, provide additional staff training, and develop specific instructions for the items that require subjective

ratings.

New Jersey Department of Corrections

The New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJ DOC) has jurisdiction over approximately 29,000 adult offenders serving sentences of longer than 1 year and supervises approximately 14,000 parolees. From 1980 to 1998, the correctional

population increased by more than 400 percent and the parole population doubled.

NJ DOC has 14 institutions spread throughout the state: two high maximum security, two maximum/medium security, eight medium/minimum security, one

medium/minimum security facility for females. NJ DOC also has one central reception unit for adult and young adult male offenders, and separate reception centers

Program Males Females Total

Placement Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Met 2nd 8,293 61.1 482 51.2 8,775 60.4

recommendation

Met 3rd 1,837 13.5 107 11.4 1,944 13.4

recommendation

Did not meet 1,603 11.8 93 9.9 1,696 11.7

recommendations

Discretionary 1,849 13.6 260 27.6 2,109 14.5

override

Total 13,582 100.0 942 100.0 14,524 100.0

Exhibit 15. Program Placement According to Second or Third

Recommended Assignment

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding.
for female offenders and sex offenders, respectively. Most of these facilities are

operating at 40 percent above capacity.

In 1998, approximately 41 percent of all adult inmates were incarcerated for violent offenses, 21 percent were incarcerated for nonviolent offenses, and 33 percent

were incarcerated for drug-related offenses. (For the remaining 5 percent, offenses

were not coded.) Ninety percent of NJ DOC inmates had at least one arrest before

the current offense, 50 percent had previously been incarcerated in the NJ DOC system, and 50 percent had been on parole. Three-quarters of the inmate population

had a history of substance abuse. Almost half of NJ DOC inmates had been

sentenced to a term of 5 years or less. Inmates sentenced to terms greater than or

54

Chapter 2

Exhibit 16. Percent Agreement Between Reception Center and Facility Staff

on Risk and Needs Items

Risk and Needs Item Percent Agreement

Substance abuse 90.96

Vocational 81.13

Education 88.05

Outside work assignment 74.62

PRIDE/PIE 90.01

Restructure priority 82.00

Transit assistance program 89.46

Work competency 88.02

Wellness measure 93.26

Associates and friends 46.57

Child welfare and safety 71.49

Enemies 75.95

Family relationships 75.02

Intimate relationships 57.07

Legal representation 49.34

Other points 52.47

Life skills 97.11

Internal housing placement 79.62

Internal management 54.06
55

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives

equal to 11 years constituted 26 percent of the inmate population. One-quarter of

all NJ DOC inmates were classified as maximum or close custody (this includes

administrative segregation, gang units, protective custody, and the management

control unit). Minimum custody inmates made up 36 percent of the department’s

secure facility population.

Since 1993, NJ DOC has undertaken several initiatives to improve the practical utility, quality, accuracy, and objectivity of its inmate classification system. In addition,

NJ DOC has improved its automated data systems and offender tracking systems to

ensure that comprehensive and reliable inmate data are available at the facility level.

Before this project, NJ DOC relied on subjective evaluations of offenders’ risk to

the safety and security of the operation of the facility to make housing, job, and program assignments. While the individual or group responsible for making work and

program assignments varies by institution, in most facilities, an institutional classification committee (ICC) assesses inmate needs and makes job and program assignments. In general, housing decisions are made by the ICC, although housing

assignments are made according to job or program assignments in several institutions. Recognizing the shortcomings of a subjective system and the significant benefits of a research-based objective classification system, NJ DOC sought to develop

and implement an objective internal classification system. The goals of the NJ DOC

internal classification initiative were to—

¢ Identify inmates appropriate for placement in therapeutic communities;

¢ Develop a mental health treatment program for emotionally disturbed and

developmentally disabled inmates;

¢ Provide security and safety for both staff and inmates through assigning

inmates to appropriate housing units;

¢ Establish additional inmate work opportunities so that as many inmates as possible are occupied in meaningful daily job assignments;

¢ Effectively integrate the inmate population with housing, education, and work

opportunities; and

¢ Monitor the inmate population for gang-related or regionally based negative

activity.

At the onset of the initiative, NJ DOC considered using a modified AIMS system

to classify the entire inmate population and identified the Garden State Correctional

Center (GSCC) as the pilot facility. GSCC is a treatment-focused, medium-security

facility that provides comprehensive substance abuse treatment services to approximately 1,200 inmates. Implementing the modified AIMS system would help identify those inmates with substance abuse problems who were appropriate for housing

in the modified therapeutic community setting. As discussed in earlier sections of

this report, the AIMS system requires that case managers be familiar with the
behavior and personalities of the inmates on their caseload and be able to translate

that knowledge to behavioral and trait checklists. The NJ DOC administration

believed that the correctional officers’ union would argue that such requirements

were beyond the scope of work identified in their current contracts and would

strongly resist the implementation of AIMS. As a result, NJ DOC redefined the

scope of the classification project to focus on a smaller segment of the inmate population, those inmates classified as maximum custody.

Maximum custody inmates are held in three facilities in New Jersey: Northern State

Prison (NSP), East Jersey State Prison (EJSP), and New Jersey State Prison (NJSP).

Two samples of inmates were selected from these three facilities to pilot-test an

internal classification instrument that would distinguish among levels of aggression. NJ DOC’s intent was to identify inmates with high aggression levels for housing in a self-contained unit that would provide both heightened security and

appropriate programming and work opportunities.

Description of the Pilot Site

The pool of offenders eligible for the maximum custody, high-aggression housing

unit was distributed across the three facilities. The original plan included the transfer of highly aggressive inmates to a special housing unit at NSP, a 10-year-old,

maximum/high-medium security facility with a rated capacity of 3,000 inmates.

Not only does the facility operate general population programs, administrative segregation, and a gang unit, but it also houses minimum custody inmates and operates

a regional halfway house outside of the perimeter fence. The Echo and Foxtrot

housing units were targeted for housing highly aggressive inmates. The NSP population was distributed across the following custody levels: 13 percent maximum, 19

percent close, 37 percent medium, and 31 percent minimum.

New Jersey’s Current Classification Process

In 1994, NJ DOC developed an objective external classification system based on

the NIC model. This system, which was implemented throughout the department in

1995, had a profound and positive impact on the assessment and assignment of

inmates to an appropriate custody level and facility. Staff and inmate acceptance of

the external classification system remains high and the objective system has been

supported by concrete operational and policy revisions. The successful implementation of this system encouraged the expansion of the concept of objective classification to the facility level.

Inmates are received and assessed at the Central Reception and Assignment Facility

on external criteria (i.e., involvement with the criminal justice system, history of

escape, use of alcohol and drugs, age, education, and employment). Inmates are

assigned to maximum, close, medium, gang minimum, minimum, or community

custody levels.

56

Chapter 2
57

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives

Empirical research has demonstrated that the classification system has effectively

reduced the overclassification of inmates, institutional violence, and walkaways

from minimum-security facilities (New Jersey Department of Corrections, 1997).

Given its success in implementing the external classification system, NJ DOC was

encouraged to pursue an internal classification system to assist in the assignment of

inmates within facilities.

New Jersey’s Internal Classification Initiative

NJ DOC’s internal classification process relies on the subjective decisionmaking

efforts of NJ DOC staff to make appropriate assignments for housing, work, and

programs. In most institutions, an ICC assesses the needs of each inmate and makes

assignments to treatment programs and work details. As previously noted, NJ DOC

originally considered implementing a modified AIMS system to classify all of the

inmates currently housed in secure settings. Significant resistance was anticipated

from the correctional officers’ union to the training and administration of AIMS. As

a result, NJ DOC revised its strategy and considered an alternative objective system

for housing decisions. Thus, NJ DOC began to develop an internal classification

model that would distinguish among groups of maximum custody inmates with differing levels of aggression to make safe and appropriate housing assignments within maximum security facilities. The plan was to house highly aggressive inmates at

a special unit at the NSP.

Upon refining the direction of the initiative and obtaining the commitment of the

newly appointed NJ DOC commissioner, an Internal Classification Review

Committee Task Force was formed. The task force was charged with developing a

statement of purpose and a strategic plan for implementing the internal classification system departmentwide. A project team was also identified to coordinate the

pilot testing and to revise the classification instruments accordingly. The goals of

the NJ DOC internal classification model were to—

¢ Separate highly aggressive, maximum custody inmates from maximum-custody

inmates with moderate or low levels of aggression.

¢ Relocate all highly aggressive, maximum custody inmates to one facility, if

possible.

¢ Provide appropriate housing, work, and treatment programs in a specialized

housing unit for this subset of the maximum custody population.

Using the instrument shown in Exhibit 17, inmates were identified as having high,

moderate, or low levels of aggression. The profiles for the inmates within the

respective levels were defined as follows:

¢ Highly aggressive inmates are those with a recent institutional history of

aggressive, violent, or confrontational behavior. These inmates tend to be

younger and generally have been convicted of, or have past histories of, violent

offenses. They are characterized as predators and “visible agitators.”
58

Chapter 2

¢ Moderately aggressive inmates have less severe recent histories of violent or

aggressive institutional conduct. These inmates do not permit others to take

advantage of them. They may have a history or current sentence for a violent

offense, but generally behave in a manner that would not threaten their potential return to society.

¢ Inmates classified as having low aggression have very limited or nonexistent

histories of aggressive institutional misconduct. Usually older inmates, these

offenders generally avoid confrontation and serve their sentence as quietly as

possible. 

As shown in Exhibit 17, the NJ DOC Internal Classification Instrument is a behaviorbased instrument that combines scores on current and past criminal involvement,

indicators of institutional adjustment, and more specific ratings of aggressive disciplinary infractions. The specific items are current offense involving violence, age,

prior assaults, failure to adjust to minimum or medium custody during the past 2

years, number of disciplinary reports in the past 2 years, and administrative segregation placement in the past 2 years. A catalog of specific disciplinary infractions

categorizes the reports into highest, high, and moderate severity levels and time

since release from management control unit.

Scores on all items are tallied to indicate a scored aggression level of low (zero to

6 points), moderate (7 to 11 points) or high (12 or more points). For several reasons,

the classification officer may recommend a different aggression level than what is

scored. All such recommendations are reviewed by the ICC for a final decision.

Acceptable override justifications include the following:

¢ A field account of the offense that indicates a higher level of predatory behavior than that indicated on the report.

¢ The inmate’s prior criminal record.

¢ The inmate’s history of correctional facility adjustment.

¢ Reports from professional or custody staff.

An override may also be recommended for reasons relating to the best interest of

the inmate or to the safe, orderly operation of the department or correctional facility. These justifications must be properly documented to move the offender to a

higher aggression level. Conversely, an inmate’s scored aggression level may be

reduced upon a review of these same factors, again with proper documentation.

Several policies were developed to support the implementation of the system. Once

an aggression level has been scored, these policies guide the placement of an inmate

in an appropriate housing unit.
59

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives

¢ Medium custody inmates will be housed only with maximum custody inmates

with moderate or low aggression levels.

¢ Maximum custody inmates with low aggression levels may be housed in maximum, close, or medium security facilities.

