U.S. Department of Justice

National Institute of Corrections

A National Assessment of

Current Practices
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

George M. Keiser

Chief, Community Corrections/Prisons Division

BeLinda P. Watson

Project Manager

National Institute of Corrections

World Wide Web Site

http://www.nicic.org
Classification of High-Risk and 

Special Management Prisoners 

A National Assessment 

of Current Practices

James Austin, Ph.D.

Kenneth McGinnis

June 2004

NIC Accession Number 019468
This report was funded by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) under cooperative agreement

01P09G1Q1 with Security Response Technologies, Inc., and subcontracted with The Institute on Crime,

Justice and Corrections at The George Washington University. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
iii

A project of this nature would be impossible to conduct without extensive cooperation and assistance from all who participated in the agreement. We would first like

to acknowledge our colleagues on the project team: Karl R. Becker, Kathy Dennehy,

Michael V. Fair, Patricia L. Hardyman, Ph.D., Pablo Stewart, M.D., and Mary West.

On behalf of the team, we extend sincere appreciation to those who served on the

project advisory committee—Glenn Goord, Gary Johnson, Joe Lehman, Michael

Maloney, Gary Maynard, and Ronald Shansky. Their input was invaluable in keeping the project focused on the type of work that held the most potential benefit for

correctional managers and practitioners.

Special thanks go to Ronald Angelone, President of the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA), and Maryland Commissioner William Sondervan, chair of ASCA’s Managing Disruptive Inmates Committee, under whose

leadership the committee agreed to integrate its work with that of this NIC project.

The collaboration of the Managing Disruptive Inmates Committee eliminated duplication of effort and improved the efficiency of the project’s data collection. We also

extend appreciation to all of the staff who assisted in the work reflected in this

report, and in particular to the personnel in each department who assisted in collecting survey data and in coordinating the team’s onsite visits. 

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 would like to offer special thanks to Dr. Susan

Hunter. It was under Susan’s leadership and guidance during her tenure as Chief of

the NIC Prisons Division that this project to identify, classify, and manage high-risk

and special management prisoners came to fruition.

We would also like to acknowledge the long-term support of Ms. Sammie Brown,

formerly a Corrections Program Specialist with NIC, who served as project coordinator and liaison during the period of this project. She has been a strong and persistent advocate of objective prison classification and NIC’s technical assistance

program.

In the true spirit of a cooperative agreement, both Susan and Sammie worked closely with the project team to guide the research and refine the analysis. Their participation, guidance, and feedback over the course of the research and fieldwork made

a valuable contribution to this report. 

Finally, we would like to thank Janet McNaughton and Brian Higgins, Aspen Systems Corporation, for editing and coordinating the production of this document.

Acknowledgments
v

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

Executive Summary........................................................................................... ix

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

NIC Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 4

Project Tasks .............................................................................................. 5

Chapter 2. Overview of Risk Assessment......................................................... 7

Approaches to Risk Assessment ................................................................ 7

Limitations of Risk Assessment ............................................................... 8

Special Topics: Reentry and Medical and Mental Health Needs ............ 11

Chapter 3. Risk Assessment Systems and Instruments ................................ 15

Internal Management Systems................................................................. 15

Instruments To Assess General Criminality ............................................ 17

Instruments To Assess Sex Offenders...................................................... 21

Instruments To Assess Violence and Dangerousness............................... 22

Methods of Identifying Gangs and Security Threat Groups ................... 23

Chapter 4. Findings of the National Survey of the Management 

of High-Risk Inmates........................................................................................ 25

Total Inmate Population........................................................................... 25

General Population................................................................................... 26

Special Management Populations............................................................ 28

Screening and Assessment....................................................................... 42

Contents
Chapter 5. Identification and Review of Model Programs............................47 

Connecticut Department of Correction.................................................... 51

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ................................ 56

Federal Bureau of Prisons........................................................................ 61

Chapter 6. Issues and Recommendations....................................................... 63

Notes .................................................................................................................. 65

References.......................................................................................................... 67

Suggested Readings .......................................................................................... 71

Appendix: National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates....... 75

vi

Contents
vii

Exhibit 1. Typology of High-Risk and Special Management Inmates................. 2

Exhibit 2. Nationwide Estimated Inmate Classification Levels for the 

Average Daily Population..................................................................................... 3

Exhibit 3. Prevalence of Infectious Diseases Among U.S. Prison and

Jail Inmates, 1997 ............................................................................................... 13

Exhibit 4. Estimated Number of Persons With Infectious Diseases 

Passing Through U.S. Correctional Facilities, 1997 .......................................... 13

Exhibit 5. Prison Population............................................................................... 26

Exhibit 6. Prison Population Housed in General Population ............................. 28

Exhibit 7. Gender Distribution of Inmates Housed in General Population ....... 30

Exhibit 8. Inmates in Administrative or Disciplinary Segregation..................... 32

Exhibit 9. Inmates in Protective Custody ........................................................... 34

Exhibit 10. Inmates in Mental Health Units....................................................... 36

Exhibit 11. Inmates in Medical Units or Facilities............................................. 38

Exhibit 12. Estimates of Current Prison Population Trends .............................. 40

Exhibit 13. Policies Governing High-Security/Maximum-Custody Inmates...... 41

Exhibit 14. Number and Percentage of States Reporting Consent Decrees ...... 42

Exhibit 15. Active and Pending Consent Decrees by Special Management

Population and State, 2002 ................................................................................. 43

Exhibit 16. Screening for Various Factors at Initial Assessment ....................... 45

Exhibit 17. Inmate Population Classified as Gang or Security Threat 

Group Members .................................................................................................. 46

Exhibit 18. Potential Model Programs for Managing Disruptive and 

High-Risk Prisoners............................................................................................ 48

Exhibit 19. Average Length of Stay at the Ohio State Penitentiary................... 57

Exhibit 20. Ohio State Penitentiary Population, by Classification Level and

Housing Unit, September 2001 .......................................................................... 59

List of Exhibits
Exhibit 21. Ohio State Penitentiary Release Recommendations........................ 60

Exhibit 22. Ohio State Penitentiary Class II Disciplinary Incidents,

May 2000 to August 2001 .................................................................................. 61

viii

List of Exhibits
ix

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

improve their approaches to classifying prisoners according to custody, work, and

programming needs. Litigation and overcrowding have caused classification systems to be viewed as a 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 to help forecast future

prison bedspace, staffing requirements, and prisoner program needs.

Although most prison systems have implemented objective classification systems

that have proven effective in determining the custody level assigned to an inmate

designated for the general population, less attention has been devoted to identifying

inmates who require special management. These inmates encompass a variety of

populations, ranging from highly aggressive prisoners, sexual predators, and gang

members to the mentally ill and medically challenged. There is also a pool of prisoners in the general population who are classified as “maximum” or “close” custody

because of disruptive behavior patterns or the suspicion that they may engage in

such behavior in the future. These general population prisoners should also be

viewed as high risk and may warrant special observation, monitoring, housing, and

programming.

Inmates classified as high-risk or special management constitute an estimated 10–15

percent of the nation’s prison population. Another 10–15 percent of the total inmate

population is considered maximum or close custody within the general population.

In general, the majority of prisoners never become disruptive or difficult to manage.

The most serious forms of disruptive behavior within a prison, such as homicide,

escape, aggravated assault on inmates or staff, and riots, are rare. The majority of

staff and prisoners never become the victims of such incidents.

Although high-risk and special management inmates constitute a small percentage

of the national inmate population, a disproportionate amount of staff and agency

resources must be allocated to them to maintain prisoner safety and institutional

security. Therefore, reducing the special management population can have significant cost implications for an agency. Recognizing correctional administrators’ need

for more effective means of identifying potential sources of problems in the inmate

population and more proactive strategies for addressing the issues associated with

these inmates, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) funded a project to

advance the state of knowledge about programs and policies that identify, classify,

and manage high-risk and special management prisoners. This report presents the

project’s findings. 

Overview of Risk Assessment 

In the context of corrections, the term “risk” refers to an inmate’s potential for serious misconduct within the prison setting, escape attempts, and recidivism and the

level of threat the inmate poses to public safety. The goal of risk assessment is to

Executive Summary
x

Executive Summary

reduce such incidents by studying the attributes of inmates who commit such acts

and comparing them with those of inmates who do not pose such problems.

Risk assessment involves two types of classification: external and internal. The

external classification process involves two decisions: whether to place the prisoner in the general population and, subsequently, what custody level (minimum, medium, or close/maximum custody) within the general population the prisoner should

be assigned to. Both decisions are critical to the safe and efficient operation of the

facility. Internal classification involves intrafacility decisions about where and with

whom a prisoner will be housed and the programs, services, and work assignments

that are appropriate for the prisoner. Internal classification systems are intended to

ensure that prisoners who are at risk are supervised differently from other general

population prisoners. Also, providing proper housing and treatment at the onset of

confinement affords the prisoner the opportunity to eventually return to a less

restrictive correctional environment.

Approaches to Risk Assessment 

Correctional administrators have long relied on professional clinical judgment in

assessing prisoners for parole, inclusion in a security threat group (STG), trusty

positions, and placement in administrative segregation or protective custody. This

method has been favored because it requires only a professional with the skill and

experience necessary for the assessment. Unfortunately, professional judgment has

been shown to be by far the least accurate risk assessment method.

Dissatisfaction with relying on professional judgment has led to the development of

actuarial-based assessments, which are common classification tools in correctional

settings. Longitudinal studies of prisoners and offenders identify attributes associated with misconduct, escapes, and recidivism. These risk factors are then translated into a scoring system that assigns a numeric score, which can then be converted

into a risk category. The reliability (consistency in assessments) and validity (proof

that a risk factor is associated with the behavior to be predicted) of actuarial assessment are significantly higher than can be achieved with professional judgment. Furthermore, actuarial assessment can be performed by those without extensive

professional experience.

The latter advantage is also a limitation. Because actuarial assessment does not

allow for professional judgment, it may be overly rigid. A third method, adjusted

actuarial assessment, allows for modification of a scored assessment by considering

supplemental information (e.g., input from a variety of correctional specialists with

expertise in disciplines such as security, medicine, and mental health) that is not

incorporated into the actual scoring system. 

Limitations of Risk Assessment 

The key assumption in risk assessment is that high-risk inmates can be identified.

However, any classification system is subject to error. Although there is evidence of
xi

Classification of High-Risk and Special Management Prisoners 

the predictability of the behavior of groups, reliably predicting the behavior of individuals within groups—such as which prisoners will engage in serious destructive

behavior and under what circumstances—is difficult, if not impossible. In part, this

is because of a large number of situational or environmental factors that are unpredictable in terms of their effect on behavior. For example, a chance meeting with

another prisoner belonging to a rival gang, a hostile interaction between staff and

the prisoner, or an unexpected decision to cancel a work detail are daily events that

may lead to a serious incident that is understandable in retrospect but could not have

been known in advance and prevented. Although a pattern to such incidents may

emerge over time, suggesting they are deterministic in nature, predicting them

remains problematic. This is in part why major incidents like riots, escapes, suicides, and assaults on staff and prisoners resulting in serious bodily injury are so difficult to prevent.

Reentry and Medical and Mental Health Needs 

Reentry, the transition from a segregated inmate population to the general population or from incarceration to the community, is an issue of special concern with

regard to special management prisoners. Much more attention is now being given to

consideration of whether the lack of transitional programming for prisoners, combined with the accelerated number of releases, poses an additional public safety

threat that could slow down or reverse the gains made in reducing the incidence of

crime over the past several years. Recidivism rates for ex-convicts have been

described as excessively high. Although most prisoners are released via parole or

other forms of supervision, an increasing number are being discharged after having

served their entire sentence and therefore are not subject to any postrelease supervision requirements. Given that most maximum-security and administrative segregation prisoners are offered negligible programming and allowed minimal exposure

to normal human contact and that few programs are available to help these prisoners navigate the reentry process, unsupervised release should be viewed as a major

public safety issue.