¢ High-aggression housing units will assist in maintaining the integrity of the

current system for processing “Keep Separates.”

¢ Inmates in administrative segregation will be classified before their release and

appropriately housed according to the scored aggression level.

¢ Calculations for the aggressive disciplinary infraction table on the instrument

should be based on the date of the inmate’s release from administrative

segregation.

Before release from the management control unit (MCU) or the final phase of the

gang unit (STGMU), inmates will be classified by aggression level. Any inmate

who scored in the medium custody level or below on the external classification

instrument and scores as highly aggressive will receive an automatic override to

maximum custody on the external classification instrument:

¢ For non-STGMU inmates, gang-related activity that did not result in a disciplinary infraction will not be scored on the internal classification instrument.

¢ Inmates who are classified as maximum custody at the reception unit will be

further classified according to their aggression level before any institutional

assignment.

¢ If inmates return to a maximum security facility within 2 years of release, their

prior institutional history will be considered in the internal classification scoring process. This applies to parole, maximum release dates, or any other type

of release from custody.

¢ Disciplinary records are considered for 2 years from the date of the most recent

internal classification.

¢ All maximum custody inmates will be scored yearly or on release from a closed

unit.

¢ Programs will be available for highly aggressive inmates, who will be housed

separately in highly structured units and have restrictions on work details.

The initial pilot test of this instrument included a sample of 235 cases selected randomly from the NSP, EJSP, and NJSP populations. The mean aggression score was

8.11 overall, with individual facility means ranging from 7.09 at EJSP to 11.77 at

NSP, all within the moderate aggression level range. The distribution of inmates by

aggression level was as follows: low, 44 percent; moderate, 36 percent; and high,
60

Interview Date / / / Current Facility: 

Inmate’s Name: Number: 

Current Custody Status: Age: Transferred From: 

Review Number: Current Internal Classification Status (if applicable): 

Section I.

Criminal and Background Factors

a. Current Offense Involving Violence

Served less than 3 years = 6 pts.

Served 3 to 5 years = 4 pts.

Served more than 5 years = 2 pts.

None = 0 pts. 

b. Age

Under age 26 = 3 pts.

Age 26 to 39 = 1 pts.

Over age 39 = 0 pts.

c. Prior Assaultive Offenses

More than 1 = 4 pts.

One = 2 pts.

None = 0 pts.

Section I Subtotal 

Section II.

Institutional Adjustment

1. Failure to Adjust to Min/Med Custody During Past 2 Years

If the failure is the result of a disciplinary report for assault, score 

3pts., and score 2 pts. for fighting infractions. All other aggressive

infractions score 1 pt. If there is no failure, score 0.

2. Number of Disciplinary Reports Within Past 2 Years

5 or more = 3 pts.

3 to 4 = 2 pts.

2 or less = 0 (if within the past 6 months = 1)

3. Ad Seg Placement Within Past 2 Years

Indicate whether Ad Seg placement has occurred for the offenses

listed on the Aggressive Infraction Table. Calculate total points

using the appropriate weights for each offense and time frame 

shown in each cell of the table.

Exhibit 17. NJDOC Internal Classification Form: Maximum Security Facilities
61

AGGRESSIVE INFRACTION RATING

ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION DAYS

Incident Time Frame 30–90 days 90–180 days 181+ days

Last 12 mo. 13–24 mo. Last 12 mo. 13–24 mo. Last 12 mo. 13–24 mo.

Highest 6 4 8 6 10 8

High 4 2 6 4 8 6

Moderate 2 0 4 2 6 4

4. Released from MCU 

Within past year = 9 pts.

One to two years = 4 pts.

Over two years or N/A = 0 pts.

Section II Subtotal

Section I Subtotal

TOTAL SCORE

ASSESSED CLASSIFICATION LEVEL

A. Scored Aggression Level Low Moderate High

(circle one) 0–6 pts. 7–11 pts. 12+ pts.

B. Recommended Aggression Level Low Moderate High

(circle one)

Scored By: Date / / /

C. Override Reasons: 

D. Assigned Level Low Moderate High

E. ICC Chairperson Date / / / 

F. Next Review / / / 

Exhibit 17. NJDOC Internal Classification Form, Maximum Security Facilities (continued)
20 percent. The mean aggression score was 16.57 for those classified as highly

aggressive, 8.75 for those classified as moderately aggressive, and 3.69 for those

classified as having a low aggression level. NJ DOC currently houses approximately 4,200 maximum custody inmates. Using the proportions resulting from the

pilot test, a projected 840 inmates in the total population would be classified as

highly aggressive.

Based on the experiences of the coders during the pilot test, the instrument underwent several revisions. The “final” version of the instrument was pilot-tested to

ensure its validity and reliability in the maximum-security setting. A random sample

of 302 cases was coded and classified by aggression level. These data were analyzed

by ICJC to refine the aggression-scale cutoff points and project the distribution of

cases by aggression level. NJ DOC needs to further analyze the effect of changes to

the aggression-scale cutoff scores. Other variations to be considered are the points

allocated to the inmate’s age and institutional adjustment criteria. These analyses

will also model the changes in distribution across aggression levels that would result

from a change in the length of time that disciplinary reports are tracked.

These analyses were scheduled to be completed in the summer of 1999, but were

delayed because NJ DOC was converting its management information system to a

new, Y2K-compliant client-server management information system (DOCMIS).

This new system was necessary to accommodate the new data fields required for

the internal classification instrument and to maintain the integrity of existing databases. Although data fields for the internal classification system have been included in the new DOCMIS system, the internal classification system will not be

implemented until all critical new MIS applications are fully operational.

Originally, NJ DOC planned to house the high-aggression inmates in a centralized

location (NSP), but significant funding complications prevented pursuit of this

plan. The preliminary cost estimates to establish a high-aggression facility were

approximately $375,000, much higher than originally anticipated. This estimate

included the enhanced security, classification services, and treatment programs necessary for the appropriate maintenance of inmates on the unit. Serious fiscal constraints and continued growth in the inmate population prevented this expenditure

in the fiscal year 2000 budget cycle.

In response, NJ DOC developed an alternative plan to implement the internal classification instrument at each of its four maximum/high-medium security institutions, with a special unit in each facility to be designated for housing highly

aggressive inmates. To fully implement these units, work and treatment programs

that could be provided with existing resources and staff need to be identified. To

date, NJ DOC has not completed the design of its internal classification system.

Implementation plans are pending the new MIS becoming fully operational.

62

Chapter 2
South Dakota Department of Corrections

The South Dakota Department of Corrections (SD DOC) includes seven facilities:

three main adult facilities, two trusty units, a prison annex, and the prison industries

building.19 The adult average daily institutional count during fiscal year 1998 was

2,267 inmates (2,096 males and 171 females) (South Dakota Department of

Corrections, 1998). In March 1999, 47 percent of the total inmate population was

incarcerated for a violent crime.

The South Dakota Penitentiary Complex, a 1,175-bed prison located in Sioux Falls,

was selected as the site for the internal classification initiative because it is the

state’s primary penal facility and functions as the reception and diagnostic center

for all male inmates. These selection criteria were important to the overall goals of

the South Dakota initiative:

¢ Complete a total review of the SD DOC AIMS policy.

¢ Determine the reliability and validity of the AIMS instruments among the SD

DOC inmate population.

¢ Develop a behavior-based system that allows for differential assignment of the

maximum-custody inmates with AIMS codes of A and B.

Description of the Pilot Site

The Penitentiary Complex consists of the penitentiary, built in 1889, and the

Jameson Annex, built in 1993. Although the complex is centrally administrated, the

facilities function independently. The penitentiary and Jameson’s A/B Unit, for

example, have separate exercise yards and industries buildings. The complex is considered a maximum security facility, although it also contains medium and minimum security housing units. The penitentiary consists of linear blocks, most of

which are five tiers high (one block is four tiers high). Jameson Annex has three

units, each with three wings. Two of these units have double cells; the third unit is

composed of dormitories.

South Dakota’s Classification System

As previously indicated, the Penitentiary Complex houses SD DOC’s 56-bed

admission and orientation (A & O) unit. The intake process entails assessment of

the inmate’s educational, chemical dependency, medical, and mental health needs.

Inmates committed for sex-related offenses are also evaluated by the mental health

unit for the Sex Offender Treatment Program (STOP). The initial classification custody form includes five numerically scaled factors: violence in the current offense,

pattern of past violence, escape history, time remaining to serve, and institutional

misbehavior.

Four mandatory override factors are not expressed numerically: need for sexoffender treatment, incomplete criminal history information, serving escape sen63

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives
tence, and pending charges or holds. An inmate who needs STOP treatment, for

example, cannot be placed in minimum custody housing. Discretionary overrides

are permitted with adequate documentation but are reported to be extremely rare

(less than 1 percent of all cases).

Inmates are reclassified at least annually or on the receipt of new information regarding any custody factor. The reclassification custody form is the same as the initial

classification custody form except for three modifications: severity of current offense

is weighted less and two additional items are considered—poor and exceptional

institutional behavior. The rate of discretionary overrides at reclassification is not

tracked, but staff estimate that overrides are used in less than 1 percent of the cases.

As to the validity of the system, a 1996 study conducted by the DOC indicated that

there was “a statistically significant, though weak, relationship between initial

assessed risk and conviction for class 4 or 5 disciplinary infractions.” (Mande,

1996) Since this study did not include the factors that are distinctive to the reclassification form, actual risk behavior and exceptional behavior, the reclassification

instrument has not been empirically validated.

As previously indicated, at the outset of this initiative, SD DOC used the standard

AIMS instruments and scoring process. AIMS was completed during the admission

and orientation process and was not reviewed as part of the reclassification process

because the system is designed to measure personality traits assumed to remain

constant. Before the AIMS profile is completed, inmates with convictions for violent offenses are housed separately from nonviolent offenders. Before this initiative,

the reliability and validity of SD DOC’s use of AIMS had not been evaluated. Staff

who observed the complex before and after the implementation of AIMS report that

it has reduced the exploitation of vulnerable inmates. Furthermore, staff believe that

AIMS accurately identifies unique personality types with distinct behaviors, thus

testifying to its face validity. SD DOC issued a policy requiring that all inmates be

classified under AIMS (SD DOC Policy 48.6). When AIMS was first implemented,

staff were formally trained and written instructions were distributed. Yet SD DOC

has not provided formal training or written instructions to new staff, nor does the

department provide inservice training on AIMS.

Inmates’ AIMS classification does not affect their job or program assignments.

These decisions are made through a program and work schedule that indicates the

start and stop dates and the number of vacant slots. The case manager maps out

inmates’ program and work schedules for their entire term based on their external

classification custody level, needs, skills, sentence length, and available slots in the

required programs. This schedule is known as the Inmate Program Directive.

South Dakota’s Internal Classification Initiative

SD DOC undertook an internal classification initiative in concert with the Missouri

Department of Corrections. Therefore, the initiatives and pilot-test results are

reported together, following the description of Missouri’s current systems.

64

Chapter 2
Missouri Department of Corrections

As of March 1999, the Missouri Department of Corrections (MO DOC) housed

approximately 24,900 inmates in 22 facilities (Missouri Department of Corrections,

1999). These 22 facilities included 16 correctional centers, 1 camp, 4 reception centers, and 1 treatment center. Most of the correction centers offer academic instruction, GED testing, and substance abuse assessment and education. All MO DOC

inmates are required to work, attend school, or participate in treatment programs

full-time during their term of incarceration.

MO DOC implemented AIMS in 1987. While the initial implementation was

reported to reduce inmate-on-inmate victimization, the department sought to

improve and refine the system through this initiative. Three key problems with the

existing system had been identified:

¢ AIMS had never been evaluated for the MO DOC system.

¢ There was racial disparity in that urban, black inmates were more likely to be

classified as Alphas (predatory inmates), and rural, white inmates were more

likely to be classified as Sigmas (victims).

¢ Housing options were limited, as separation of Alphas from Kappas and

Sigmas precluded the creation of a honor block, which was a goal of the MO

DOC.

Crossroads Correctional Center was selected as the pilot-test facility because both

the administrative and classification staff were committed to reworking AIMS.

Crossroads was a new maximum security prison (opened in March 1997) with a

mixed inmate population. Many inmates were serving long sentences for violent

offenses, whereas others had been placed in maximum custody due to poor institutional adjustment at other facilities. The population had a higher percentage of

young, minority, urban inmates than the MO DOC population in general, but most

of the staff were transferred from medium security prisons or were new recruits

from the local rural communities and thus had limited experience with such

inmates. Improving the reliability of the internal classification system was particularly critical, as many of the MO DOC staff were new and inexperienced. The internal classification system is the primary mechanism for guiding the staff in the

assessment and housing assignment process.

Description of the Pilot Site

Crossroads Correctional Center is a 1,510-bed, maximum-security prison located

on the outskirts of Cameron, Missouri, about 45 miles north of Kansas City. The

prison consists of five housing buildings, an activity building, and an administration

building. Each housing building has four wings and a central control bubble. The

wings have two floors with 18 double, wet cells per floor. Therefore, each building

65

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives
houses 288 inmates. In addition, there are 60 single cells and 10 infirmary beds in

the activity building.

Missouri’s Current Classification Process

MO DOC uses a version of the Correctional Classification Profile (CCP) external

classification system developed by the Correctional Services Group. Each inmate is

assessed using a scale of one to five on seven domains: medical, mental health, public risk, institutional risk, education, vocational training, and work skills.

The public risk score is based on six factors: time to earliest release, detainers,

escape history, violence in the criminal history, violence in the current offense, and

sex offense (past or current conviction). The institutional risk score is based on two

factors for first-time offenders: escape history and adjustment on probation and

parole. For repeat offenders, two additional factors are considered: inmate assault

history and institutional risk score at time of release.

Although the reclassification schedule varies according to the inmate’s custody

level, inmates are reclassified at least annually. Significant changes in any of the

custody factors will generate a classification review as well. The inmate’s case manager is responsible for conducting the custody reclassification. The inmate’s custody reclassification is discussed with him, audited by an independent staff person,

and then reviewed by the warden’s designee. All overrides for “aggravating or mitigating risk information,” “exceptional disciplinary adjustment,” or “other factors”

must be approved by the warden and director of classification.

At reclassification, the same seven domains are assessed. The only change in the

calculation of the public risk score is a point reduction for sex offenders who have

completed the sex offender treatment program. The major difference between the

initial and reclassification instruments is that at reclassification, the institutional

risk score is based on multiple measures of the severity and persistence of disciplinary problems and the custody level at which the problems occurred. Staff report

no problems with the external reclassification process.

Missouri and South Dakota Internal Classification

Initiative

As previously reported, both South Dakota and Missouri were currently using

AIMS when NIC introduced this internal classification initiative. Both states sought

this opportunity as a mechanism for refining and validating AIMS for their institutional populations. Although both states attributed their relatively low rates of institutional predatory incidents and protective custody admissions to AIMS, concerns

remained. The key issues and questions follow:

¢ Are the current inmate populations comparable to the populations on which

AIMS was developed? If not, is AIMS still adequate?

66

Chapter 2
¢ Is AIMS subject to racial bias? Can the racial disparity be reduced?

¢ AIMS reduces flexibility for inmate housing. Alphas and Sigmas cannot be

housed together, though either can be housed with Kappas. Kappas are few in

number, so they have to be moved frequently as Alpha and Sigma counts fluctuate. Is AIMS compatible with the idea of establishing an honor dorm or block?

¢ How reliable is AIMS?

¢ How valid is AIMS?

After reviewing the literature on the development and analyses of AIMS,20 Missouri

and South Dakota joined forces to develop an internal classification system modeled after AIMS. The primary modifications identified by joint steering committees

were to—21

¢ Develop “situational” items to be put on the behavioral checklists.

¢ Revise the history checklist to focus on behavior before incarceration and

revise the behavioral checklists to focus on prison adjustment.

¢ Develop a reclassification instrument and process. While the original AIMS

assumed a static personality profile, both states sought a mechanism for updating the classification based on the inmate’s adjustment to institutional life. The

behavioral checklists were to be updated annually and the weight of the history checklist is to decrease progressively over time.

¢ Collapse the two predator and situational subtypes in AIMS into one predator

and one victim type.

¢ Revise the checklists to eliminate redundant items, clarify vague and outdated

language, and add new items.

¢ Clarify the definition of items.

The internal classification system developed by South Dakota and Missouri was

named the Adult Internal Classification System (AICS). AICS assigns inmates to

one of three offender types (Type 1 inmates are aggressive, Type 2 inmates are situational, and Type 3 inmates are vulnerable) based upon checklists composed of

yes-no questions. The first instrument is similar to the AIMS life history; the AICS

history checklist assesses inmates’ social and criminal history before incarceration

(see Exhibit 18). The second AICS checklist, the initial behavior checklist, parallels

the AIMS correctional adjustment checklist. The initial behavior checklist considers inmates’ adjustment to institutional life and their interactions with other inmates

and staff upon admission to the correctional system (see Exhibit 19).

A major difference between AICS and AIMS is that AICS does not assume that the

“personality type” remains constant throughout an inmate’s incarceration. A

67

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives
68

DOC Number: Received Date: Offender Name: 

Facility: Wing: Cell: 

Rater Last Name: Rater Position:

Enter a “1” for each behavior trait which best describes the inmate’s history. If the trait is not descriptive

of inmate’s life history, enter a “0.” On item #1, enter “0” if the offender has no prior incarcerations.

1. Prior incarceration demonstrated predatory behavior

2. Uncontrollable as a child

3. Has expressed guilt over offense

4. Expresses need for self-improvement

5. Socially withdrawn

6. Passive, indecisive, easily led

7. Defied authority

8. Requires assistance from others in daily living

9. Accepts responsibility for family obligations

10. Stable work history

11. Ties with criminal elements

12. Felony first arrest

13. Depressed, suicidal, prior psychological hospitalizations

14. Stable relationship for at least 5 years

15. Disciplinary difficulty in school

16. Commission of offense related to financial reverses suffered prior to offense

17. Accepted responsibility for his/her situation

18. Apprehended due to poorly planned, poorly executed crimes that display very inept,

incompetent behavior

19. Self-centered

20. Hostile to criminal justice supervision

21. Physically aggressive

22. Thrill-seeking

Exhibit 18. AICS History Checklist
69

DOC Number: Received Date: Offender Name: 

Facility: Wing: Cell: 

Initial Classification Date: Final Initial Classification Level: 

Rater Last Name: Rater Position:

Enter a “1” for each behavior trait which best describes the inmate’s history. If the trait is not descriptive

of inmate’s life history, enter a “0.”

1. Demands immediate satisfaction

2. Tries, but cannot seem to follow directions

3. Cooperative with staff

4. Afraid of other inmates

5. Brags

6. Passive, easily led

7. Difficulties with free time

8. Avoids fights unless directly challenged

9. Seems to be unhappy, complains often

10. Argues with or questions staff

11. Moody, temperamental

12. Respectful of others

13. Worried, anxious

14. Quick-tempered

15. Continually seeks help from staff

16. Acts before thinking

17. Seems dull and unintelligent

18. Physically aggressive

19. Dependable in assignments

20. Sluggish, drowsy

21. Openly defies rules and supervision

22. Jittery, jumpy, unable to relax, seems afraid

Exhibit 19. AICS Initial Behavioral Checklist
70

DOC Number: Received Date: Offender Name: 

Facility: Wing: Cell: 

Initial Classification Date: Final Initial Classification Level: 

Rater Last Name: Rater Position:

Enter a “1” for each behavior trait which best describes the inmate’s history. If the trait is not descriptive

of inmate’s life history, enter a “0.”

1. Victimizes inmates

2. Fights within the last year,

assault on staff within the last 5 years

3. Avoids fights unless directly challenged

4. Thrill seeking

5. Sluggish, drowsy

6. Acts before thinking

7. Socially withdrawn

8. Accepts responsibility

9. Cooperative with staff

10. Argues with or questions staff

11. Physically aggressive

12. Quick-tempered

13. Jittery, jumpy, unable to relax, seems

afraid

14. Tries to control group for own interest

15. Tries, but cannot seem to follow directions

16. Difficulties with free time

17. Dependable in assignments

18. Seems dull and unintelligent

19. Demands immediate satisfaction

20. Brags

21. Continually seeks help from staff

22. Openly defies rules and supervision

23. Moody, temperamental

24. Passive, easily led

25. Respectful of others

26. Seems unhappy, complains often

27. Worried, anxious

28. Stirs up trouble among inmates

29. Prefers to be with physically aggressive

inmates

30. Afraid of other inmates 

Exhibit 20. AICS Reclassification Behavioral Checklist
71

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives

reclassification behavioral checklist that relies heavily upon recent institutional

adjustment must be scored annually to monitor changes in the behavior and adjustment of the inmate (see Exhibit 20). At initial classification, the history and initial

behavior checklists are weighted equally. With each annual reclassification, however, the weight of the history checklist decreases by 10 percent, while the weight of

the reclassification behavioral checklist increases by 10 percent.

The AICS checklists are composed of a series of subjective yes/no ratings that

describe the three offender types. All responses are weighted and tallied. The

offender type with the highest score determines the inmate’s internal classification

type. Type 1 responses are weighted slightly higher than Type 2 or 3 responses to

ensure that aggressive, predatory offenders are identified. If, for example, the case

worker indicates that an offender has an equal number of Type 1 and Type 3 characteristics, he or she will be classified as a Type 1 offender.

The preliminary checklists were pilot-tested twice to assess the reliability of AICS,

assess its impact on housing assignments, and identify any problems with the

revised items, instructions, or staff training. Because the most critical aspect of the

first pilot test was the reliability of the instruments, both states selected random

samples of cases, trained staff members to use the revised instruments, and required

that each case be classified independently by at least two persons.

A detailed training manual was prepared, and all coders participated in training sessions during which the instruments were explained and instructions for coding were

provided. The first pilot-test samples consisted 149 cases from Missouri and 199

from South Dakota. The samples were stratified by custody level (maximum,

medium, and minimum), race (minority versus white), and classification type (initial versus reclassification).