The medical and mental health needs of special management prisoners also merit

special concern. There is growing evidence that a significant portion of the prison

population suffers from highly contagious and life-threatening diseases. A significant number of persons who pass through America’s prisons and jails are infected

with AIDS, HIV, hepatitis B and C, and other diseases that are easily transmitted

through illicit drug use and unprotected sexual behavior. Prison systems must identify these prisoners, give them the necessary level of medical care, and educate them

on how to avoid spreading the disease further. It may be necessary to house some

portion of these prisoners in segregated units where specialized forms of treatment

can more readily be provided. When releasing these prisoners, correctional systems

must ensure that medical treatment will be maintained while they are on parole 

or under community supervision. At a minimum, soon-to-be-released prisoners can

be given information on where treatment can readily be obtained for a sustained

period of time. 
The same recommendations apply to prisoners with major mental health problems.

BJS estimates that approximately 16 percent of the prison population suffers from

a mental health problem that requires some method of formal treatment. Undiagnosed and untreated mental health problems detract not only from the prisoner’s

well-being but also from the safety of the prison system. Growing evidence shows

that some prisoners placed in administrative segregation for violent and assaultive

behavior suffer from undiagnosed mental illness. Thus, the handling of special management prisoners must include the ability to diagnose and treat mental health conditions related to their disruptive behavior.

Risk Assessment Systems and Instruments 

The number and type of instruments available for use in screening inmates for

a variety of risks and dangerous behaviors has increased significantly. The risk

assessment systems and instruments that have been used, or are being promoted for

use, within correctional agencies include internal management systems and instruments designed to assess general criminality, sex offenders, and violence and dangerousness.

Internal Management Systems 

Internal management systems are used to determine how prisoners should be

housed within a particular facility or complex. These systems assume that prisoners have varying levels of aggressiveness or vulnerability that can be measured with

a questionnaire:

 Adult Internal Management System (AIMS). AIMS relies on two instruments to identify inmates who are likely to be incompatible in terms of housing

and those who are the most likely to pose a risk to the safe and secure operation

of a facility. The first instrument, the Life History Checklist, focuses on the

inmate’s adjustment and stability in the community. The second instrument, the

Correctional Adjustment Checklist, is designed to create a profile of an inmate’s

likely behavior in a correctional setting.

 Prisoner Management Classification System (PMC). PMC uses a semistructured interview supplemented by ratings of 11 objective background factors that

assess an inmate’s social status and offense history. The system also provides

detailed guidelines for safe and appropriate management of inmates within their

designated housing units after they are classified and highlights programming

approaches to prepare inmates for readjustment to the community.

Instruments To Assess General Criminality 

Within the past 20 years, several states have individually begun testing and using a

diverse array of risk assessment instruments that assess criminal behavior, likelihood of recidivism, and the success of rehabilitative programs. The most commonly cited instruments in use by these and other jurisdictions are the following:

Executive Summary

xii
 Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI–R). This instrument primarily

assesses the respondent’s social situation within the community. It is best suited

for use with probationers and parolees as opposed to those who are incarcerated.

 Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions

(COMPAS). COMPAS includes four major risk assessment scales (violence,

recidivism, flight, and community noncompliance) for use both in assessing an

offender’s appropriateness for community corrections and in making decisions

regarding release and case management supervision. It also evaluates psychosocial stressors—such as residence in a high-crime community, poverty,

vocational problems, social isolation, and scarcity of social supports—that may

be useful in designing case plans.

 U.S. Board of Parole Salient Risk Guidelines. These guidelines include an

additive point scale to classify inmates by their risk level. The “salient factor

score” is based on two sets of factors associated with recidivism rates for

inmates released from federal prisons: the seriousness of the offense committed

and the likelihood of success or failure under parole supervision.

 Client Management Classification (CMC) System. Developed for use in probation and parole services, CMC is essentially the same as the PMC system. It

is based on a questionnaire completed by probationers and parolees to determine both the level of supervision they should receive and the types of services

they may require.

 Risk of Reconviction (ROC) Scale and Criminogenic Needs Inventory

(CNI). New Zealand’s ROC scale and CNI, which is a further development of

the ROC, include assessments of an inmate’s emotions, propensity towards violence, relationships, alcohol- and drug-related behaviors, impulsivity, and criminal associates. 

 Community Risk/Needs Management Scale (CRNMS) and Case Needs

Identification and Analysis (CNIA). The CNIA was designed to assess inmate

needs at admission. The CRNMS built on information included in the CNIA

and streamlined its design in order to evaluate criminal history risk, case needs,

the likelihood of reoffending, and the level of community supervision necessary

per offender.

Instruments To Assess Sex Offenders 

The public’s growing awareness and fear of recidivism among released sex offenders have led to increased interest in identifying and treating them. The following

instruments are those most frequently used in adult corrections today to assess the

risk of recidivism in convicted sex offenders:

Classification of High-Risk and Special Management Prisoners 

xiii
 Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism (RRASOR). The

RRASOR assigns a score based on four items found in inmates’ case files: prior

sex offenses, age at release, victim gender, and relationship to victim.

 Static–99. Similar to the RRASOR, the Static–99 is an inventory of 10 items

found in inmate case files that reflect attributes of convicted sex offenders and

that were shown to be associated with recidivism in four separate Canadian and

U.K. samples. 

 Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool–Revised (MnSOST–R). This

inventory scores 16 items drawn from inmate files: 12 static variables related 

to the offender’s criminal record and relationship to his victims, and 4 dynamic components that measure factors associated with age and behavior while

incarcerated.

 Sexual Violence Risk–20 (SVR–20). Developed for use as a topical guideline

for risk assessments linked with studying violent sexual offenders, the Sexual

Violence Risk–20 incorporates information pertaining to an offender’s psychosocial adjustment and future plans. It also includes factors specifically related to the offender’s attitudes toward and history of committing sexual offenses.

Instruments To Assess Violence and Dangerousness 

Two instruments were developed in Canada to assess psychopathic violence: the

Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL–R), and the Violence Risk Assessment

Guide (VRAG), which is also used to predict sex offense recidivism. Both instruments are intended for use only by a licensed psychologist or other mental health

professional working under the supervision of a licensed psychologist.

Methods of Identifying Gangs and Security Threat Groups 

The Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Colorado Department of Corrections have

developed systems that assign an inmate points for having certain attributes associated with gang membership. Outside these two jurisdictions, the identification of

members of gangs and other STGs remains subjective. Typically, states develop

policies that require highly trained staff to be designated as specialists in the identification of STG inmates, their movements, and their illicit activities. These staff

draw on multiple sources of information, including tattoos, prior affiliations with

known gang members, gang-related literature, and the word of other prisoners.

Findings of the National Survey of the Management of

High-Risk Inmates 

The survey, which was sent in 2002 to the correctional agencies of all 50 states and

the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico (hereafter referred to as “states”), was

designed to obtain information on the procedures used to classify high-risk inmates,

particularly those in protective custody or administrative segregation, and inmates

Executive Summary

xiv
with mental illnesses or medical problems. The last section of the survey asked for

information on new or model programs, including the name and location of the program, the target population, screening processes, programs and services offered, and

staffing levels.

The survey responses demonstrated little consensus on the use of even the most

basic classification terms such as “general population,” “protective custody,” and

“administrative” as opposed to “disciplinary” segregation. Further, very few correctional data systems were able to aggregate quickly and accurately the numbers and

types of prisoners in each of these discrete classification categories. Disagreement

about prison classification terms and delay in implementing automated data systems

are not new, but these issues made it difficult for some agencies to complete the survey fully. Many agencies either had limited access to the information requested or

stored their records in a way that prevented them from retrieving the data. Therefore, most of the survey results are based on a limited number of respondents.

Forty-one states and Puerto Rico completed and returned the survey, yielding a

response rate of 81 percent. The number of inmates ranged from 740 in Wyoming

to 157,142 in California. The states with the next largest inmate populations were

Texas, with 143,302, and Florida and New York, with populations of approximately 70,000 each. After Wyoming, the states with the smallest inmate populations

were New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia, all of which

reported fewer than 2,000 inmates.

In all states that reported general population data, the great majority of the inmates

(an average of 80 percent) were assigned to the general population, indicating that

there were no special security, medical, or mental health needs for most prisoners.

Overall, no major differences were found in the proportion of male and female prisoners in the general population in each state.

The special management category to which the highest proportion of prisoners was

assigned was administrative and/or disciplinary segregation. (Because of the variation in the responding states’ use of the terms “administrative” and “disciplinary,”

data on these two segregated populations were combined in compiling the survey

results.) On average, 5 percent of the total inmate population in the reporting states

was assigned to this status on any given day, although there was considerable variance among the states. The balance of the prison population assigned to a special

management status was in protective custody, mental health/mental retardation, or

medical infirmary units. The percentage of the total prison population housed in

each type of unit varied considerably among the states. 

The majority of the survey respondents reported that both their male and female

inmate populations were increasing (66 percent of respondents and 61 percent of

respondents, respectively). Approximately one-third reported that their prison populations had declined or remained stable. A higher proportion of the states indicated that their special management populations had either decreased or remained

Classification of High-Risk and Special Management Prisoners 

xv
unchanged, and most agencies reported that inmate-on-staff and inmate-on-inmate

assaults had not increased. 

Nearly all the states that responded to questions regarding high-security/maximumcustody prisoners restrict these inmates to their cells for 22–23 hours per day, limit

their contact with visitors, and require the use of restraints at all times when moving them; 68 percent allow maximum-custody inmates to have contact with other

high-security inmates. In 47 percent of the responding states, mentally ill inmates

who are disruptive are subject to the same maximum-custody policies as all other

inmates.

Special management inmates are eligible to return to the general population in every

state that responded to the survey, most commonly when their segregation time has

expired, they are no longer deemed a threat to institutional security, or staff has

approved their return based on improved behavior. However, only 69 percent of the

responding states provide some type of transitional program, and most of the programs designed to help inmates readjust to the general population serve only those

who are mentally ill.

The use of special management units has given rise to a significant amount of litigation, typically focusing on one of the following three issues: the criteria for

designation as a special management prisoner, the conditions of confinement in

such units, or the process for releasing the inmate back to the general prison population. The majority of consent decrees in place concerns mentally ill or medical

populations.

All states responding reported that all prisoners are screened for suicide risk, mood

disorders, and psychotic disorders. Nearly all of the responding states screen for

mental retardation and escape risk. Most of the responding states screen their prisoners for STG membership. 

Identification and Review of Model Programs 

Only a small number of states responded to the survey’s questions regarding model

programs, and most of the programs they described targeted inmates who had

already been placed in administrative segregation. No state reported programs or

policies directed at high-risk prisoners housed in the general population whose

actions had not yet led to their removal to a special management population. None

of the programs described had been formally evaluated to determine its effectiveness in reducing violence either among these prisoners or within the prison system

at large.

Based on the survey responses and independent sources, the project team identified

23 model programs in 15 states. Site visits were made to facilities of three jurisdictions that demonstrated well-structured, highly effective or promising programs:

Connecticut and Ohio, which have programs that focus on the disruptive prisoner

xvi

Executive Summary
who has been removed from the general population, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which operates an innovative program for female prisoners who have been traumatized by physical and sexual abuse before being incarcerated.

Connecticut Department of Correction 

Most jurisdictions manage and house all high-risk inmates through a single administrative segregation structure, irrespective of differences in the nature of the risk the

prisoners represent to the institution’s safety or in their security and programming

needs. The Connecticut Department of Correction (CDC) has taken another

approach and developed a model called the Close Custody Phase Program that it has

adapted to the specific needs of different groups of high-risk inmates. The CDC’s

three Close Custody Phase Programs for high-risk inmates are the Close Custody

Gang Management Program, the Close Custody Chronic Disciplinary Program, and

the Administrative Segregation Transition Phase Program. The structure and program requirements of each unit are based on examination of outcome data and consideration of the needs and characteristics of the respective groups and are intended

to facilitate the inmates’ return to the general population, if appropriate. The process

includes regular and frequent reviews by the classification staff and structured

movement of the inmate through the levels, or phases, of the program until release.

CDC data show that violence has decreased significantly in its facilities, both in the

general population and in the high-risk units, since it began implementing programs

targeted to specific groups of high-risk inmates. The CDC approach is being replicated to some degree by Colorado and New Mexico.

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 

The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) employs a wellstructured, well-validated inmate classification system with five basic security levels: minimum, medium, close, maximum, and high maximum. Inmates in each

security level may be assigned to a special management or segregation designation.

Those who commit disciplinary violations are placed in a restricted unit with one of

the following designations: administrative, security, disciplinary, and local control.