The first question addressed by the pilot tests was the reliability of the instruments for

each of the two states. For the purposes of this analysis, reliability was defined as agreement between “rater one” and “rater two” on the respective checklist items and the

final classification, which was based on the combination of the two checklists’ categorizations. Reliability was a critical issue, because inconsistent scoring would cast

doubt on the results of any further analyses. Exhibit 21 shows that inter-rater reliability was unacceptable for both states. The first pilot test results indicated the following:

¢ During the first pilot test, the reclassification behavioral checklist was less reliable than the history checklist. This was probably, at least in part, because staff

had less experience with the reclassification process and were required to score

the checklist based upon behaviors with low base rates.

¢ Reliability rates from the first pilot test ranged between 74 and 64 percent. The

highest rate of agreement was 74 percent for the initial classification decisions

in Missouri. These rates of inter-rater agreement were too low for the other

analyses to be considered significant.
¢ Reliability rates were remarkably similar in the two states, which suggests that

the problems were inherent in the instruments, training, or the scoring and

observation processes.

Based on the first pilot test, several key problems were identified:

¢ Operational definitions needed to be further clarified and refined.

¢ Redundant items needed to be eliminated.

¢ Staff needed to understand the benefits and purpose of revising the checklists

and the importance of their efforts.

¢ The staff training process had to be reviewed and updated.

¢ Quality control procedures for monitoring the AICS had to be enhanced.

¢ The instruments did not differentiate strongly enough among inmates; 90 percent of the inmates scored the same on 42 of the 87 items on the checklists.

¢ The small number of Type 2 items weakened the instruments because undue

weight was placed on a small number of items.

The states conducted a second pilot test with 25 randomly selected initial classification and 50 reclassification cases from each state, for a total of 150 cases. The

issues highlighted during the first pilot test were addressed through further refinement of the instruments, staff training exercises, and the development of procedures. The results from this second pilot test are shown in Exhibit 21. The data

suggested that the reliability rates improved, except for initial classifications in

Missouri.22 Although the modest reliability rates rendered the subsequent analyses

somewhat suspect, it was worth noting that for both states, AICS produced a sharp

increase in the number of inmates classified as Type 2. Corresponding decreases in

the number of inmates classified as Type 1 and 3 were also observed.

The states met for a fourth joint workshop in September 1999 to review the results

of the pilot tests and plan for the implementation and monitoring of AICS. The final

Missouri South Dakota

Assessment Percent Agreement Percent Agreement

Pilot Test 1 Pilot Test 2 Pilot Test 1 Pilot Test 2

Initial Classification 74 64 73 78

Reclassification 64 84 69 88

72

Chapter 2

Exhibit 21. Missouri and South Dakota Pilot Test Reliability Rates Percent

Agreement Between Raters One and Two
AICS Types

Inmates South Dakota Missouri

Committing

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Total Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Total

No assaults 33 87 23 143 94 257 32 383

1 assault 8 2 1 11 5 0 0 5

2 or more

assaults 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1

Total 41 90 24 155 100 257 32 389

AIMS Types

Inmates South Dakota Missouri

Committing

Alpha Kappa Sigma Total Alpha Kappa Sigma Total

No assaults 95 17 29 141 295 25 56 376

1 assault 10 1 1 12 4 0 0 4

2 or more

assaults 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

Total 105 18 31 154 299 25 56 380

Exhibit 22. Comparison of Assaults by AICS and AIMS Classification Types

for Reclassification Cases: February–March 2000

versions of the checklists were agreed upon and monitoring reports were developed

to assess each state’s original internal classification goals. (See Exhibits 18–20.) An

automated program for data entry of the checklists, calculation of final scores, determination of offender types, and production of monitoring reports was developed

through a separate NIC short-term technical assistance program.23 Data collection to

assess the impact of AICS was initiated in January 2000 at the Penitentiary Complex

in South Dakota and the Crossroads Correctional Center in Missouri.

The first question considered by the impact study was the ability of AICS to differentiate between assaultive and nonassaultive inmates. The preliminary reclassification data from South Dakota that compare the number of assaults during the past 12

months across the respective AICS and AIMS classification types are provided in

Exhibit 22. AICS predicts that Type 1 inmates are more likely to be assaultive than

Type 2 and 3 inmates, and AIMS predicts that Alpha inmates are more likely to be

73

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives
assaultive than Kappa or Sigma offenders. SD DOC data suggested that 96.5 percent

(110 out of 114 inmates) were accurately identified as nonpredatory (87 Type 2 and

23 Type 3 inmates were correctly identified as nonassaultive), while eight Type 1

inmates were correctly identified as predatory (8 out of 41 cases, or 19.5 percent).

Overall, 76 percent of the AICS predictions were correct compared to 26 percent of

the AIMS predictions. Among the Missouri inmates, AIMS correctly identified all

of the predatory inmates as Alpha. Yet the false positive rate was also quite high; 79

percent of the inmates (299 of 380) were identified as Alpha, 99 percent of whom

were not involved in assaultive behavior. These data suggest that AIMS did not differentiate among Missouri inmates. In contrast, all of Missouri’s predatory inmates

were classified by AICS as Type 1 offenders, whereas none of those classified as

Type 2 or 3 offenders were involved in predatory behavior. These analyses are preliminary and should not be interpreted as a validation of AICS. In addition, the low

base rate of assaults among Missouri inmates precludes more indepth analyses of

the predictive power of AICS versus AIMS. On an individual level, however, it is

disappointing to find that among South Dakota inmates, whereas AIMS correctly

predicted 10 of the 13 assaulters (76 percent), AICS correctly predicted only 8 of

the 12 assaulters (66 percent). Definitive statements are difficult, given that inmates

were not housed as AICS would dictate. Thus, the system’s actual impact cannot be

determined.

A second important objective of the South Dakota and Missouri initiative was to

increase the flexibility of the housing assignment process by identifying Type 2

inmates, who, it is assumed, can be safely housed with either Type 1 or Type 3

inmates. Exhibit 23 shows that AICS classified a greater number of inmates as Type

2 than AIMS in both South Dakota and Missouri. Of 222 South Dakota inmates

classified in February and March 2000, AIMS classified 37 as Kappa, whereas

AICS classified 145 as Type 2. Similar results were observed for Missouri, where

65 percent of the inmates assessed were classified as Type 2. Thus, AICS would give

facilities greater flexibility in making housing assignments.

74

Chapter 2

Exhibit 23. AICS and AIMS Classifications Compared for All Cases

Classified: February–March 2000

AIMS

South Dakota Missouri

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Total Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Total

Alpha 36 82 12 130 87 204 23 314

Kappa 3 31 3 37 2 23 2 27

Sigma 1 32 22 55 7 37 19 63

Total 40 145 37 222 96 264 44 404
The third critical objective for the Missouri and South Dakota internal classification

initiative was to reduce the racial disparity that was observed under AIMS. Chisquare analyses of the South Dakota and Missouri data suggest that there was a significant relationship between race and AICS classification. Exhibit 24 illustrates

that the number of white inmates identified as Type 3 and the number of black

inmates identified as Type 1 were higher than expected if the classification system

was free of disparity. The preliminary data shown in Exhibit 24 suggest that racial

bias may have been reduced, but not eliminated, under AICS. The racial disparity

was greater among the Missouri assessments than in those in South Dakota.

Missouri and South Dakota Internal Classification: Next Steps

Given the low reliability of AICS, analysis of the impact of the modifications to the

checklists and AICS classification process are inconclusive at best. The lack of certainty as to the “correct” classification of any one inmate seriously impedes the

ability to determine the accuracy or reliability of the distribution of Type 1, 2, and

3 inmates across the populations. Moreover, this lack of certainty limits any findings about the flexibility in the housing process afforded by the larger number of

Type 2 inmates. Yet these data are promising. Although reliability issues need continued attention, AICS will need to be implemented, as least in a pilot facility, to

fully assess the system’s utility and validity. Missouri has undertaken a validation

study of AICS; the results, however, will not be available until the summer of 2002.

75

Description of the States’ Internal Classification Initiatives

Exhibit 24. Racial Distribution of Inmates Under AICS for Reclassification

Cases Classified: February–March 2000

Race

South Dakota Missouri

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Total Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Total

Native 

American 14 26 3 43 0 2 0 2

Black/Other 6 6 0 12 76 121 5 202

White 20 58 21 99 25 133 27 185

Total 40 90 24 154 101 256 32 389

Proper implementation of any classification system requires a

strong commitment,

time, and very careful

planning.

Lessons Learned

The complex and varied experiences of the eight states involved in this initiative

provided substantial insight into the process, core elements, and critical barriers to

implementing internal classification systems. All parties, including NIC, learned

new lessons and added depth and dimension to their understanding of the key

issues. Some of the lessons learned had been noted in previous NIC initiatives,

while others lent new growth and complexity to the field of internal classification.

This chapter will include a summary of the most poignant lessons and provide illustrations from the states’ experiences.

Lesson 1: Plan to plan, and then double your resources

Proper implementation of any classification system requires a strong commitment,

time, and very careful planning. This was a key lesson learned by NCCD in the first

internal classification initiative in 1993, and its importance was reinforced throughout subsequent initiatives. Although NIC embarked on this project with what

appeared to be ample time, staff, and resources and then carefully selected sites

based upon their commitment, resources, and goals and objectives, even this wellfunded and multidimensional initiative met significant challenges. For example, the

need for time onsite to assist, observe, prompt, and encourage the states to design,

pilot-test, and complete the required research tasks exceeded the evaluators’ expectations and budget. This is not to imply that the state staff were incompetent or

uncommitted. On the contrary, across all of the states, the staff (central office, institutional, research, etc.) were highly competent, committed, and knowledgeable

about classification. The challenge was to ensure that each department’s resources

(staff time, funding, and knowledge) continued to focus on this initiative.

More specifically, at the onset, Oregon struggled to develop and test this model

within OWCC. The level of overcrowding limited bed space flexibility, and OWCC

staff had insufficient time to develop the model. Not until additional bed space was

found at EOCI and a member of the steering committee was shifted from OWCC

program services to the classification and transfer unit did the OWCC initiative

progress. With the adequate resources—staff time and bed space—OWCC staff

were able to meet all deadlines for the development, testing, and implementation of

the internal classification system for the female population. The situation in Florida

was totally different. From the outset, the Risk and Needs System was a top priorCommon Problems, Issues, and

Solutions

Chapter three

77
Unlike external

classification systems,

there is no distinct set

of internal classification factors that is

generalizable across

systems.

Unlike external

classification systems,

there is no distinct set

of internal classification factors that is

generalizable across

systems.

Because the behavioral systems are

quantitative and

objective, high levels

of reliability and

validity were easier

to achieve.

ity not only for the Central Office Classification Bureau, but for the entire department. Extensive computer, staff, and travel resources were tapped to design, automate, and implement the system. Only with this significant and enduring

commitment was Florida able to carry out its ambitious initiative to design, pilottest, and then implement the system statewide by December 1998.

Lesson 2: Keep it simple

A second lesson learned during this initiative was that simplicity is paramount. The

models developed and tested by New Jersey and Oregon were behavior-based and

relatively simple to score and implement. Although New Jersey is still refining its

model, full implementation is clearly feasible. Oregon started with a relatively simple instrument that was further simplified with additional testing and implementation. Because the behavioral systems are quantitative and objective, high levels of

reliability and validity were easier to achieve.

In contrast, Florida’s complex Risk and Needs System required a significant expenditure of staff time and fiscal resources to develop and implement. Few states have the

level of MIS sophistication, availability of computer program staff, or the fiscal resources to design and automate a similar model. Despite its impressive complexity and

automation, the system depends on classification specialists’ subjective assessments

of key risk and needs factors, so reliability and validity may be difficult to maintain.

Over time, the automated systems developed and implemented by Connecticut and

Colorado have proven to be both reliable and valid. These systems were implemented with relatively few resources and appeared to meet the internal classifications goals of the facilities for which they were designed. Their strength lies in their

simplicity and objectivity.

Missouri and South Dakota were using AIMS when they joined this initiative. Both

states expended tremendous time and resources to develop the AICS model, but

they faced significant reliability problems because the system relied on multiple

checklists composed of numerous subjective assessments of the inmate’s personality. Although the specificity and clarity of AICS appear to have improved and further efforts toward implementation are strongly encouraged, the experiences of

these two states suggest that states may struggle to meet the staff training, monitoring, and fiscal resources demanded by personality-based systems.

Lesson 3: Internal classification is unique to each system

The diversity of models considered and tested by these eight states clearly indicated that, unlike external classification systems, there is no distinct set of internal

classification factors that is generalizable across systems. The operational definitions, processes, timing, and other critical factors are unique to each state and

depend on its specific goals, resources, and system composition. Even behaviorbased systems, which are clearly the most objective systems available, appear to

require significant tailoring and system specificity. For example, the model developed by New Jersey is quite different from that developed by the Illinois

78

Chapter 3
79

Common Problems, Issues, and Solutions

Department of Corrections for close-custody inmates. Colorado, on the other hand,

developed an automated, relatively simple, behavior-based system for the Limon

facility, which still required modification before it could be implemented in a similar Colorado maximum-security facility. In other words, there is no “best model,”

nor should there be.

As recommended in the literature on external classification systems, the instruments

and process must be tailored to and validated on the population for which they will

be used. Although internal classification systems should be responsive to individual

departments of corrections, Alexander and colleagues identified a set of broad standards that are applicable to all internal classification systems (Alexander et al.,

1997: 70–71). These standards are provided in Exhibit 25.

1. The primary objective of the internal prison classification system is to

match inmates with institutional level housing, program, and work assignments; these provisions should be consistent with the inmate’s external

classification designation. 

2. The internal prison classification system should encourage the classification of inmates in the least restrictive housing and custody levels within a

facility.

3. Internal classification systems should complement existing external classification systems. Consequently, they should not be developed until the

department has a well functioning external prison classification system.

4. The internal classification system must have a clearly defined set of measurable goals and objectives prior to implementation.

5. There must be a formal set of written procedures and policies governing

the internal classification process. In particular, these policies should

include a very structured administrative process and clear operational definitions of how the system will be used to make housing and program/work

assignments.

6. The classification process must provide for the collection, automation, and

distribution of complete, high-quality, verified data to ensure inmates are

housed and programmed according to the internal system.

7. Instruments used in the internal classification system must be objective,

reliable, and valid. They should also be designed to be fully automated and

easy for staff to use.

Exhibit 25. Standards and Guidelines for Internal Prison 

Classification Systems

There is no “best

model,” nor should

there be.

As recommended

in the literature on

external classification

systems, the instruments and process

must be tailored to

and validated on the

population for which

they will be used.
A fundamental 

lesson learned from

this initiative was

the importance of

the clarity of the

purpose, goals, and

anticipated impacts

of the internal 

classification system. 

A fundamental lesson learned from this initiative was the importance of the clarity

of the purpose, goals, and anticipated impacts of the internal classification system.

The expectations and needs of the department (central office), facility administrators, and line staff will determine the specific “make and model” of the system. As

illustrated by the steps listed below for designing and implementing an internal classification system, each department of corrections and, in some circumstances, individual facilities, will need to design and refine an internal classification system that

will respond to its own unique problems, issues, goals, and resources.

Moreover, it is important for each system to implement its model completely to

reach definitive conclusions about its effectiveness. In South Dakota and Missouri,

for example, housing assignments need to be made according to inmates’ AICS

classification. Only then can the true relationship between the classification and

80 occurrence of institutional violence be assessed empirically.

Chapter 3

8. Internal classification systems must allow for the use of overrides (both discretionary and nondiscretionary). As a rule, the discretionary override rate

should be in the 5 to 15 percentage range among all internal classification

decisions that occur in a given year.

9. Internal classification system must include policies and procedures for

screening and evaluating prisoners who are management problems and

those who have special needs. In particular, criteria and procedures for

assigning inmates to administrative segregation, disciplinary segregation,

protective custody, mental health, and medical health care units must be

part of the system.

10. There must be provisions to involve the inmate in the internal classification

process; the inmate should have input into the classification process (without compromising security) and should receive a copy of his/her internal

and external classification assessments.

11. There must be provisions for a systematic review of the internal classification decisions by supervisory staff.

12. The internal classification system should be reviewed annually and formally evaluated every 3 years.

13. Internal classification procedures must be consistent with constitutional

requisites.

14. Administration and line staff must be involved in the design and implementation of a classification system and a pilot test of the preliminary system must be conducted prior to implementation.

Source: Alexander et al. (1997).

Exhibit 25. Standards and Guidelines for Internal Prison 

Classification Systems (continued)
Lesson 4: Automation is critical

Automation of the internal classification system was a critical step for each state.

The Florida, Colorado, and Connecticut systems were designed as automated systems that combined risk, programming, and institutional job assignment data to

provide staff with housing and programming recommendations. Information systems and customized computer programs played central roles in the design and testing of these systems, even for small subpopulations within individual facilities. On

completion of the design and testing process, Oregon, South Dakota, and Missouri

discovered that automation was critical to fully implement the systems. Oregon was

able to access local resources to automate its internal classification system; South

Dakota and Missouri, however, required additional technical assistance from NIC

to fully automate the scoring of AICS.

New Jersey’s internal classification system was affected by MIS-related issues in a

slightly different way. Full development and implementation were interrupted by

the need to update the department’s entire MIS. Fortunately, the variables and modules for implementing its High Aggression Model have been built into NJ DOC’s

new information system.

Step-by-Step Process for Designing and Implementing

an Internal Classification System

As previously indicated, the importance of careful planning was not a surprise. One

product of the 1993 initiative was a set of strong recommendations and a step-bystep process for designing and implementing an internal classification system

(Alexander et al., 1997). These steps were updated based on the experience of the

eight states and new insights. Time parameters are provided for completion of the

design and implementation process within 1 year. Although the proposed timelines

may need to be adjusted to respond to the resources and needs of the state, the project should be completed in a timely manner to ensure that the system will address

the goals and systems trends while they are still current.

Step 1: Obtain formal commitment from the DOC Central Office (month 1).

Step 2: Designate a strong project manager and establish a working steering

committee (month 1).

The current initiative reinforced the notion that a strong project manager with designated time to conduct the required tasks is critical. Given that most staff are busy

with their current workload, the project manager’s normal responsibilities and priorities must be shifted to ensure that the project stays on track. This same prioritization of duties applies to the steering committee and the line staff responsible for

data collection. This experience was best illustrated by Oregon; the design and testing of that state’s internal classification system was stalled until an OWCC staff

person was reassigned to the classification and transfer unit, where he could devote

81

Common Problems, Issues, and Solutions

A strong project

manager with designated time to conduct the required

tasks is critical.
It is important to

recognize the potential impact that the

new system will have

on the various stakeholders throughout

the facility and

department. 

all of his time to developing and implementing the system. The Colorado staff

attributed the success of their initiative to the project manager’s commitment and

the representation of all major operational components of the facility and central

office on the steering committee.

Step 3. Identify stakeholders and organize their inclusion in the process (months

1 and 2).

The internal classification system, like the external system, affects all operations

within a given facility. It is important to recognize the potential impact that the new

system will have on the various stakeholders throughout the facility and department.

Florida, for example, clearly identified the stakeholders of the Risk and Needs Model

and developed the system to respond to their respective goals. Efforts toward inclusion were instrumental in reducing resistance to the implementation of the system.

Step 4. Define the problems to be addressed and set realistic goals and measurable objectives (month 2).

This is probably the most critical, and most difficult, step to complete. Identification

of the precise issues prompting the design or revision of the internal classification

system is essential to a successful effort. The members of the steering committee

should agree on the relevant issues, the desired outcomes, and how they will be

achieved. Although each stakeholder may assign a different priority to identified

problems and goals, all members of the steering committee should understand the

importance of their contributions and be clear on what is to be accomplished. The

importance of this dynamic was highlighted in New Jersey, where the effort to create

an internal classification system stalled for several months because of a failure to

include all stakeholders in the identification of the problem and goals. These challenges were exacerbated by unforeseen shifts in organizational priorities. The project

manager plays an essential role through a thorough knowledge of and commitment

to the problems, goals, and objectives identified by the steering committee.

Although they did not develop measurable objectives at the outset of their planning

process, both Connecticut and Colorado were specific in their desire for an objective, behavior-based system for assigning inmates to work and programming. As

their new systems were implemented, these states were able to provide quantitative

data to show that they were efficient and effective. Oregon achieved similar clarity

in expressing its desire for a system that was responsive to both genders. Data were

collected throughout the pilot-test, implementation, and automation process to

monitor the system’s impact on key outcome indicators, such as noninitial transfers,

major disciplinary reports, and segregation populations.

Florida was the only state that outlined specific quantitative, measurable objectives

as part of its initial statement of goals and objectives. In contrast, Washington’s

process shows how clarity of intended goals for the internal classification system is

even more important than quantitative, measurable, objective results. Focusing on

both internal classification and inmate management, the internal classification sys82

Chapter 3
tem was intended to indicate the appropriate housing or programs for an inmate, as

well as strategies for behavior management.

Step 5. Select the type of internal classification system for adoption (month 2).

The shift in the timing for this step is the most significant modification to the earlier prescriptions for designing and implementing an internal classification system.

Alexander et al. (1997) suggested that this step should be undertaken only after

baseline data collection has been completed. The Phase II initiative revealed, however, that the type of internal classification system to be developed should direct the

selection of the pilot site and the collection of baseline data. A thorough review of

the literature or technical assistance from a provider with expertise in classification

should dictate the type of system to be implemented. As discussed in the previous

chapter, seven different models were explored. Six states developed unique models

for statewide implementation and one state (New Jersey) developed populationspecific instruments. Clearly, the type of model to be implemented has a tremendous impact on the design of the pilot test and other implementation steps.

Moreover, the interplay between goals and research is most relevant here. In

Washington, pilot-test results suggested that AIMS accurately identified predatory

and nonpredatory inmates but contributed little to the development of individualized case-management strategies. Because AIMS did not further the primary goal

of the system, Washington decided to stop using it.