Inmates sent to a security, disciplinary, or local control unit are returned to the general population within a relatively short period of time. Those who the DRC believes

should be removed and segregated on an indefinite basis are assigned to either

administrative control, high maximum custody, or protective custody. All high

maximum-custody inmates are housed at the Ohio State Penitentiary (OSP).

The DRC built the OSP as a super maximum-security facility in response to a major

prison riot that occurred in the 1990s. Opened in 1998, the OSP has four levels of confinement with differing degrees of privileges. A treatment plan established for each

inmate outlines the types of programs the inmate is expected to participate in and the

areas of conduct in which the inmate is expected to improve. This treatment plan is

reviewed and updated as part of the inmate’s reassessment at 6-month intervals.

xvii

Classification of High-Risk and Special Management Prisoners 
The rate of serious misconduct among OSP inmates is impressively low, undoubtedly because of the security precautions in effect at the facility. The absence of

behaviors such as banging on cell doors, destroying cell property, flooding cells, or

threatening staff is also noticeable, suggesting that placement in the OSP stabilizes

or suppresses the inmates’ institutional conduct.

Federal Bureau of Prisons 

The Federal Bureau of Prisons’ New Pathways program offers female prisoners who

have a history of sexual abuse the opportunity to meet in small groups (10 or fewer

women) under the guidance of a psychologist to discuss the general topic of sexual

and physical abuse. Participants are given the opportunity to meet individually with

the supervising psychologist for followup sessions if issues raised in the group bring

up painful or disturbing reactions.

Issues and Recommendations 

In the United States, the prevailing approach to managing high-risk and special

management prison populations has been to build larger, more secure, and heavily

staffed administrative segregation and super maximum-security housing units. Prisoners typically are placed in these units only after their destructive behavior has

made it obvious that they should be removed from the general population. As

demonstrated by the responses to the National Survey’s questions about model programs, much less consideration has been given to preventing violent incidents from

occurring in the first place through the use of classification tools, aggressive management techniques, and programming and treatment services designed to modify

prisoners’ behavior.

Research is needed to develop better classification tools and a more proactive

approach to managing high-risk and special management prisoners. Such research

will be hampered, however, until the states adopt a common terminology for classifying the prison population. At a minimum, the states should agree on a common

definition of each of the following categories and to the use of these categories to

designate all prisoners:

 General population.

 Special management:

❖ Administrative segregation.

❖ Disciplinary segregation.

❖ Protective custody.

❖ Severe mental health care.

❖ Severe medical care. xviii

Executive Summary
The National Survey also revealed that few states had correctional data systems that

could quickly and accurately aggregate the numbers and types of prisoners in their

custody. The states are strongly encouraged to upgrade their correctional data systems so that they are capable of tracking and monitoring the prisoner population on

a daily basis according to the six basic categories listed above. State correctional

data systems should also provide more detailed information about the basis for

assigning a prisoner to a category and on the movement of prisoners from one category to another. 

Research into proactive methods for preventing prison violence should include an

examination of the effects of environment on prisoner behavior. It is well known

among corrections professionals that prison architecture influences inmate behavior

and that similarly situated inmate populations can have very different rates of serious misconduct. It is strongly recommended that the states and the federal government initiate studies to determine the impact of architecture and prison management

methods on disruptive inmate behavior. 

Such studies should include assessments of the often advocated but still highly controversial super maximum-security facilities. More information is needed on how

best to identify inmates who require this level of segregation, how long they should

remain segregated from the general population, what interventions should be used

to control their high-risk behavior, when and how they should be returned to the

general population, and how they behave after release from these units. In the

absence of such basic research, it is difficult to propose new methods for identifying such high-risk prisoners and to apply interventions that will help control and

manage them.

xix

Classification of High-Risk and Special Management Prisoners 
A properly functioning classification system is seen as the

“brain” of prison

management. It

governs many important decisions,

including those that

heavily influence fiscal matters such as

staffing levels, bedspace, and programming expansion.

Introduction 

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

improve their approaches to classifying prisoners according to custody, work, and

programming needs. Litigation and overcrowding have caused classification systems to be viewed as a 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 to help forecast future

prison bedspace and prisoner program needs. In other words, a properly functioning

classification system is seen as the “brain” of prison management. It governs many

important decisions, including those that heavily influence fiscal matters such as

staffing levels, bedspace, and programming expansion.

Objective prison classification systems were originally adopted in the 1980s, but by

the late 1990s, significant modifications, including new risk assessment measures

developed by statistical analysis centers, had improved classification practices. The

results of these improvements include a reduction in the number of overclassified

prisoners (i.e., those assigned to higher custody levels than necessary), more consistent custody decisions, validation of criteria for custody decisions, systematic

assessment of prisoner program needs, and increased institutional safety for both

staff and prisoners.

Although most prison systems have implemented objective classification systems

that have proven effective in determining the custody level assigned to an inmate

designated for the general population, less attention has been devoted to identifying

inmates who should be placed in a special management category such as administrative segregation or protective custody. Such placements often occur after the fact,

when an inmate’s violent or disruptive behavior has made it obvious that he or she

should be removed from the general population.

Prisoners requiring special management encompass a variety of populations, including highly aggressive prisoners, sexual predators, youthful offenders (including

juveniles housed in adult facilities), gang members, the mentally ill, and the medically challenged. There is also a pool of prisoners in the general population who are

classified as “maximum” or “close” custody because of disruptive behavior patterns

or the suspicion that they may engage in such behavior in the future. These general

population prisoners should also be viewed as high risk, and may warrant special

observation, monitoring, housing, and programming. Such preemptive intervention

by staff members may negate the need for more restrictive interventions later on.

Chapter one

1
In general, the majority of prisoners never

becomes disruptive or

difficult to manage.

Exhibit 1 shows the categories that have been established for high-risk prisoners—

those whose behavior is so problematic that they must be removed from the general population and placed in a very secure and heavily staffed unit or prison for

a substantial period of time—and special management prisoners. These categories

are not mutually exclusive. For example, a prisoner may be categorized as “chronic

misbehavior—assaultive,” but the prisoner’s conduct may also be related to a mental condition. Although most of these designations are based on subjective judgments, staff members are sufficiently trained and skilled in making such assessments

and can use additional sources of objective data to reach a determination.

The most current estimates are that approximately 10–15 percent of the nation’s

prisoner population falls within one of these special prisoner categories (exhibit 2).

Another 10–15 percent of the total population is considered maximum or close custody within the general population. In general, the majority of prisoners never

becomes disruptive or difficult to manage. The most serious forms of disruptive

behavior within a prison, such as homicide, escape, aggravated assault on inmates

or staff, and riots, are rare events. The majority of staff and prisoners never become

the victims of such incidents. 

2

Chapter 1

Category and Assessment Method Placement

Security threat group Administrative segregation or general 

Subjective assessment based on at least three sources of inde- population—high custody.

pendent objective data as applied to well-defined agency criteria. 

Likely victim Protective custody or restricted general 

Subjective assessment based on at least three sources of inde- population facilities.

pendent objective data as applied to well-defined agency criteria.

Mentally ill Mental health unit and/or administrative 

Standardized psychometric tests and clinical judgment by mental segregation.

health staff.

Chronic misbehavior—assaultive General population—high custody, adminObjective external classification. istrative segregation, or mental health unit.

Chronic misbehavior—nonassaultive General population—high custody, adminObjective external classification. istrative segregation, or mental health unit.

Nonsexual predator General population—high custody, adminSubjective assessment based on at least three sources of inde- istrative segregation, or mental health unit. 

pendent objective data as applied to well-defined agency criteria.

Sexual predator General population—high custody, adminSubjective assessment based on at least three sources of inde- istrative segregation, or mental health unit.

pendent objective data as applied to well-defined agency criteria.

Developmentally disabled General population (all custody levels) or 

Standardized psychometric tests and clinical judgment by mental mental health unit.

health staff.

Exhibit 1. Typology of High-Risk and Special Management Inmates
Reducing the special

management population can have significant cost implications

for an agency. 

For example, in California’s 155,000-inmate prison system, the rate of serious incidents (defined as assault and battery, attempted suicide, suicide, possession of a

weapon, and possession of controlled substances) is approximately 8 per 100 prisoners per year.1 Assaults and batteries comprise about half of these incidents. There

were 21 suicides and 9 homicides in 2002. The stabbing rate is 0.4 per 100 prisoners. If one were to compute a homicide rate for the California Department of Corrections population, it would be approximately 8–9 per 100,000, only slightly

higher than the rate for the state’s citizens, which is 6.4 per 100,000. Given the

demographics of the California corrections system’s population, which is mostly

young males with criminal histories, one can argue that the homicide rate for this

population is actually lower among those who are incarcerated than those who are

on the street.

Although high-risk and special management inmates constitute a small percentage

of the national inmate population, a disproportionate amount of staff and agency

resources must be allocated to them to maintain prisoner safety and institutional

security. This draining of resources diminishes an agency’s ability to fund more productive services and programs for the larger general prisoner population. Therefore,

reducing the special management population can have significant cost implications

for an agency. 

3

Introduction

Custody Level Percent

General population 80

Minimum/community 35–40

Medium 35–45

Maximum/close 10–15

Special populations 15

Administrative/disciplinary segregation 5–6

Protective custody 1–2

Severe mental health 1–2

Severe medical 1–2

Unclassified 5

Source: National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates, National Institute of Corrections, 2002.

Exhibit 2. Nationwide Estimated Inmate Classification Levels for the Average

Daily Population
NIC Goals and Objectives 

Recognizing correctional administrators’ need for more effective means of identifying potential sources of problems in the inmate population and more proactive

strategies for addressing the issues associated with these inmates, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) funded a project to advance the state of knowledge about

programs and policies that identify, classify, and manage high-risk and special management prisoners. NIC established the following objectives for the project:

 To examine the use of objective classification systems in assessing the level of

risk posed by different types of prisoners requiring special management.

 To review the supervision and program strategies being used by correctional

systems to manage these inmates, especially those classified as high risk. 

 To consider the means by which high-risk and special management inmates

may be returned to the general prison population.

 To examine processes for release of these inmates back into society and for their

continued followup.

 To identify the best practices currently in use for managing high-risk and 

special management prisoners.

To accomplish these objectives, NIC’s project team identified five primary research

topics that address key aspects of the management of high-risk and special management inmates:

 Identification and selection. How are special management populations

defined? What groups are included? How are members identified? When are

they identified? Is an objective classification instrument used? When was it

developed and validated? What factors do assessment or classification instruments examine in the identification process? Are targeted inmates properly

identified and classified? How many inmates are currently classified in this

group?

 Standards for conditions of confinement. What are the management consequences of being identified and designated as a high-risk inmate? Are special

housing and treatment programs associated with this designation? Are distinctive case management practices used for these inmates? To what extent are they

segregated from general population inmates? What supervision strategies are

employed in managing them? What level of services and privileges are provided?

 Staffing. What are the staffing and training requirements for special management programs and units? To what extent do security and program staff work

together in the management of the program? What is the cost of the program?

4

Chapter 1
The project team

conducted a national

survey of state correctional systems 

to identify existing

approaches to the

classification and

management of highrisk and special management prisoners.

 Program process. What are the treatment goals? How are decisions made to

return high-risk/special management inmates to the general inmate population?

How is the transition to the general population managed? How are long-term

inmates maintained in these programs? Is documentation of all management

activities available? Do periodic reviews of supervision and program needs

occur? Are supervision/program plans developed for each inmate designated

high risk or special management?

 Community issues. What are the standards for parole or release of highrisk/special management inmates? What are the standards for supervision in the

community? What links exist between institutional and community treatment

programs? What is the survival rate for these prisoners when they are released

into the community? 

Project Tasks 

To achieve the objectives outlined above, the project team completed the following

tasks:

 A review of the most significant current research on the topic. 

 A national survey of state correctional systems to identify existing approaches

to the classification and management of high-risk and special management prisoners. (A copy of the survey is provided in the appendix.)

 Site visits to the programs judged to be the most effective and to have the greatest potential for application within other correctional systems.

This report presents the findings of the project team for each of these tasks. Chapter 2 provides an overview of risk assessment. Chapter 3 presents an inventory of

current risk assessment systems and instruments in use by state correctional systems. Chapter 4 summarizes the data obtained from state correctional agencies in

the National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates. Chapter 5 catalogs

the best practices and model programs identified among the respondents to the

National Survey and presents case studies of some promising and effective programs. Chapter 6 offers recommendations for further refinement of special management programs and identifies areas for future research. 