Step 6: Select a pilot site (months 2 and 3).

The selection of a pilot site depends on the specific problem, goals, and type of system envisioned. For example, New Jersey originally identified the Garden State

Correctional Center, a medium-security, treatment-oriented facility, as the pilot site.

When the focus of its project shifted to identifying and managing maximumcustody inmates, it recognized that the Northern State Prison was a more appropriate site. Regardless of the unique characteristics or issues to be addressed by the

internal system, the pilot site staff must demonstrate the commitment and offer the

necessary resources to carry out the project. Once the site is identified, the steering

committee and project manager must solicit a solid commitment from the facilitylevel stakeholders, who also must be included on the steering committee.

The pilot-test facility for the Washington initiative was selected primarily because

of the number of its minimum-custody prisoners with long sentences, the target

population for the case-management and transition strategies. Similarly, as seen in

Colorado and Connecticut, new facilities can offer an opportunity to develop and

implement innovative internal classification procedures.

Step 7. Analyze current housing, work, and program assignment procedures

(months 3 and 4).

A baseline description of the facility’s current housing units, work and program

assignments, and external and internal classification processes is the foundation of

83

Common Problems, Issues, and Solutions

The selection of a

pilot site depends on

the specific problem,

goals, and type of

system envisioned.
Baseline data should

be collected on each

outcome indicator.

sound planning. These data permit an understanding of the scope of the new internal

classification system. Moreover, baseline data should be collected on each outcome

indicator identified by the steering committee and stakeholders (such as rates of

institutional violence and number of housing transfers). These baseline indicators are

used to highlight the impact of the new or revised system on the facility. If both software and expertise are available, a “map” of the various cell blocks, housing units,

and program assignments will illuminate any questionable or inappropriate patterns

to be addressed by the new system. Suspect patterns include disproportionate numbers of gang members assigned to the same cell blocks, special-management inmates

housed in general population, maximum- and minimum-custody inmates housed

together in the same cell, and inmates placed in programs they do not need.

Extensive baseline data illustrating work and program assignments as well as

offender needs were required for the Florida, Connecticut, and Colorado initiatives

to incorporate the eligibility requirements into the automated computer program.

The steering committees focused on the operation of the new system and ensured

that policies and eligibility criteria were updated to support its goals and objectives.

Step 8. Conduct facility program and work assignment inventory (months 4 and 5).

A system may also benefit from an inventory of the facility’s program and work

assignments. The utility of such an inventory depends on the type and purpose of

the internal classification system to be developed. For systems designed to assign

inmates to work and program slots (e.g., Colorado and Connecticut), this step is

essential. Florida’s initiative also required a detailed database that identified the

admission criteria, number of slots, location, pay schedule, and other factors for all

programs across all FL DOC facilities. In contrast, because Oregon’s internal classification systems did not affect work or program assignments, a detailed inventory was not required for implementation.

Step 9: Conduct ongoing inventory of available bed space (months 4 and 5).

The need for an inventory of the facility’s available beds was echoed across states,

although at different points and for different reasons. Oregon, for example, struggled with bed space restrictions throughout the project. Not only was bed space

identified as a consideration for the type of system to be developed, it was a significant barrier during the pilot tests at OWCC and OSCI and remains a barrier for full

implementation at OSCI. Similarly, New Jersey was forced to modify its implementation plan because of the unmanageable costs associated with shifting populations, upgrading security, and training staff to implement the high-aggression model

solely within the Northern State facility. Instead, New Jersey was forced to decentralize its high-aggression unit across four facilities.

84

Chapter 3
Step 10. Develop prototype instruments, policies, and procedure manuals

(months 6 and 7).

Drafting new policies and procedures was a significant challenge for seven states,

requiring multiple revisions and multiple pilot tests. (Washington was an exception

only because it opted not to implement AIMS.) States should be prepared for this

step to exceed original deadlines. With the exception of Florida, Phase II states still

consider their current systems to be a “work in progress” and expect further refinement and specification. States undertaking internal classification system initiatives

should not be discouraged if multiple prototypes are discarded; modifications are

an important part of the process. If the states were polled, they would advise, “Keep

it simple.” Complex instruments or those with many variables do not provide adequate flexibility for making housing, work, or program decisions within overcrowded, understaffed facilities. In addition, they require significant supporting

documentation and staff training for administration and scoring, which can prove to

be both cumbersome and expensive.

Step 11. Pilot-test procedures and instruments (months 7 through 9).

Once the prototype instruments, policies, and procedures were created, pilot tests

using a random sample of inmates highlighted the elements that needed further

modification and provided a preliminary assessment of the instruments’ impact on

the larger correctional system. A systematic random-sampling scheme should be

used, unless the facility population is less than 250 inmates. This methodology

entails selecting every nth case from a current list of the facility’s population to

reach a total of 250 cases. For example, if the facility population is 750, every third

case should be assigned to the pilot-test sample. The entire inmate population

should be sampled, including the special-management populations. Proper sampling permits an estimate of the distribution of classification levels across the entire

population and highlights housing and program needs.

Conclusions about the accuracy and impact of the system cannot be made without

confidence in the reliability of the instruments. As Missouri and South Dakota

learned, the low rates of inter-rater reliability called the overall feasibility of the

system into question. In Oregon and Florida, ongoing pilot tests triggered further

refinement of the instruments. Empirical testing can also identify ineffective and

inefficient processes, triggering more revisions to the overall strategy. In

Washington, the pilot test of AIMS demonstrated that AIMS duplicated current

case-management strategies and thus, its implementation was not warranted.

Step 12. Develop a full implementation plan (month 10).

Once the system has been refined to achieve appropriate levels of validity, reliability, and feasibility, full implementation can proceed. A detailed time-task chart that

accounts for the complexity of implementation across facilities and staffing patterns

must be developed. The importance of staff training and automation cannot be

85

Common Problems, Issues, and Solutions

Modifications are an

important part of the

process.
Regardless of how

simple the instruments are or how

few criteria are built

into the model, ultimately, automation

is essential.

overemphasized. Training is key to achieving reliability, especially as new staff are

required to use the system. Regardless of how simple the instruments are or how

few criteria are built into the model, ultimately, automation is essential. For example, in Oregon, upon implementation of even a relatively simple model (with only

four factors), managing and tracking the system for just the female population has

proven to be a full-time job. Full implementation will bring additional challenges

and obstacles and may even require additional modifications to the instruments.

Such challenges should be expected, and time and resources should be built into the

plan so that obstacles can be appropriately addressed.

One barrier encountered by South Dakota and Missouri was that the initial plan for

the development and implementation of AICS did not fully account for the reliability problems encountered during the pilot tests. This delayed the development of the

data, policies, and automation that would have enabled the departments to shift

from AIMS to AICS. In contrast, Colorado staff attributed their success to the careful planning and detailed implementation processes undertaken by the steering

committee. The implementation of the model provided the opportunity “to see the

model in action” and to test its real-world application to the correctional facility.

Step 13. Monitor and evaluate (ongoing).

Ongoing monitoring and feedback are critical to implementing a new system in a

complex and dynamic correctional setting. A monthly reporting format should be

developed that provides easy access to management information. Regular reports

will alert classification staff to problems with the system and will also signal an

appropriate time for revalidation of the system. Florida’s next step, for example, is

to develop a portfolio of user-friendly management reports and statistics for monitoring the system. Validity and reliability studies have been recommended to seven

states to ensure that each system operates properly once fully implemented. The

details available in these management reports may also improve corrections departments’ ability to secure additional resources for population management.

From the outset of the pilot test, Oregon was the most diligent at collecting and

tracking quantitative data for monitoring the impact of the internal classification

system at EOCI and OWCC. Florida was also able to generate comprehensive data

to assess the success with which each goal and objective was achieved.

Implications and Future Steps

Researchers are always calling for more research, more planning, and more data.

Thus, suggestions for planning, technical assistance to states, and additional analyses sound redundant and trite. Yet the continued challenges faced by the eight states

involved in this initiative and the need for specific onsite expertise and complex

data analyses testify to the practical utility of this suggestion.

86

Chapter 3
The diversity of facilities, populations, factors, and models suggests that much

remains to be learned about internal classification. At the same time, state and local

correctional and detention systems continue to face growing inmate populations

and declining resources. Development of new management techniques for controlling and servicing the prison population with fewer resources becomes more critical with each new admission. Future technical assistance efforts should focus on

assisting states in developing systems that are both practical and feasible, given

these harsh realities. Just as researchers dependably call for more research, correctional administrators are consistently asked to “do more with less.” Scarce

resources should provide maximum returns, so future initiatives should concentrate

on models that require reasonable efforts in terms of staff training, validation, and

implementation.

In response to this call, NIC has indicated a commitment to continue supporting the

development of comprehensive classification systems. NIC continues to provide

long- and short-term assistance to state correctional agencies to—

¢ Update and improve objective classification systems.

¢ Enhance the capacity of correctional agencies to enable continued improvements.

¢ Validate and revalidate classification instruments.

¢ Expand the knowledge of research and strategies for appropriate and effective

correctional classification practices that respond to emerging issues and management concerns.

¢ Encourage the development of comprehensive objective classification systems.

With these future initiatives, it is anticipated that new lessons will be learned and

previous lessons will be further refined. As shown in previous initiatives, although

internal classification is critical for the efficient, safe, and orderly management of

the system, the design and implementation of a valid and reliable model is both difficult and time consuming. Although most systems attempt to answer the seemingly simple question, “Where should I put this inmate?” the complex interplay of

goals, factors and criteria, resources, and outcomes challenges even the most

sophisticated systems.

87

Common Problems, Issues, and Solutions

The diversity of facilities, populations,

factors, and models

suggests that much

remains to be learned

about internal classification.

1. AIMS has been subject to only limited evaluation (Quay, 1984). Preliminary

results show that facilities using AIMS experienced significantly lower rates of staff

and inmate assaults than facilities not using an internal classification system. In

South Carolina, serious disciplinary incidents were reduced by 18 percent after the

implementation of AIMS.

2. PMC has been rigorously evaluated and has been shown to be helpful in identifying and separating potential victims from potential predators. Outcome research

indicates that separating inmates by type and the subsequent differential supervision of inmate types resulted in decreased institutional misconduct and increased

staff and inmate safety. 

3. States were required to submit with their application copies of their current external classification forms (initial, reclassification, and needs assessment instruments)

and manual as well as written documentation of their current internal classification

process, if available. 

4. As of July 1999, Connecticut had 20 correctional facilities. 

5. Connecticut Department of Corrections. (April, 1995). Statistical Reports.

Hartford, CT: Research Division.

6. The Marquiz settlement was the result of a civil action suit by Limon

Correctional Facility inmates following a series of deaths at the facility in 1992.

7. Sex offenders are housed in all units, but their lifestyles and behavior tend to

place them in the Beta units.

8. This description of the OR DOC External Classification System was based, in

part, upon OR DOC Administrative Rules 291–104–005 through 291–104–035,

effective October 1, 1994, and interviews with OR DOC Classification and Transfer

Unit Staff.

9. OR DOC Administrative Rule 291–104, p.1.

10. At the same time, OR DOC was in the process of developing an incarceration

plan system that would identify and track inmates’ participation in treatment and

vocational and institutional work. Upon admission to OR DOC, the inmates were

placed in level one. Based upon program compliance and institutional record, they

could progress to level six. Inmates’ privileges and assignment to preferred facilities, housing units, and work assignments were linked to their incentive level.

11. The internal classification initiative stakeholders were identified as the staff

from institutional programs, inmate labor office, security, security threat group,

probation and parole, field, and classification staff.

89

Notes
12. To date, the FL DOC external classification system has not been revalidated.

13. For a full description of the definition and scoring for each of the 16 risk and

need factors, see Florida Department of Corrections (1998).

14. For purposes of the Risk and Needs System, FL DOC programs were categorized as “primary” or “other” based on their potential to aid offenders in avoiding

substance abuse and reintegrating successfully into the community. Substance

abuse treatment, academic, special education, and vocational education were identified as “primary” programs. “Other” programs included, but were not limited to,

wellness, life skills, and transition. 

15. PRIDE stands for the FL DOC Prison Rehabilitative Industries and Diversified

Enterprises or PIE (Prison Industries Enhancement) Program. The criteria assesses

the inmate’s need for new or enhanced training skills.

16. Both CCI classification and security staff participated in the hands-on pilot test.

The debriefing sessions included the facility classification staff, central office classification staff, facility executive staff, facility security staff, and computer technical staff.

17. Institutional Disruption Index (INDI) represents the inmate’s involvement in

institutional violence, supervision risk, and major and minor infractions. 

18. The difference between the category “did not meet bed type” and “no bed type”

was that the second category, “no bed type,” included placements that did not meet

the recommendation because the recommended bed type was not available within

the FL DOC system. 

19. The seven facilities and their respective locations are South Dakota State

Penitentiary, Sioux Falls, SD; Jameson Annex, Sioux Falls, SD; Springfield State

Prison, Springfield, SD; Salem Public Safety Center, Pierre, SD; Yankton Trusty

Unit, Yankton, SD; Redfield Trusty Unit, Redfield, SD; and Pheasantland

Industries, Sioux Falls, SD.

20. Herbert Quay (1984) described how AIMS was created, how to implement it,

and what effect it had on the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and Patricia Van Voorhis

(1994) compared the reliability and validity of five classification systems, including AIMS.

21. The Missouri Steering Committee included Jean Ann Johnson, associate superintendent of inmate management, Crossroads; Terry Page, assistant superintendent

of inmate management, Crossroads; Mike Kemna, superintendent, Crossroads;

Nick Noll, chief psychologist, Crossroads, Correctional Medical Services; and

Amy Gertz, caseworker 2, Crossroads. The South Dakota Steering Committee was

composed of Ed Ligtenberg, director of classification, transfer, and scheduling;

Laurie Feiler, director of noninstitutional programs/planning; Rick Leslie, case

90

Notes
manager, Penitentiary Complex; Dennis Block, unit manager, Penitentiary

Complex; and Jorgene Williams, transfer coordinator.

22. Further analyses of the Missouri data indicated that where there were disagreements in the final classification type between the two raters, the inconsistencies

were never Type 1 versus Type 3, the types that must be housed separately. There

were two such inconsistencies among the SD DOC cases, however.

23. ACCESS software, with the automated instruments and monitoring reports, is

available from the National Institute of Corrections.

91

Internal Prison Classification Systems

93

Alexander, J., J. Austin, S. Brown, L. Chan, S. He, and P. Stokes. 1997. Internal

Prison Classification Systems: A Field Test of Three Approaches. San Francisco, CA:

National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Austin, J., J. Alexander, S. Anuskiewicz, and L. Chin. 1996. Evaluation of Colorado

Department of Corrections Classification System. San Francisco, CA: National

Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Colorado Department of Corrections. 1995. Electronic statistical file, August 28,

1995. Colorado Springs, CO: Colorado Department of Corrections, Research

Division.

———. 1999. Web site: www.doc.state.co.us/statistics.htm. Accessed in May 1999.

———. 2000. “Profile Data—Limon Correctional Facility.” March 24, 2000.

Colorado Springs, CO: Colorado Department of Corrections, Office of Planning

and Analysis.

Connecticut Department of Correction. 1999. Objective Classification Manual 1999.

Suffield, CT: Connecticut Department of Correction, Classification and Population

Management Unit.

Florida Department of Corrections. 1998. Risk and Needs System Guide. Tallahassee, FL: Office of Security and Institutional Management, Bureau of Inmate

Classification and Management.

———. 1999. Web site www.dc.state.fl.us. Accessed in April 1999.

Lerner, K., G. Arling, and S.C. Baird. 1986. “Client Management Classification

Strategies for Case Supervision.” Crime and Delinquency 32 (3): 254–71.

Limon Correctional Facility. 1999. “Internal Classification.” Operational memorandum, August 15, 1999. Limon, CO.

MacDougall Correctional Institution (MacDougall). 2000. Internal Classification

Manual. Suffield, CT: Connecticut Department of Correction, Classification and

Population Management Unit.

Mande, Mary J. 1996. Inmate Classification Study. Boulder, CO: MJM Consulting

Services. Funded by the National Institute of Corrections.

Megargee, E.I., and M.J. Bohn, Jr., with J. Meyer, Jr., and F. Sink.1979. Classifying

Criminal Offenders: A New System Based on the MMPI. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications.

Missouri Department of Corrections. 1999. Web site: www.corrections.state.mo.us.

Accessed in April 1999.

References
New Jersey Department of Corrections. 1997. Report on the Implementation of the

Objective Classification System in the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Corrections, Policy and Planning Division.

Oregon Department of Corrections. 1998. Quick Facts. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Corrections, Office of Public Affairs.

Quay, H. 1984. Managing Adult Inmates: Classification for Housing and Program

Assignments. College Park, MD: American Correctional Association.

Soares, R.A. 1999. “Marquiz Settlement 9–K–1470, May 20, 1997–May 20, 1999,

Reporting Period 12/98B–02/99.” Limon, CO: Limon Correctional Facility.

South Dakota Department of Corrections. 1998. “Department of Corrections:

Monthly Statistics Report—November 1998.” Online at www.state.sd.us/corrections/doc.htm. Accessed on November 30, 1998.

Van Voorhis, P. 1994. Psychological Classification of the Adult Male Prison Inmate.

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Washington Department of Corrections. 1995. Electronic statistical file. Spokane,

WA: Washington Department of Corrections, Research Division.

———. 1996. “Classification Policy No. 300.380.” Olympia, WA: Washington

Department of Corrections, Secretary of the Department.

———. 2000. Web site www.wa.gov/doc/content/secstatistics.htm. Accessed in

May 2000.

94

References
95

Alexander, J. 1986. “Classification Objectives and Practices.” Crime and Delinquency 32(3): 323–38.

Alexander, J., and J. Austin. 1992. Handbook for Evaluating Objective Prison

Classification Systems. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Corrections. NIC 010675.

Austin, J. 1986. “Evaluating How Well Your Classification System Is Operating: A

Practical Approach.” Crime and Delinquency 32 (3): 302–22.

Austin, J., D. Holien, L. Chan, and C. Baird. 1989. Reducing Prison Violence by

More Effective Inmate Management: An Experimental Field Test of the Prisoner

Management Classification (PMC) System. San Francisco, CA: National Council

on Crime and Delinquency.

Buchanan, R., K. Whitlow, and J. Austin. 1986. “National Evaluation of Objective

Prison Classification Systems: The Current State of the Art.” Crime and Delinquency 32 (3): 272–90.

Chaiken, J., M. Chaiken, and W. Rhodes. 1993. “Predicting Violent Behavior and

Classifying Violent Offenders.” In Understanding and Preventing Violence, vol. 4.

Consequences and Control. Ed. A. Reiss and J. Roth. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press: 217–95.

Clements, C. 1982. “The Relationship of Offender Classification to the Problems of

Prison Overcrowding.” Crime and Delinquency 28 (1): 72–81.

Cohen, R.L. 1991. Prisoners in 1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Statistics. May. NCJ 129198.

Cowden, J. and Durkin, G. (Summary, 1984). “Development and validation of differential risk prediction scales: an enhancement of the original Wisconsin

risk/needs classification system.”

Cowden, J. (Summary, 1984). “Development and validation of risk prediction and

needs assessment scales for juvenile offenders in Wisconsin.”

Deemer, W., and Conine, A. 1984. “An Institutional Programming Model for the

Adult Developmentally Disabled Offender.” Corrections Today June: 30–31.

Evatt, P., S. Brown, and L. Fowler. 1989. “Offender Classification: Don’t Overlook

This Important Security Strategy.” Corrections Today July: 34–37.

Hardyman, P., J. Austin, K. Dedel, J. Alexander, and J. Aiken. 1999. “Where Do I

Put This Inmate?” Designing and Pilot Testing Internal Classification Systems in

Five States. Washington, DC: The Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections at

The George Washington University.

Suggested Readings
96

Hare, R. 1996. “Psychopathy: A Clinical Construct Whose Time Has Come.”

Criminal Justice and Behavior 23 (1): 25–54.

Hart, S., R. Hare, and A. Forth. 1996. “Psychopathy as a Risk Marker for Violence:

Development and Validation of a Screening Version of the Revised Psychopathy

Checklist.” In Violence and Mental Disorder: Developments in Risk Assessment, ed.

J. Monahan and H. Steadman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 81–98.

Hepburn, J., and L. Goodstein. 1986. “Organizational Imperatives and Sentencing

Reform Implementation: The Impact of Prison Practices and Priorities on the Attainment of the Objective of Determinate Sentencing.” Crime and Delinquency 32(3):

339–65.

Herrick, E. 1989. “The Surprising Direction of Violence in Prison.” Corrections

Compendium 14 (6):1, 4–17.

Innes, C.A. 1988. Profile of State Prison Inmates, 1986. Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. January. NCJ

109926.

Innes, C.A., and L.A. Greenfield. 1990. Violent State Prisoners and Their Victims.

Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice

Statistics. July. NCJ 124133

Jacobsen, V. 1983. “Industrial Unit Management.” Corrections Today August:

88–91, 108.

Kane, T. 1986. “The Validity of Prison Classification: An Introduction to Practical

Consideration and Research Issues.” Crime and Delinquency 32 (3): 367–90.

Lansing, D., J. Bogan, and L. Karacki. 1977. “Unit Management: Implementing a

Different Correctional Approach.” Federal Probation 41 (1): 43–49.

Leeke, W., and H. Mohn. 1986. “Violent Offenders.” Corrections Today May: 22–24.

Levinson, R. and J.D. Williams. 1980. “Inmate Classification: Security/Custody

Considerations.” Federal Probation 43 (1): 37–43.

Levinson, R., and R. Gerard. 1986. “Classifying Institutions.” Crime and

Delinquency 32 (3): 291–301.

Levinson, R. 1988. “Developments in the Classification Process: Quay’s AIMS

Approach.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 15 (1): 24–38.

———. 1999. “Internal Classification and Unit Management,” in R. Levinson, Unit

Management in Prisons and Jails. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association: 75–95.