5

Introduction
Providing proper

housing and treatment at the onset of

confinement affords

the prisoner the

opportunity to eventually return to a less

restrictive correctional 

environment.

Overview of Risk Assessment

In the context of corrections, the term “risk” refers to an inmate’s potential for serious misconduct within the prison setting, escape attempts, and recidivism and the

level of threat the inmate poses to public safety. The goal of risk assessment is to

reduce these incidents by studying the attributes of inmates who commit such acts

and comparing them with those of inmates who do not pose such problems. 

Such risk factors can be classified as either “static” or “dynamic.” Static risk factors

tend to be historical and unchanging. For example, age at first arrest, history of violent felony convictions, and the severity of the current crime are static risk factors

that often appear in risk assessment measures. Dynamic risk factors are items associated with future behavior and can change over time. Current employment status,

education level, and marital status are examples of dynamic factors that are situational in nature and can change rapidly. There is some indication that dynamic factors are more important in predicting risk than static factors, as the former better

describe the individual’s current life situation (Wood and Cellini, 1999).

Risk assessment involves two types of classification: external and internal. The

process of external classification involves two decisions: whether to place the prisoner in the general population and to what custody level (minimum, medium, or

close/maximum custody) within the general population the prisoner should be

assigned. Both decisions are critical to the safe and efficient operation of the facility. Internal classification involves intrafacility decisions about where and with

whom a prisoner will be housed and the programs, services, and work assignments

that are appropriate for the prisoner. Internal classification systems are intended

to ensure that prisoners who are at risk of being placed in a special management

population are supervised differently from other general population prisoners. Also,

providing proper housing and treatment at the onset of confinement affords the

prisoner the opportunity to eventually return to a less restrictive correctional 

environment.

Approaches to Risk Assessment 

Correctional administrators have long relied on professional clinical judgment in

assessing prisoners for parole, inclusion in a security threat group (STG), trusty

positions, and placement in administrative segregation or protective custody. This

method has been favored because it requires only a professional with the skill and

experience necessary for the assessment. In general, no forms must be completed

Chapter two

7
All risk assessment

systems, whether they

rely on professional

judgment, actuarial

scoring systems, or 

a combination of 

the two, are subject

to error.

and no tests for reliability and validity are needed. Unfortunately, professional

judgment has been shown to be by far the least accurate risk assessment method

(Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 1993; Morris and Miller, 1985). Too often, such

judgments are no more than “gut” reactions that may vary from expert to expert with

regard to the same prisoner. Corrections tends to rely on this risk methodology for

some of its most important decisions, such as release to the community or placement in a high-security unit. 

Dissatisfaction with relying on professional judgment has led to the development of

actuarial-based assessments. Actuarial methods are common classification tools in

correctional settings. Longitudinal studies of prisoners and offenders identify attributes associated with misconduct, escapes, and recidivism. These risk factors are

translated into a scoring system that assigns a numeric score, which can then be converted into a risk category. A major advantage of actuarial assessment is levels of

reliability (consistency in assessments) and validity (proof that a risk factor is associated with the behavior to be predicted) that are significantly higher than can be

achieved with professional judgment. Furthermore, actuarial assessment can be performed by those without extensive professional experience.

The latter advantage is also a limitation. Because actuarial assessment does not

allow for professional judgment, it may be overly rigid. Inmate populations cannot

simply be scored. A third method, adjusted actuarial assessment, recognizes that

neither professional judgment nor actuarial assessment is sufficient in and of itself.

Adjusted actuarial assessment allows for modification of a scored assessment by

consideration of supplemental information (e.g., input from a variety of correctional specialists with expertise in disciplines such as security, medicine, and mental

health) that is not incorporated into the scoring system. 

Limitations of Risk Assessment 

All risk assessment systems, whether they rely on professional judgment, actuarial

scoring systems, or a combination of the two, are subject to error (false-positives or

false-negatives). Factors that may lead to such errors include unpredictable situational or environmental factors (e.g., chance meetings between members of rival

gangs or the effect of a facility’s architectural design or the warden’s management

style) and the inherent difficulty in predicting events with a low frequency of occurrence such as prison escapes, suicides, and homicides. These limitations are discussed in more detail below.

Types of Error 

The key assumption in risk assessment is that high-risk inmates can be identified.

However, any classification system is subject to two critical types of error: falsepositives and false-negatives. False-positive errors occur when prisoners who pose

little or no risk are assigned to a special population category. A docile prisoner who

has been placed in administrative segregation for alleged gang behavior but who is

8

Chapter 2
Chance meetings

with another prisoner

belonging to a rival

gang and unexpected

decisions to cancel a

work detail are daily

events that may cause

a severe reaction that

is understandable in

retrospect but impossible to predict.

not involved in such activities is an example of false-positive classification. Conversely, false-negative errors occur when potentially disruptive prisoners are not

identified and removed from the general population. The failure to detect and segregate an active gang member can be potentially dangerous for the rest of the prisoners in general population housing and for staff. 

False-positive classification errors can also lead to serious incidents, including

assaults on staff and prisoners, suicides or suicide attempts, and escapes. Such

episodes are disruptive and costly to a facility’s operation and expose the agency to

expensive litigation. 

Situational and Environmental Factors 

Although there is evidence of the predictability of the behavior of groups (macrolevel behavior), reliably predicting the behavior of individuals within groups

(micro-level behavior)—for example, which prisoners will engage in serious

destructive behavior and under what circumstances—is difficult, if not impossible.

In part, this is because of a large number of situational or environmental factors that

are unpredictable in terms of their effect on behavior. Modern physics developed

chaos theory to explain the variable effects of such factors. Chaos theory holds that

while patterns of phenomena exist within the physical sciences, a slight change in

such patterns will produce other radical and large-scale changes (Gleick, 1988).

The often-cited example of chaos theory at work in daily life is predicting the

weather. Because the phenomenon called weather is actually the product of a complex

set of natural forces that have a deterministic quality, it is possible to forecast what

is likely to be the weather at any given time. Yet weather forecasts often turn out to

be incorrect when a minor fluctuation in one of the factors involved results in a

weather pattern different from the one predicted—sometimes a severe storm, hurricane, or tornado (Gleick, 1988). Furthermore, the longer the forecast horizon (e.g.,

1 week versus 1 day), the more tenuous the predicted weather pattern will be. It is

the presence of too many factors that can behave in unexpected ways that compromises a weather forecast. In retrospect, however, it is always possible to explain why

a storm did or did not materialize as expected.

In the context of prisoners and prison management, a chance encounter in the life

of an inmate (or staff) can result in a serious incident that could not have been

known in advance and prevented. For example, a chance meeting with another prisoner belonging to a rival gang, a hostile interaction between a prisoner and staff, or

an unexpected decision to cancel a work detail are examples of daily events that may

cause a severe reaction that is understandable in retrospect but impossible to predict.

Over time, a pattern to such incidents may emerge, suggesting they are deterministic in nature, but predicting them remains problematic. This is in part why seemingly

chaotic major incidents like riots, escapes, suicides, and assaults on staff and prisoners resulting in serious bodily injury are so difficult to prevent (Duguid, 2000).

9

Overview of Risk Assessment
Unfortunately, few 

if any studies have

assessed the impact 

of architecture on

suppressing or 

controlling prisoner

behavior.

The influence of architectural factors on prisoner and staff behavior must be noted

here. It would be difficult to find a correctional official, warden, superintendent, or

line officer who does not agree that a facility’s architectural design has a corresponding influence on prisoner behavior. Facilities that rely on open views of housing, dining, and recreation areas tend to produce fewer episodes of disruptive and

potentially dangerous behavior than those with numerous “blind” spots. Unfortunately, few if any studies have assessed the impact of architecture on suppressing or

controlling prisoner behavior, and it is unlikely in today’s fiscal environment that

many of the antiquated prison facilities still in use will be replaced in the near

future.

Corrections directors also have long known that similarly designed facilities with

similarly situated prison populations can produce very different rates of prisoner

misconduct, both within and across state prison systems. Each major system with

multiple facilities has wardens who are able to handle problem prisoners who

cannot be handled elsewhere. The field is also filled with stories of how prisoners

who were transferred to another state correctional facility suddenly started behaving differently.

Such variations in misconduct rates for prisons that are equivalent in design and that

house inmates with similar attributes are likely related to differences in the management style adopted by each prison administrator. Again, no studies have substantiated this observation, except for a few recent evaluations of the use of internal

classification systems in a select number of states. (These systems, the Adult Internal Management System (AIMS) and Prisoner Management Classification (PMC),

are discussed in the next chapter.)

Accuracy of Measurement and Low Base Rates 

Two other factors that limit the predictive capability of correctional systems are the

accuracy of measurements and the low frequency, or base rates, of serious incidents.

Accuracy is the function of reliability, or consistency in making assessments, and

validity, or proof that a risk factor is associated with the behavior to be predicted. If

the accuracy in a risk assessment system’s measurements is low, the system will be

subject to a large amount of “noise” (that is, irrelevant or meaningless data).

The infrequency of several of the actions that correctional agencies seek to prevent

make these actions inherently difficult to predict. The most obvious examples of this

problem are escapes, suicides, and homicides. The base rates of these very serious

incidents are so low that, coupled with the measurement problems noted above, they

cannot be statistically predicted. As with rare events such as commercial airplane

crashes, the causes can be pieced together after the fact, but it is impossible to predict the event in advance. This is not to say that correctional systems should not

strive to understand such incidents and reduce their occurrence—only that they must

not have unrealistic expectations in such endeavors.

10

Chapter 2
Much more attention

is now being given 

to consideration of

whether the lack of

transitional programming for prisoners,

combined with the

accelerated number

of releases, poses an

additional public 

safety threat.

Special Topics: Reentry and Medical and Mental

Health Needs 

Two issues have been identified as of special concern with regard to the management of prison populations: reentry of prisoners into the general prison population

or the community at large—particularly prisoners who have served their sentences

and are no longer subject to administrative supervision—and the disproportionately

high rates of chronic physical and mental illness among prisoners. In particular, the

management of mentally ill prisoners is crucial because their illness may make them

more susceptible to committing violent and disruptive behavior and to victimization

by other inmates. These two topics are discussed in more detail below.

Reentry 

Reentry, the transition from a segregated inmate population to the general population or from incarceration to the community, is an issue of special concern with

regard to special management prisoners. Recidivism rates for ex-convicts have been

described as excessively high, although that conclusion depends on what definition

of recidivism is being used and which states are included in the analysis. For example, two national studies of recidivism show that while nearly two-thirds of released

convicts are rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor, only 40 percent are

returned to prison, mostly for technical violations rather than new felony convictions (Beck and Shipley, 1989; Langan and Levin, 2002). Recidivism rates also vary

depending on whether or not California is included in the analysis.

Nonetheless, much more attention is now being given to consideration of whether

the lack of transitional programming for prisoners, combined with the accelerated

number of releases, poses an additional public safety threat that could slow down or

reverse the gains made in reducing the incidence of crime over the past several

years. Exacerbating this problem is the growing percentage of released prisoners

who have completed their full sentences and therefore are not subject to any postrelease supervision requirements. 

It is estimated that in 2002 nearly 600,000 prisoners were released from prison

(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003). Such record numbers of discharged prisoners

will inevitably lead to greater public attention to the issue of prisoner reentry to the

community. Unfortunately, however, this issue has received little attention in terms

of program planning, community preparation, or policy development (Petersilia,

1999). 

Although most prisoners are released via parole or other forms of supervision,

an increasing number are being discharged simply because they have served their

entire sentence. This number is likely to grow as more states adopt truth-in-sentencing laws, which have been the topic of increasing discussion. According to

the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 20 states have adopted laws that require prisoners convicted of violent crimes to serve, at minimum, 85 percent of their

prison terms; 6 states have enacted truth-in-sentencing laws that require from 50 to

11

Overview of Risk Assessment
Given that most

administrative segregation prisoners are

offered negligible

programming and

that few programs 

are available to help

them navigate the

reentry process, 

unsupervised release

should be viewed 

as a major public 

safety issue.

75 percent of the sentence be served; and another 14 states have abolished discretionary parole (Ditton and Wilson, 1999). 