Suggested Readings
McCorkle, R.C. 1993. “Fear of Victimization and Symptoms of Psychopathology

Among Prison Inmates.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 19 (1–2): 27–41.

Maitland, A., and R.D. Sluder. 1998. “Victimization and Youthful Prison Inmates:

An Empirical Analysis.” The Prison Journal 78 (1): 55–73.

Morris, N. and D. Rothman, eds. 1995. Oxford History of the Prison: The Practice

of Punishment in Western Society. New York: Oxford University Press.

National Council on Crime and Delinquency. 1986. Crime and Delinquency. Special

Edition: Prison Classification Systems 32 (3).

———. 1992. Criminal Justice Sentencing Policy Statement. San Francisco, CA:

National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

O’Donnell, I. and K. Edgar. 1998. “Assault in Prison: The ‘Victim’s’ Contribution.”

The British Journal of Criminology 38 (4): 635–50.

Quay, H.C. 1973. An Empirical Approach to the Differential Behavioral Assessment

of the Adult Offender. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau

of Prisons. 

———. 1983. Behavioral Classification System of Adult Offenders: Technical

Manual and Administrator’s and User’s Manual. August. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. NIC 000151

Quay, H.C., and C. Love. 1989. Behavioral Classification for Female Offenders.

Research Report. July. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Corrections. NIC 007804

Smith, W.A. and C.E. Fenton. 1978. “Unit Management in a Penitentiary: A Practical Experience.” Federal Probation 42 (3): 40–46.

Solomon, L. 1980. “Developing An Empirically Based Model for Classification

Decision-Making.” Prison Law Monitor, 2 (9): 234–37.

Toch, H. 1992. Living in Prison: The Ecology of Survival, rev. ed. Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Woodredge, J.D. 1998. “Inmate Lifestyles and Opportunities for Victimization.”

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 35 (4): 480–501.

Wright, K. 1991. “A Study of Individual, Environmental, and Interactive Effects in

Explaining Adjustment to Prison.” Justice Quarterly 8: 217–42.

———.1991b. “The Violent and Victimized in the Male Prison.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 16 (3–4): 1–25.

97

Internal Prison Classification Systems

Appendix

State of Missouri Department of Corrections Checklist for the 

Analysis of Life History Records of Adult Offenders (CALH) . . . . . . . . . . .101

State of Missouri Department of Corrections 

Correctional Adjustment Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102

IDOC Internal Classification Form: Maximum Security Facilities . . . . . . . . .103

101

State of Missouri

Department of Corrections

Checklist for the Analysis of Life History Records of Adult Offenders (CALH)

INMATE NAME DOC NUMBER

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DATE COMPLETED

INSTRUCTIONS: Place a checkmark before each behavior trait that describes this inmate’s life history.

 1. Has few, if any friends.

 2. Thrill-seeking.

 3. Preoccupied; “dreamy.”

 4. Uncontrollable as a child.

 5. Has expressed guilt over offense.

 6. Expresses need for self improvement.

 7. Socially withdrawn.

 8. Weak, indecisive, easily led.

 9. Previous local, state or federal incarceration.

 10. Tough, defiant.

 11. Irregular work history (if not a student).

 12. Noted to be not responsive to counseling.

 13. Gives impression of ineptness, incompetence in managing everyday problems in

 living.

 14. Supported wife and children.

 15. Claims offense was motivated by family problems.

 16. Close ties with criminal elements. 

 17. Depressed, morose.

 18. Physically aggressive (strong arm, assault, reckless homicide, attempted murder,

 mugging, etc.).

 19. Apprehension likely due to “stupid” behavior on the part of the offender.

 20. Single marriage.

 21. Expresses feelings of inadequacy, worthlessness.

 22. Difficulties in public schools.

 23. Suffered financial reverses prior to commission of offenses for which incarcerated.

 24. Passive, submissive.

 25. Bravado, braggart.

 26. Guiltless, blames others.

 27. Expresses lack of concern for others. 

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l
102

State of Missouri

Department of Corrections

Correctional Adjustment Checklist

INMATE NAME DOC NUMBER

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DATE COMPLETED

Please indicate which of the following behaviors this inmate exhibits. If the behavior describes the inmate, circle “1.” If it does not,

circle “0.” PLEASE COMPLETE EVERY ITEM.

0 1 1. Worried, anxious.

0 1 2. Tries, but cannot seem to follow directions.

0 1 3. Tense, unable to relax. 

0 1 4. Socially withdrawn.

0 1 5. Continually asks for help from staff.

0 1 6. Gets along with the hoods.

0 1 7. Seems to take no pleasure in anything.

0 1 8. Jittery, jumpy; seems afraid.

0 1 9. Uses leisure time to cause trouble.

0 1 10. Continually uses profane language; 

 Curses and swears.

0 1 11. Easily upset.

0 1 12. Sluggish and drowsy.

0 1 13. Cannot be trusted at all.

0 1 14. Moody, brooding.

0 1 15. Needs constant supervision.

0 1 16. Victimizes weaker inmates.

0 1 17. Seems dull and unintelligent.

0 1 18. Is an agitator about race.

0 1 19. Continually tries to con staff.

0 1 20. Impulsive; unpredictable.

0 1 21. Afraid of other inmates.

0 1 22. Seems to seek excitement.

0 1 23. Never seems happy.

0 1 24. Doesn’t trust staff.

0 1 25. Passive, easily led.

0 1 26. Talks aggressively to other inmates.

0 1 27. Accepts no blame for any of his trouble.

0 1 28. Continually complains; accuses staff of 

 unfairness.

0 1 29. Daydreams; seems to be mentally off in space.

0 1 30. Talks aggressively to staff.

0 1 31. Has a quick temper.

0 1 32. Obviously holds grudges; seeks to “get even.”

0 1 33. Inattentive; seems preoccupied.

0 1 34. Attempts to play staff against one another.

0 1 35. Passively resistant; has to be forced to 

 participate.

0 1 36. Tries to form a clique.

0 1 37. Openly defies regulations and rules.

0 1 38. Often sad and depressed.

0 1 39. Stirs up trouble among inmates.

0 1 40. Aiding or abetting in breaking rules.

0 1 41. Considers himself unjustly confined. 
103

IDOC Internal Classification Form

Maximum Security Facilities

I BACKGROUND DATA

Interview Date / / / Current Facility 

Inmate’s Name IDOC # 

Primary Offense Class Sentence Length 

IDOC Admit Date / / / MSR/MAX Date / / /

Current Age Transferred From Transfer Date / / /

Transfer Reason Disciplinary Inmate Request

 Medical Keep Separate

 Initial Class PC to General Pop

 Other 

Type of Classification Review Initial Reclass

Current Classification/Supervision and Disciplinary Grade Information

(Circle the current designation for each item below.)

Escape Level L M H EXH

Security MN MD MX

Grade A B C

Enemies checked by Interview OTS Other

Number of known enemies at correctional center 

If there are known enemies at this correctional center, please list below.

1. 4. 

 Name IDOC# Name IDOC#

2. 5. 

 Name IDOC# Name IDOC#

3. 6. 

 Name IDOC# Name IDOC#

II CRIMINAL AND BACKGROUND FACTORS

1. Current Security Level Max = 3 pts Med = 1pt Min = 0 pts

2. Current Offense Involved Violence Against Others (If yes, and time

served is less than 1 year, score 6pts. If yes and time served is 1 year or 

more score 2pts. If no, score 0 pts.)

3. Current Detainer/Warrant for Violence Against Others (Do not 

score convictions scored in item 2 above. Yes = 1 pt No = 0 pts

4. Current Age

SECTION II SUBTOTAL

Under 23 = 3 pts; 23 to 25 = 2 pts; 26 to 30 = 1pt; 31+ = 0 pts
104

III INSTITUTIONAL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS

A. Failure to Adjust to Min/Med Facility During Past Two Years

(If involved in assault, score 3 pts. If involved in fighting, score 2pts. 

Otherwise, score 1 pt. If no failure, score 0pts.)

B. Segregation to Segregation Transfers During Past Two Years

(If yes, score 5pts. If no, score 0 pts.)

C. Maximum Security Segregation Placements Past Two Years

(Indicate whether a segregation placement has occurred for the offenses listed

 in the table below. Calculate total points using the appropriate weights for 

each offense and time frame shown in each cell of the table below.)

ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION DAYS

Incident Time Frame

30 to 90 days 90 to 180 days 181+ days

Last 12 mo. 13-24 mo. Last 12 mo. 13-24 mo. Last 12 mo. 13-24 mo.

Staff Assault 6 4 8 6 10 8

Inmate Assault 6 4 8 6 10 8

Dangerous Disturbance 6 4 8 6 10 8

Fighting 6 4 NA NA NA NA

Threat or Intimidation 6 4 8 6 NA NA

Dangerous Contraband 6 4 8 6 10 8

Violent State/Fed Violations 6 4 8 6 10 8

Arson 6 4 8 6 10 8

Gang Activity 6 4 8 6 NA NA

TOTAL POINTS

SECTION III SUBTOTAL 

TOTAL SCORE (Sections II, III) 

IV ASSESSED CLASSIFICATION LEVEL

A. Scored Aggression Level Low Moderate High

(Circle one) 0-5 pts 6-11 pts 12+ pts

B. Recommended Aggression Level Low Moderate High

(Circle one) 0-5 pts 6-11 pts 12+ pts

C. If different from scored level, reasons if any: 

D. Screened by Date / / /

E. Reviewed by Date / / /

F. Concur Nonconcur 

G. If different from recommendations, reasons if any: 

H. Final Aggression Level Designation LOW MODERATE HIGH

I. Next Scheduled Review Date / / /
User Feedback Form

Please complete and return this form to assist the National Institute of Corrections in assessing the value

and utility of its publications. Detach from the document and mail to:

Publications Feedback

National Institute of Corrections

320 First Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20534

1. What is your general reaction to this document?

______Excellent ______Good ______Average ______Poor ______Useless

2. To what extent do you see the document as being useful in terms of:

3. Do you believe that more should be done in this subject area? If so, please specify the types of 

assistance needed.____________________________________________________________________

4. In what ways could this document be improved? ________________________________________________

5. How did this document come to your attention? ____________________________________________

6. How are you planning to use the information contained in this document?__________________________

7. Please check one item that best describes your affiliation with corrections or criminal justice.

If a governmental program, please also indicate the level of government.

_____ Citizen group _____ Legislative body

_____ College/University _____ Parole

_____ Community corrections _____ Police

_____ Court _____ Probation

_____ Department of corrections or prison _____ Professional organization

_____ Jail _____ Other government agency

_____ Juvenile justice _____ Other (please specify)

8. Optional:

Name: ____________________________________________________________________________

Agency: ____________________________________________________________________________

Address: __________________________________________________________________________

Telephone:__________________________________________________________________________

Useful Of some use Not useful

Providing new or important information

Developing or implementing new programs

Modifying existing programs

Administering ongoing programs

Providing appropriate liaisons

Internal Prison Classification Systems:

Case Studies in Their Development and Implementation
U.S. Department of Justice

National Institute of Corrections

Washington, DC 20534