These trends, together with the increased use of mandatory minimum sentences and

reductions in the use of early release, or “good time,” credits mean not only that

prisoners will serve much longer prison terms, but also that they are less likely to be

paroled or to serve any time under parole supervision (Ditton and Wilson, 1999).

Some observers are concerned that the release of large numbers of prisoners who

are not subject to supervision requirements that help control and monitor their

behavior is a public safety problem. Moreover, prisoners serving time in truth-insentencing states may pose management problems for prison staff because the elimination of the possibility of earning early release credits may leave these prisoners

little incentive to adhere to prison rules. 

For example, a recent study of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s administrative segregation system estimated that 2,000 prisoners are released from the various administrative segregation units directly to the community with no parole

supervision (Austin et al., 1998). In Nevada, more than half of the prisoners

released—some of whom were confined in maximum-security units at the time of

release—are discharged with no form of parole or community supervision (Naro,

2002). Given that most maximum-security and administrative segregation prisoners

are offered negligible programming and allowed minimal exposure to normal

human contact and that few programs are available to help these prisoners navigate

the reentry process, unsupervised release should be viewed as a major public safety issue (Austin, 2001).

Medical and Mental Health Needs 

There is growing evidence that a significant portion of the prison population suffers

from highly contagious and life-threatening diseases. As shown in exhibits 3 and 4,

a significant number of persons who pass through America’s prisons and jail systems are infected with AIDS, HIV, hepatitis B and C, and other diseases that are easily transmitted through illicit drug use and unprotected sexual behavior. For prison

systems, in particular, it is important to identify these prisoners, give them the necessary level of medical care, and educate them on how to avoid spreading the disease further. It may be necessary to house some portion of these prisoners in

segregated units where specialized forms of treatment can more readily be provided. When these prisoners are released, it is important to ensure that medical treatment will be maintained while they are on parole or under community supervision.

At a minimum, soon-to-be-released prisoners can be given information on where

treatment can readily be obtained for a sustained period of time.

The same recommendations apply to prisoners with major mental health problems.

Based on prisoner self-reported data, BJS estimates that approximately 16 percent

of the prison population suffers from a mental health problem that requires some

method of formal treatment (Ditton, 1999). Although many may argue that this

12

Chapter 2
Growing evidence

shows that some 

prisoners placed in

administrative segregation because of 

violent and assaultive

behavior suffer from

undiagnosed mental

illness.

figure underestimates the true level of mental health needs, it is certain that undiagnosed and untreated mental health problems detract not only from the prisoner’s

well-being but also from the safety of the prison system. Growing evidence shows

that some prisoners placed in administrative segregation because of violent and

assaultive behavior suffer from undiagnosed mental illness. For example, California

and New Mexico have recently established separate administrative segregation units

for prisoners who have severe mental health problems and require treatment.2 Thus,

the handling of special management prisoners must include the ability to diagnose

and treat mental health conditions related to their disruptive behavior.

13

Overview of Risk Assessment

Total Inmates

Condition Prisons (%) Jails (%) Infected

Total HIV/AIDS — — 35,000–46,000

HIV infection (non-AIDS) 1.45–2.03 1.45–2.03 26,000–36,000

AIDS 0.5 0.5 9,200

RPR+ (syphilis) 2.6–4.3 2.6–4.3 46,000–76,000

Chlamydia infection 2.4 2.4 43,000

Gonorrhea infection 1.0 1.0 18,000

Current/chronic hepatitis B infection 2.0 2.0 36,000

Hepatitis C infection 17–18.6 17–18.6 303,000–332,000

Tuberculosis—disease 0.04 0.17 1,400

Tuberculosis—infection 7.4 7.3 131,000

Source: From Prison to Home: The Effect of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families and 

Communities. National Policy Conference sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services and the Urban Institute, January 30–31, 2002 (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/).

Exhibit 3. Prevalence of Infectious Diseases Among U.S. Prison and 

Jail Inmates, 1997

Condition Released Inmates Total in U.S. Population

Total HIV/AIDS 151,000–197,000 750,000

HIV infection (non-AIDS) 112,000–158,000 503,000

AIDS 39,000 247,000

Current/chronic hepatitis B infection 155,000 1,000,000–1,250,000

Hepatitis C infection 1,300,000–1,400,000 4,500,000

Tuberculosis—disease 12,000 32,000

Source: From Prison to Home: The Effect of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families and 

Communities. National Policy Conference sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services and the Urban Institute, January 30–31, 2002 (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/).

Exhibit 4. Estimated Number of Persons With Infectious Diseases 

Passing Through U.S. Correctional Facilities, 1997
Few risk assessment

tools currently exist

to determine internal

classification and likelihood for prison violence; most measures

are based on predicting general criminal

behavior outside

prison.

Risk Assessment Systems and

Instruments

The number and type of instruments available for use in screening for a variety of

risks and dangerous behaviors have increased significantly. This section presents the

major distinguishing attributes of the risk assessment systems and instruments that

have been used, or are being promoted for use, within correctional agencies. The

instruments are grouped in four categories: internal management systems, instruments to assess general criminality, instruments to assess sex offenders, and instruments to assess violence and dangerousness. Methods of identifying gang

membership and STGs are also discussed.

Internal Management Systems

Internal management systems are used to determine how prisoners should be housed

within a particular facility or complex. These instruments assume that prisoners have

varying levels of aggressiveness or vulnerability that can be measured with a questionnaire. Once classified, the different categories of prisoner must be separated

from each other as much as possible, including by housing, programming, and recreation. Similarly, the staff assigned to these discrete housing units must be fully aware

of the different types of prisoners under their care and be trained in management

techniques appropriate for dealing with these prisoners. Few risk assessment tools

currently exist to determine internal classification and likelihood for prison violence;

most measures are based on predicting general criminal behavior outside prison.3

Adult Internal Management System 

The Adult Internal Management System (AIMS), developed by Dr. Herbert Quay

more than 20 years ago, is one of the best-known internal management systems. It

attempts to identify inmates who are likely to be incompatible in terms of housing

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

Potential predators can then be housed separately from more vulnerable inmates. 

AIMS relies on two instruments to classify inmates according to a personality typology: the Life History Checklist and the Correctional Adjustment Checklist. The Life

History Checklist focuses on the inmate’s adjustment and stability in the community. It includes 27 items designed to assess a number of personality dimensions known

to be related to an individual’s potential to be housed successfully with other types

of inmates. The Correctional Adjustment Checklist is designed to create a profile of

Chapter three

15
an inmate’s likely behavior in a correctional setting. Its 41 items focus on the

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

Raw scores, converted into t-scores, are used to classify inmates into groups. Originally, the group labels described personality types (e.g., Aggressive-Psychopathic,

Manipulative, Situational, Inadequate-Dependent, and Neurotic-Anxious). These

designations have since been revised to reflect differential rates of institutional misconduct called Alpha I, Alpha II, Sigma I, Sigma II, and Kappa. 

Alpha I and II inmates are those most likely to present management problems related 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 pose other management problems, such as disregard for

direct orders and disruption of the orderly operation of the facility. Alpha I and II

inmates are likely to be predators, whereas Sigma I and II inmates are at risk of

being victimized. Kappa inmates are those who are the least likely to present management problems and are neither predators nor prey. 

AIMS has received only limited evaluation. Preliminary findings showed that facilities using AIMS experienced significantly lower rates of staff and inmate assaults

than facilities that did not use an internal classification system (Quay, 1984). In

South Carolina, serious disciplinary incidents decreased by 18 percent after AIMS

was implemented. Further research showed similar positive management outcomes

with AIMS in facilities housing women prisoners (Quay, 1984).

As of 2002, AIMS was being used by several facilities in the Federal Bureau of Prisons system and by some facilities of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and

Correction.4 The South Dakota and Missouri Departments of Corrections have fully

implemented AIMS. The South Carolina Department of Corrections implemented

AIMS but has discontinued its use as a housing assignment tool.

Prisoner Management Classification System 

The Prisoner Management Classification (PMC) system was adapted from Wisconsin’s Client Management Classification (see page 20). Like AIMS, the PMC system

attempts to identify potential predators and victims and inmates who require special

programming or supervision, and it requires significant staff training for inmate

assessment, supervision, and interaction. 

To classify inmates, the PMC system uses a semistructured interview supplemented

by ratings of 11 objective background factors that assess the inmate’s social status

and offense history. The system also provides detailed guidelines for safe and appropriate management of inmates within their designated housing units after they are

classified. Equally important, these guidelines highlight programming approaches

to prepare the inmate for readjustment to the community.

16

Chapter 3
Within the past 

20 years, several

states have begun

testing and using

instruments that

assess criminal behavior, likelihood of

recidivism, and the

success of rehabilitative programs.

17

Risk Assessment Systems and Instruments

The PMC interview consists of 45 questions that require forced-choice responses. It

is conducted at admission by a specially trained officer and requires approximately

45 minutes to complete. The questions address the inmate’s attitudes regarding the

current offense; his or her criminal history (including juvenile offenses); family

relationships; relationships with staff, inmates, and peers; current difficulties (e.g.,

psychological problems, sexual harassment); and plans after release from prison.

The interviewer also completes eight behavioral ratings that assess the inmate’s

demeanor during the interview and records his or her impressions of the inmate’s

most and least urgent problem areas.

Inmates are then 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 more difficult to control,

whereas SI and ES inmates require minimal supervision but should be separated

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

LS and CC inmates.

The PMC system was rigorously evaluated in Washington State and shown to be

useful in identifying and separating potential victims from potential predators and

in managing correctional populations. In facilities that implemented PMC, institutional misconduct decreased and staff and inmate safety increased (Austin, 1992). 

Instruments To Assess General Criminality 

Within the past 20 years, several states have individually begun testing and using a

diverse array of risk assessment instruments that assess criminal behavior, likelihood of recidivism, and the success of rehabilitative programs. Many states are

incorporating existing instruments into their own evaluative measures. For example,

Iowa and Oklahoma are currently validating the use of the Level of Service Inventory–

Revised in decisions regarding probation, custody level, and case management.

Other states are using measurement tools designed to enhance supervision and treatment of sex offenders (Colorado and Pennsylvania); evaluate risk of criminality and

recidivism for both general offenders and violent offenders (Iowa); and predict the

success or failure of probationers or parolees (Illinois) (Justice Research and Statistics Association, 2001). The most commonly cited instruments in use by these and

other jurisdictions are summarized below.

Level of Service Inventory–Revised 

The Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI–R) is a risk assessment system that

was initially developed by the Correctional Service of Canada as part of its overall

effort to adopt a cognitive skills approach to rehabilitation.5 Over time, the early

proponents and developers of the LSI–R formed a private consulting firm to market

the system in the United States and other countries. The LSI–R consists of 54 items

in 10 substantive areas relevant to future criminal behavior:
 Criminal history (10 items).

 Education and employment (10 items).

 Financial (2 items).

 Family and marital (4 items).

 Accommodations (3 items).

 Leisure and recreation (2 items).

 Companions (5 items).

 Alcohol and drug problems (9 items).

 Emotional and personal (5 items).

 Attitude and orientation (4 items).

The inventory is administered by an interviewer. The questions require either a

yes/no answer or a response to a structured scale ranging in value from 0 to 3. The

interviewer scores the offender on each item and then determines the offender’s

overall risk level. The scoring is based on the assumption that parole and probation

officers can be sufficiently trained to assess offenders properly on each of the inventory’s items; however, the training is intensive and requires staff to have strong interpretation skills.

Because many of the LSI–R items address the respondent’s social situation in the

community, this system is best suited for probationers and parolees as opposed to

those who are incarcerated. Most studies of the LSI–R have been done by

researchers with a direct financial interest in its profitability. Few independent studies have evaluated the system’s reliability and predictive value. One independent

study conducted for the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole found a low

level of interrater reliability in the scoring process (Austin and Davies, 2001).

Another, more recent study of the LSI–Ontario Revision showed positive results

(Girard and Wormith, 2004).

Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative

Sanctions 

Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS)

is a privately owned risk and needs assessment system for adult corrections. It

includes four major risk assessment scales (violence, recidivism, flight, and community noncompliance) for use both in assessing an offender’s appropriateness for

community corrections and in making decisions regarding release and case management supervision. The COMPAS assesses a comprehensive set of more than 20

well-validated criminogenic factors, including criminal history, violence history,

18

Chapter 3
early onset of delinquency, substance abuse, criminal associates, criminal attitudes,

criminal personality (impulsivity, low self-control), and criminal opportunity (highrisk lifestyle). It also evaluates several psychosocial stressors (e.g., residence in a

high-crime community, poverty, vocational problems, social isolation, and scarcity

of social supports) that may be useful in designing case plans.

The comprehensive COMPAS battery of tests requires 45 to 60 minutes to complete.

However, jurisdictions can customize the assessment to fit their specific needs or

staffing and timing constraints by deleting selected scales or questions. For example, an agency interested only in screening for risk of recidivism could limit the

assessment to that scale, reducing the time requirement to about 8 minutes. The

COMPAS software program also maintains a database of information that allows for

the quick generation of reports and outcomes. 

The COMPAS has not been independently evaluated. The Northpointe Institute for

Public Management in Michigan, which owns the COMPAS program, reports that

all risk factor items were developed using standard factor analytic and psychometric procedures and that most reach highly acceptable levels of reliability (Cronbach’s alpha greater than 0.70).6 Validation studies in more than 30 separate

jurisdictions across the United States have accumulated considerable statistical evidence that supports the predictive and construct validity and generalizability of

COMPAS scales across jurisdictions. For example, a recent 12-month study of

recidivism in a sample of more than 600 New York State probationers found the area

under the curve in a receiver operating characteristic analysis to be close to 0.80,

which is comparable or superior in predictive validity to most existing risk assessment systems.

U.S. Board of Parole Salient Risk Guidelines 

The U.S. Board of Parole (now the U.S. Parole Commission) first established parole

guidelines in the early 1970s. The original goals of these guidelines were as follows:

 To enhance the reliability and validity of parole release decisions.

 To reduce disparity in sentencing decisions. 

 To reduce recidivism rates by denying parole to high-risk offenders and/or by

enhancing the level of supervision and services to such offenders. 

 To provide stability in projecting correctional system resources.

To accomplish these goals, the U.S. Board of Parole developed an additive point scale

to classify inmates by their risk level. The “salient factor score” is based on two sets

of factors associated with recidivism rates for inmates released from federal prisons:

the seriousness of the offense committed and the likelihood of success or failure

under parole supervision. This scale continues to be used by the U.S. Parole Commission for the cases over which it still has jurisdiction and by states that have

retained the use of discretionary parole (Delaware, the District of Columbia, Georgia,

19

Risk Assessment Systems and Instruments
Kentucky, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas). The most common items

analyzed in the current guidelines are:

 Age (current age, age at first arrest or conviction).

 Criminal record (arrests, convictions, incarcerations).

 Institutional conduct (disciplinary record, program participation).

 Prior performance on parole or probation (prior technical violations, recommitments).

 History of alcohol or drug use.

 Time served (actual time, percentage of time served).

 Parole/release plans (employment, residency).

 Mental health status.

Client Management Classification 

The Client Management Classification (CMC) system is also referred to in the literature as the “Wisconsin system” because it was developed by Drs. Gary Arling

and Ken Lerner of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections for use in probation

and parole services. It has since been adopted by many probation and parole supervision agencies nationwide (Baird, 1981). CMC is essentially the same as the PMC

system described above (see page 16). It is based on a questionnaire completed by

probationers and parolees to determine both the level of supervision they should

receive and the types of services they may require. Like the PMC, LSI–R, and

COMPAS, the CMC system requires offenders to be reevaluated on a regular basis

to account for any changes in risk factors that might alter their supervision requirements or needs levels.

Risk of Reconviction Scale and Criminogenic Needs Inventory 

New Zealand’s Risk of Reconviction (ROC) scale was designed to assess only an

inmate’s risk and not his or her needs. It has been statistically accurate in predicting

the likelihood of reconviction, seriousness of reoffense, imprisonment, and sentence. The Criminogenic Needs Inventory (CNI) is a further development of the

ROC system. Its predictions are based on behavior during the criminal’s offending

period (the day before and the day that the offense was committed) and a predisposing period (the 6 months preceding the offending period). Both inventories

include assessments of emotions, propensity toward violence, relationships, alcoholand drug-related behaviors, impulsivity, and criminal associates. Although administration of the CNI requires some expert supervision, it was designed to be used by

nonspecialist correctional administrators. 

20

Chapter 3
Community Risk/Needs Management Scale and Case Needs

Identification and Analysis 

The Community Risk/Needs Management Scale (CRNMS) is a Canadian model

developed from the Case Needs Identification and Analysis (CNIA) instrument,

which was designed to assess inmate needs at admission. The CRNMS built on

information included in the CNIA and streamlined its design in order to evaluate

criminal history risk, case needs, the likelihood of reoffending, and the level of community supervision necessary per offender. The CRNMS has shown that the static

variables included in the criminal history analysis are better predictors of recidivism

during the early stages of release; dynamic variables, however, are more influential

over time. 

Instruments To Assess Sex Offenders 

The public’s fear of predatory sex offenders, which has been fueled by several wellpublicized crimes by released inmates, has led to legislation designed to extend

prison terms for such offenders, mandate their treatment prior to release, and require

their location to be made known to law enforcement officials and the public upon

their release. The growing awareness and fear of recidivism among released sex

offenders have led to increased interest in identifying and treating them. The instruments most frequently used in adult corrections today to assess the risk of recidivism in convicted sex offenders are discussed below.

Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism 

The Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism (RRASOR), like the

LSI–R, was developed in Canada. It was designed to be a very simple but relatively accurate method for assessing the likelihood of convicted sex offenders to recidivate and return to prison. To avoid the need for a structured staff interview,

researchers originally tested seven “static” items found in inmates’ case files that

could be scored relatively easily by “nonprofessional” staff (Hanson and Thorton,

1999). Based on a series of validation tests, the researchers found that four items

(prior sex offenses, age at release, victim gender, and relationship to victim) could

be used successfully to predict recidivism rates for convicted sex offenders. The

RRASOR was later used in the development of the Static–99.

Static–99 

The Static–99 was developed jointly by researchers from Canada and the United

Kingdom. It is an inventory of 10 static factors that reflect attributes of convicted

sex offenders and that have been shown to be associated with recidivism in four separate Canadian and U.K. samples (Hanson and Thorton, 1999). Like the RRASOR,

the Static–99 does not require an interview, as these items can be obtained from the

inmate’s case file. It is now being used by several parole boards, including the Texas

Board of Pardons and Parole and the Pennsylvania Sex Offender Assessment Board,

to screen inmates convicted of sex crimes who are also eligible for parole.7

21

Risk Assessment Systems and Instruments
Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool–Revised 

The Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool–Revised (MnSOST–R) scores 16

items, most of which are similar to those in the Static–99 and RRASOR. However,

the MnSOST–R requires more detailed data on the 12 static variables related to the

offender’s criminal record and relationship to his victims. It also adds four dynamic components that measure factors associated with age and behavior while incarcerated. No interview is required, as information on all 16 factors is drawn from

inmate files.

Sexual Violence Risk–20 

Canadian psychologist Douglas Boer is currently developing the Sexual Violence

Risk–20 (SVR–20) as a basis for analysis and prediction of sexual violence. Similar to assessments of general violence, the SVR–20 incorporates information pertaining to an offender’s psychosocial adjustment and future plans (Dunne, 2000). It

also includes factors specifically related to the offender’s attitudes toward and history of committing sexual offenses. The SVR–20, however, does not include a tool

for classifying risk, but is intended rather to be used as a topical guideline for risk

assessments linked with studying violent sexual offenders. 

Instruments To Assess Violence and Dangerousness 

A pair of instruments devised in Canada have been found to be useful in assessing

inmates’ propensity to violent and dangerous behavior, and one also shows promise

in predicting recidivism by sex offenders. Both instruments have serious limitations,

however. They are both designed for use by mental health professionals, and neither

has been tested independently by persons with no financial interest in the instrument.

Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised 

The Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL–R) is an instrument developed in

Canada by Robert Hare. It is now owned and distributed by the firm that controls

the LSI–R. The PCL–R consists of 20 items that consider both static and dynamic

factors. The assessment includes both a structured interview and a careful review of

the inmate’s file. Training is required to use the PCL–R, and this instrument is

designed for use only by a licensed psychologist or an individual with a master’s

degree in psychology who is working under the supervision of a licensed psychologist. Although there is no research showing independent testing of the PCL–R by

persons without financial interest in the instrument, it is a widely accepted and used

measure of psychopathy. 

Violence Risk Assessment Guide 

The Violence Risk Assessment Guide (VRAG), also developed in Canada, is based

on research conducted at a single maximum-security prison (Ontario’s Penetanguishene). The VRAG has been promoted as an objective procedure to assess the

risk of violent recidivism in mentally disordered offenders, but subsequent research

22

Chapter 3
BOP and the 

Colorado Department of Corrections

have developed systems that assign an

inmate points for

having certain attributes associated with

gang membership.

suggested that the scale could also be used to predict sex offense recidivism (Quinsey et al., 1998). The assessment process requires a preexisting PCL–R score, completion of an additional interview, and a review of the inmate’s case file.

The classification accuracy of the VRAG is reported to be about 75 percent (Quinsey et al., 1998). However, correctional agencies concerned with cost and efficiency may not be interested in using the VRAG to measure the risk of sex offense

recidivism, given that professionally trained interviewers and careful file review are

required for the system to work properly. Little, if any, research shows that this

instrument has been tested independently by persons with no financial interest in it. 

Methods of Identifying Gangs and Security Threat

Groups 

In general, state prison systems do not have actuarial systems for assessing whether

an inmate is in an STG or other type of organized street or prison gang. Typically,

state policies require the designation of highly trained staff as specialists in the identification of STG inmates, their movements, and illicit activities. These staff draw

on multiple sources of information, including tattoos, prior affiliations with known

gang members, gang-related literature, and the word of other prisoners. 

The Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Colorado Department of Corrections have

developed systems that assign an inmate points for having certain attributes associated with gang membership. For example, if an inmate has a history of active gang

membership, certain types of tattoos, or is reported by another credible source as

being associated with an STG, the inmate will be given points for each of these

attributes. If the points reach a certain threshold, the inmate will be confirmed as a

member of an STG. Outside these two jurisdictions, the identification of members

of gangs and other STGs remains subjective. 

23

Risk Assessment Systems and Instruments
Many agencies were

unable to fully complete the survey because they either had

limited access to the

information requested or stored their

records in a way that

prevented them from

retrieving the data.

Findings of the National Survey 

of the Management of High-Risk

Inmates 

In 2002, a survey on the classification of high-risk and special management inmates

was sent to the correctional agencies of all 50 states and the District of Columbia

and Puerto Rico (hereafter referred to as “states”). The survey (see appendix) was

designed to obtain information on the procedures used to classify high-risk inmates,

particularly those in protective custody or administrative segregation, and inmates

with mental illnesses or medical problems. Several items requested information on

high-risk inmates housed in the general population and special practices associated

with their situation. The last section of the survey asked for information on new or

model programs, including the name and location of the program, the target population, screening processes, programs and services offered, and staffing levels.

Many of the jurisdictions that responded also provided detailed information on the

nature and operation of these programs, including policy statements, manuals, statistical reports, and program descriptions. 

The survey responses demonstrated little consensus on the use of even the most

basic classification terms such as “general population,” “protective custody,” and

“administrative” as opposed to “disciplinary” segregation. Further, very few correctional data systems were able to aggregate quickly and accurately the numbers and

types of prisoners in each of these discrete classification categories. Disagreement

about prison classification terms and delay in implementing automated data systems

are not new, but these issues made it difficult for some agencies to fully complete

the survey. Many agencies either had limited access to the information requested or

stored their records in a way that prevented them from retrieving the data. Therefore, most of the results reported in the exhibits that follow are based on a limited

number of respondents.

Total Inmate Population 

Forty-one states and Puerto Rico completed and returned the survey, yielding a

response rate of 81 percent. Exhibit 5 presents the total inmate population, broken

out by gender, for all 42 respondents. For Alaska and West Virginia, which did not

report counts of women prisoners, 2001 data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics

were used to estimate the total inmate population. The number of inmates ranged

from 740 in Wyoming to 157,142 in California. The states with the next largest

Chapter four

25
The great majority 

of the inmates were

housed in the general

population, indicating

that there are no special security, medical,

or mental health needs

for most prisoners.

inmate populations were Texas, with 143,302, and Florida and New York, with populations of approximately 70,000 each. After Wyoming, the states with the smallest

inmate populations were New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia, all of which reported fewer than 2,000 inmates. 

General Population 

In all states that reported general population data, the great majority of the inmates

were housed in the general population, indicating that there are no special security,

medical, or mental health needs for most prisoners (exhibit 6). With the exception

26

Chapter 4

State Total Population Male Female

Alaska 4,969 4,593 376

Arizona 27,165 25,133 2,032

California 157,142 147,391 9,751

Colorado 15,241 14,207 1,034

Connecticut 18,348 17,056 1,292

Delaware 5,460 5,084 376

Florida 72,509 68,217 4,292

Georgia 45,820 42,951 2,869

Idaho 5,535 5,013 522

Illinois 42,733 40,115 2,618

Indiana 20,802 19,343 1,459

Iowa 8,103 7,461 642

Kansas 8,574 8,074 500

Kentucky 15,805 14,794 1,011

Maryland 23,717 22,617 1,100

Massachusetts 10,197 9,562 635

Michigan 47,357* 45,242 1,933

Minnesota 6,626 6,234 392

Missouri 29,132 26,970 2,162

Montana 2,275 2,112 163

Nebraska 3,932 3,578 354

New Hampshire 1,381 1,276 105

New Jersey 22,657 21,478 1,179

New Mexico 5,781 5,268 513

Exhibit 5. Prison Population
There were no major

differences in the

proportion of male

and female prisoners

in the general population in each state.

of Georgia, which reported that only 36 percent of its female prisoners were housed

in the general population (45 percent fewer than male prisoners), there were no

major differences in the proportion of male and female prisoners in the general population in each state (exhibit 7). The apparent disparity between Georgia and the

other reporting states may be the result of classification policies or the state’s definition of general population; however, the percentage of male inmates in the general population in Georgia’s prisons is more comparable to the percentages reported

by the other states. 

Because Alaska and West Virginia did not report counts of women prisoners, their

general and special management population data reflect only their male prisoners.

27

Findings of the National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates

State Total Population Male Female

New York 67,554 64,392 3,162

North Dakota 1,131 1,021 110

Ohio 44,645 42,324 2,321

Oklahoma 22,274 20,112 2,162

Oregon 11,023 10,385 638

Pennsylvania 37,995 36,290 1,705

Puerto Rico 15,440 14,907 533

Rhode Island 3,295 3,093 202

South Carolina 21,684 20,219 1,465

South Dakota 2,864 2,623 241

Tennessee 17,587 16,693 894

Texas 143,302 132,655 10,647

Vermont 1,761 1,654 107

Virginia 33,976 31,632 2,344

Washington 14,871 13,819 1,052

West Virginia 1,338 992 346

Wisconsin 21,106 19,862 1,244

Wyoming 740 617 123

Total 1,063,847 997,059 66,606

Source: National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates, National Institute of Corrections, 2002.

The counts of women prisoners in Alaska and West Virginia, which did not report this information, are 2001

data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (Paige Harrison and Allen Beck, Prisoners in 2001, Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002).

Note: Nine states and the District of Columbia did not respond to the survey: Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii,

Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, and Utah. 

*Includes 182 inmates for whom information on gender was not available.

Exhibit 5 continued
Number of Inmates

Total General Percentage in 

State Population Population General Population

Alaska 4,969 4,340* 88

Arizona 27,165 19,438 72

California 157,142 124,620 79

Colorado 15,241 10,950 72

Connecticut 18,348 13,051 71

Delaware 5,460 4,967 91

Florida 72,509 63,758 88

Georgia 45,820 29,403 64

Idaho 5,535 5,212 94

Illinois 42,733 37,220 87

Indiana 20,802 16,562 80

Kansas 8,574 8,070 94

Kentucky 11,305† 7,771 69

Maryland 23,717 21,421 90

Massachusetts 10,197 6,379 63

Michigan 47,357 34,638 73

Minnesota 6,626 6,167 93

Missouri 29,132 20,660 71

Montana 2,275 2,101 92

Nebraska 3,932 3,717 95

New Hampshire 1,381 1,239 90

New Jersey 22,657 20,459 90

New Mexico 5,781 5,011 87

New York 67,554 58,290 86

28

Chapter 4

Exhibit 6. Prison Population Housed in General Population

Iowa did not define general population information for men or women in its

response to the survey. 

Special Management Populations 

The survey asked respondents to report the numbers of male and female inmates

assigned to the following types of special management units: administrative segregation, disciplinary segregation, protective custody, mental health/mental retardation,
On average, only 

5 percent of the total

inmate population

was housed in administrative or disciplinary segregation,

although there is

considerable variance

among the reporting

states. 

29

Findings of the National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates

Number of Inmates

Total General Percentage in 

State Population Population General Population

North Dakota 1,131 842 74

Ohio 44,645 41,879 94

Oregon 11,023 8,953 81

Pennsylvania 37,995 28,859 76

Puerto Rico 15,440 14,741 95

Rhode Island 3,295 3,245 98

South Carolina 21,684 15,791 73

South Dakota 2,864 2,637 92

Tennessee 17,587 14,261 81

Texas 143,302 106,999 75

Vermont 1,761 1,702 97

Virginia 33,976 22,605 67

Washington 14,871 12,590 85

West Virginia 1,338 743* 59

Wisconsin 21,106 19,670 93

Wyoming 740 603 81

Total 1,055,744 847,178 80

Source: National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates, National Institute of Corrections, 2002.

The total inmate populations of Alaska and West Virginia were calculated using Bureau of Justice Statistics

2001 counts of female inmates (Paige Harrison and Allen Beck, Prisoners in 2001, Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002).

Notes: Iowa and Oklahoma did not report the number of inmates in the general population. Oklahoma,

however, did report the gender distribution of its inmates housed in the general population (see exhibit 7). 

*Male inmates only. State did not report data on female inmates.

†Excludes inmates housed in local jails, for whom classification data were not available at the time 

of the survey.

Exhibit 6 continued

and 24-hour medical infirmary. However, because of the variation in agency definitions of “administrative” and “disciplinary,” data on the segregated populations have

been combined. The remaining special management population counts, though

small, are reported separately. 

Administrative and Disciplinary Segregation 

Of the 40 states that reported inmate counts for these categories, 38 had less than 10

percent of their prison inmates in administrative or disciplinary segregation units

(exhibit 8). At 16 percent, West Virginia had the highest percentage, followed by
30

Chapter 4

Percentage of Inmates

State Male Female 

Alaska 94 NA

Arizona 70 89

California 79 83

Colorado 71 81

Connecticut 71 72

Delaware 92 82

Florida 88 93

Georgia 66 36

Idaho 94 99

Illinois 87 88

Indiana 79 89

Kansas 94 98

Maryland 90 90

Massachusetts 62 67

Michigan 73 83

Minnesota 93 93

Missouri 71 69

Montana 92 92

Nebraska 94 98

New Hampshire 89 96

New Jersey 90 94

New Mexico 86 96

Exhibit 7. Gender Distribution of Inmates Housed in General Population

New Mexico at 13 percent. Several states reported segregating only 1 percent of

their inmates. These variations may reflect differences in how states classify prisoners or in how they define administrative and disciplinary segregation. On average,

only 5 percent of the total inmate population in the reporting states was housed in

administrative or disciplinary segregation. 

Protective Custody 

Thirty-one states reported data on prisoners categorized as protective custody

inmates (exhibit 9). The proportions are lower for this category than for administrative or disciplinary segregation, with states reporting from less than 1 percent to a

high of 4 percent (Tennessee). Overall, the use of protective custody was relatively

infrequent. 
Several states provide

special programming

for mentally ill inmates, whether in a

segregation unit or 

a mental health unit.

Mental Health Units 

The number of inmates housed separately in mental health units was extremely

small. Most of the 34 states that responded to this question reported that 1 percent

or less of their total prison population was housed in such units (exhibit 10). The

states with the highest rates were Georgia (12 percent) and Alaska (5 percent).

Several states reported that they provide special programming for mentally ill

inmates, whether they are housed in a segregation unit or a mental health unit. For

example, Washington State’s Special Offender Unit incorporates individual and

group therapy, basic and psychological health education classes, and life skills

training for inmates with a mental illness or those who are in acute distress and are

31

Findings of the National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates

Percentage of Inmates

State Male Female 

New York 86 84

North Dakota 74 75

Ohio 100 100

Oklahoma 100 96

Oregon 82 74

Pennsylvania 76 82

Puerto Rico 95 98

Rhode Island 98 100

South Carolina 73 65

South Dakota 92 93

Tennessee 80 94

Texas 76 59

Vermont 97 96

Virginia 66 77

Washington 84 90

West Virginia 75 NA

Wisconsin 93 93

Wyoming 81 83

Total 80 79

Source: National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates, National Institute of Corrections, 2002. 

Note: Iowa did not report general population data. Kentucky reported the total number of inmates housed

in the general population (see exhibit 6), but did not report the distribution of prisoners by gender.

NA= not available.

Exhibit 7 continued
32

Chapter 4

Exhibit 8. Inmates in Administrative or Disciplinary Segregation

Number in Segregation Percentage of Total 

State Male Female Total Prison Population

Alaska 159 NA 159 3*

California 5,908 219 6,127 4

Colorado 1,228 33 1,261 8

Connecticut 441 10 451 3

Delaware 344 25 369 7

Florida 4,854 78 4,932 7

Georgia 1,925 58 1,983 4

Idaho 200 0 200 4

Illinois 2,565 121 2,686 6

Indiana 1,092 27 1,119 5

Kansas 460 9 469 6

Kentucky 508 43 551 4

Maryland 292 18 310 1

Massachusetts 260 20 280 3

Michigan 2,101 31 2,132 5

Minnesota 393 20 413 6

Missouri 1,697 34 1,731 6

Montana 67 3 70 3

Nebraska 94 8 102 3

New Hampshire 8 2 10 1

New Jersey 1,428 31 1,459 6

New Mexico 748 22 770 13

considered suicidal. The program’s goal is to stabilize inmates and return them to

the general population, although the length of participation can range from 6 months

to 15 years. Ohio’s super maximum-security prison, which is described later in this

report, is required to provide daily mental health treatment services, in recognition

that many “acting out” behaviors are related to an undiagnosed and untreated mental health problem. 

Medical Units 

Thirty-two states provided counts of prisoners housed in a separate medical unit or

facility. This category constituted the smallest of the special management populations and the lowest percentage (less than 1 percent) of the total prison population
(exhibit 11). Several states reported that their agencies do not house medically ill

inmates in separate units unless they have a life-threatening, contagious, or other

severe illness. Some states transfer prisoners with these types of medical conditions

to public medical centers outside the prison system. 

In Michigan, five facilities have specialized units available for inmates with severe

auditory or visual impairments in various custody levels. The state also uses community providers, including hospitals and nursing homes. There also is one geriatric

unit at a level II (medium security) facility that is designed to manage the special

medical needs of elderly inmates. 

33

Findings of the National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates

Number in Segregation Percentage of Total 

State Male Female Total Prison Population

New York 4,458 44 4,502 7

North Dakota 52 5 57 5

Ohio 300 4 304 1

Oklahoma 338 210 548 3

Oregon 785 19 804 7

Pennsylvania 2,284 37 2,321 6

Puerto Rico 188 1 189 1

Rhode Island 161 7 168 5

South Carolina 655 20 675 3

South Dakota 190 15 205 7

Tennessee 1,050 11 1,061 6

Texas 9,028 99 9,127 6

Vermont 6 4 10 1

Virginia 1,994 51 2,045 6

Washington 564 29 593 4

West Virginia 161 NA 161 16*

Wisconsin 1,283 174 1,457 7

Wyoming 14 4 18 2

Total 50,283 1,546 51,829 5

Source: National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates, National Institute of Corrections, 2002. 

Note: Arizona and Iowa did not report counts of inmates in administrative or disciplinary segregation.

NA= not available.

*Male inmates only. State did not report data on female inmates.

Exhibit 8 continued
The majority of survey respondents indicated that both their

male and female

prison populations

were increasing. Onethird of the respondents reported that

their prison populations had declined 

or remained stable.

34

Chapter 4

Number in Protective Custody Percentage of Total 

State Male Female Total Prison Population

Alaska 11 NA 11 <1*

Arizona 759 10 769 3

California 18 0 18 <1

Connecticut 225 8 233 1

Delaware 19 0 19 <1

Florida 201 0 201 <1

Idaho 64 0 64 1

Illinois 508 3 511 1

Indiana 277 0 277 1

Kansas 34 1 35 <1

Kentucky 184 0 184 1

Massachusetts 30 0 30 <1

Michigan 370 0 370 1

Missouri 812 0 812 3

Montana 0 9 9 <1

Nebraska 106 0 106 3

New Jersey 51 0 51 <1

Ohio 181 0 181 <1

Exhibit 9. Inmates in Protective Custody

A model program in Washington State is designed to protect ill inmates without taking up space in medical infirmaries. The Assisted Living Facility provides 24-hour

medical care and handicapped-accessible accommodations for sick or disabled prisoners and also teaches inmates to assist each other with their medical and daily

needs. 

Inmate Population Trends 

The nation has witnessed considerable growth in the prison population since 1980.

Although BJS data show that the prison populations of 9 states declined in 2002,

nationwide, the prison population grew 2.6 percent—less than the average annual

growth of 3.6 percent since 1995, but up from 1.1 percent in 2001 (Harrison and

Beck, 2002, 2003). The National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates

asked state correctional agencies whether, during the past year, their prison population had increased, decreased, or remained unchanged. As exhibit 12 shows, the

majority of those who responded indicated that both their male and female prison
Most agencies reported that the level of

violence and other

types of disruptive

behavior is either 

stable or declining. populations were increasing (66 percent of respondents and 61 percent of respondents, respectively). Approximately one-third of the respondents reported that their

prison populations had declined or remained stable.

A higher proportion of states indicated that their special management populations

had either decreased or remained unchanged, although some respondents indicated

that their responses were estimates based on agency officials’ recent experiences in

managing special or high-risk prisoners. Similarly, most agencies reported that

inmate-on-staff and inmate-on-inmate assaults had not increased. Of the states

responding, 53 percent reported that inmate-on-staff assaults had decreased and 46

percent reported that inmate-on-inmate assaults had decreased. These declines were

credited to an aging prison population, better inmate management and classification

policies, increased inmate participation in counseling and other mental health programs, and the institution of zero-tolerance drug and alcohol policies. States that

reported increases in inmate assaults frequently attributed this trend to crowding,

insufficient staff, and cutbacks in staff training (both initial and in-service). 

35

Findings of the National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates

Number in Protective Custody Percentage of Total 

State Male Female Total Prison Population

Oklahoma 77 0 77 <1

Oregon 58 0 58 1

Puerto Rico 70 41 111 1

Rhode Island 22 0 22 1

South Carolina 14 1 15 <1

South Dakota 0 0 0 0

Tennessee 755 7 762 4

Texas 2,935 0 2,935 2

Virginia 68 0 68 <1

Washington 114 0 114 1

West Virginia 6 NA 6 1*

Wisconsin 6 0 6 <1

Wyoming 11 0 11 2

Total 7,986 80 8,066 1

Source: National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates, National Institute of Corrections, 2002.

Note: Eleven states did not report counts of inmates in protective custody: Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.

NA= not available.

*Male inmates only. State did not report data on female inmates.

Exhibit 9 continued
36

Chapter 4

Exhibit 10. Inmates in Mental Health Units

Number in Mental Health Units Percentage of Total 

State Male Female Total Prison Population

Alaska 244 NA 244 5*

Arizona 339 31 370 1

Colorado 226 12 238 2

Connecticut 413 12 425 2

Delaware 33 42 75 1

Florida 101 0 101 <1

Georgia 4,560 1,063 5,623 12

Idaho 40 0 40 1

Illinois 382 18 400 1

Indiana 77 0 77 <1

Kentucky 166 0 166 1

Massachusetts 38 35 73 1

Michigan 860 62 922 2

Minnesota 39 7 46 1

Missouri 13 2 15 <1

Montana 12 0 12 1

New Hampshire 44 0 44 3

New Jersey 358 37 395 2

New Mexico 119 0 119 2

New York 723 32 755 1

High-Security/Maximum-Custody Populations 

Several questions were directly aimed at the most visible special management population: high-security or maximum-custody prisoners. The survey defined this category of prisoners as those who had been removed from the general population for

an indefinite period of time because of their involvement in serious or repetitive rule

infractions. General population prisoners classified as maximum, high, or close custody were not included because, although subject to the restrictions associated with

maximum custody, they have full access to the programs and work assignments

available to other general population prisoners. Many general population prisoners

classified as maximum custody do not present management problems and are so

classified because of the crime they committed, their prison sentence, or a violent

event that occurred many years in the past.
In 47 percent of the

responding states,

mentally ill inmates

who are disruptive

are subject to the

same maximumcustody policies as 

all other inmates.

As defined by the survey, high-security/maximum-custody prisoners are those

housed in super maximum-security prisons, “high-control” units, or more traditional administrative segregation units. Exhibit 13 lists the basic policies governing

inmates in such units and the proportion of states employing each policy. Nearly all

the states restrict these prisoners to their cells for 22–23 hours per day, limit their

contact with visitors, and require the use of restraints at all times when moving

them. There was more variation in other policies related to maximum custody. Of

the states that responded, 68 percent allow maximum-custody inmates to have contact with other high-security inmates. The amount of out-of-cell time allowed ranges

from less than 1 hour per day (10 percent) to 3 or more hours per day (23 percent).

The majority of the responding states (69 percent) allow 1–2 per day.

In 47 percent of the responding states, mentally ill inmates who are disruptive are

subject to the same maximum-custody policies as all other inmates. Examples of

states that make other provisions for mentally ill inmates who become disruptive

37

Findings of the National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates

Number in Mental Health Units Percentage of Total 

State Male Female Total Prison Population

North Dakota 6 0 6 1

Ohio 249 0 249 1

Oklahoma 189 64 253 1

Oregon 48 0 48 <1

Pennsylvania 159 7 166 <1

Puerto Rico 47 21 68 <1

South Carolina 379 78 457 2

South Dakota 19 0 19 1

Texas 2,391 138 2,529 2

Vermont 7 0 7 <1

Virginia 319 102 421 1

Washington 214 6 220 2

West Virginia 27 NA 27 3*

Wyoming 24 0 24 3

Total 12,865 1,769 14,634 2

Source: National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates, National Institute of Corrections, 2002.

Note: Eight states did not report counts of inmates in mental health units: California, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

NA= not available.

*Male inmates only. State did not report data on female inmates.

Exhibit 10 continued
Although special

management inmates

are eligible to return

to the general population in every state

that responded to 

the survey, only 

69 percent of these

states provide some

type of transitional

program.

include Virginia, which assigns mentally ill prisoners to mental health programs

rather than administrative segregation, and Colorado, where mentally ill inmates can

be assigned to administrative segregation, but in a specialized facility with correctional staff trained to handle psychological illnesses. 

Transition to the General Population 

Special management inmates are eligible to return to the general population in every

state that responded to the survey, most commonly when their segregation time has

expired, they are no longer deemed a threat to institutional security, or staff has

approved their return based on improved behavior. However, only 69 percent of the

responding states provide some type of transitional program. Furthermore, most of

the programs designed to help inmates readjust to the general population, including

those instituted in Indiana, Massachusetts, and Arizona, serve only those who are

mentally ill. Most of the programs in place are “stepdown” programs that gradually reintroduce the inmate to the general population. In Florida and Nebraska, reintegration is based on earning increased privileges with positive behavior.

38

Chapter 4

Number in Medical Units/Facilities Percentage of Total 

State Male Female Total Prison Population

Alaska 2 NA 2 0*

Arizona 62 0 62 0

Colorado 45 3 48 0

Connecticut 64 17 81 0

Delaware 29 1 30 1

Florida 20 4 24 0

Georgia 81 5 86 0

Idaho 12 0 12 0

Illinois 582 9 591 1

Indiana 51 0 51 0

Kentucky 2 0 2 0

Maryland 51 2 53 0

Massachusetts 38 20 58 1

Michigan 151 3 154 0

Missouri 46 0 46 0

Montana 6 0 6 0

New Hampshire 5 2 7 1

New Jersey 113 0 113 1

New York 581 30 611 1

Exhibit 11. Inmates in Medical Units or Facilities
Most of the programs

designed to help

inmates readjust to

the general population serve only those

who are mentally ill.

The survey invited states that provide transitional programming to describe their

programs. Several states, including the following, reported new programs:

 Michigan implemented a three-stage reintegration program in November 2000.

The program essentially creates a new classification level: a modified general

population for high-risk inmates.

 Florida implemented an innovative program based on cognitive behavioral

learning and incentives called Rethinking Personal Choice (RPC). RPC facilitates the transition from close management to the general population by integrating work experience, group learning and recreation, volunteer experiences,

and personal expression (through writing a journal). After the program was

implemented, the number of high-risk inmates who successfully made the transition to the general population increased and the time an inmate spent in close

management custody decreased (Moore, Dugger, and Nimer, 2002).

39

Findings of the National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates

Number in Medical Units/Facilities Percentage of Total 

State Male Female Total Prison Population

North Dakota 6 1 7 1

Oklahoma 27 22 49 0

Oregon 23 0 23 0

Pennsylvania 140 14 154 0

Puerto Rico 697 47 744 5

South Carolina 42 3 45 0

South Dakota 2 1 3 0

Texas 122 0 122 0

Vermont 2 0 2 0

Virginia 135 6 141 0

West Virginia 18 NA 18 1*

Wisconsin 42 0 42 0

Wyoming 11 0 11 2

Total 3,208 190 3,398 0

Source: National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates, National Institute of Corrections, 2002.

Note: Ten states did not report counts of inmates in medical or infirmary units: California, Iowa, Kansas,

Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Washington.

NA= not available.

*Male inmates only. State did not report data on female inmates.

Exhibit 11 continued
40

Chapter 4

Number of Trend (% states reporting) States 

Variable Increasing Decreasing Unchanged Reporting

Total prison population

Male 66 20 14 35

Female 61 24 15 33

General population

Male 58 26 16 31

Female 53 27 20 30

Maximum custody

Male 46 15 39 33

Female 17 20 63 30

Special management population

Administrative segregation

Male 33 17 50 30

Female 28 17 55 29

Disciplinary segregation

Male 31 19 50 32

Female 40 20 40 30

Protective custody

Male 25 22 53 32

Female 23 3 73 31

Mental health unit

Male 55 10 36 31

Female 48 7 45 29

Medical unit or facility

Male 39 19 42 31

Female 31 0 69 29

Assaults

Inmate on staff 24 53 19 42

Inmate on inmate 27 46 27 37

Source: National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates, National Institute of Corrections, 2002.

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding or errors by reporting agencies. 

Exhibit 12. Estimates of Current Prison Population Trends
The use of special

management units

has given rise to a significant amount of litigation. Most consent

decrees in place concern mentally ill or

medical populations.

 Iowa introduced a voluntary program for inmates with long-term disciplinary

problems that provides courses on “thinking for success” and anger management as well as substance abuse treatment. Although the program was still in its

first year at the time of the survey, 18–20 male inmates were enrolled and another

9 had completed it successfully. This program is similar to one in Colorado that

provides mental and medical health services and focuses on cognitive strengthening, vocational training, and education. The Colorado program graduates

about 60 inmates a year. 

Consent Decrees 

The use of special management units has given rise to a significant amount of litigation, typically focusing on one of the following three issues: the criteria for designation as a special management prisoner, the conditions of confinement in special

management units, or the process for releasing the inmate back to the general prison

population. Data on active and pending consent decrees involving special management inmates are presented in exhibit 14. Exhibit 15 lists the decrees by type of population governed and state. The majority of consent decrees in place concerns

mentally ill or medical populations.

41

Findings of the National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates

Number of States With 

States Policy in Place

Policy Reporting Number Percent

24-hour restriction 42 40 95

Contact with other high-security 

inmates allowed 41 28 68

Contact with visitors allowed 41 39 95

Restraints used when escorting prisoner 41 37 90

Out-of-cell time (hours/day)

Less than 1 39 4 10

1–2 39 27 69

3 or more 39 9 23

Same policies apply to disruptive 

mentally ill prisoners 38 18 47

Source: National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates, National Institute of Corrections, 2002.

Note: “High security/maximum custody” is defined as removal from the general population for an 

indefinite period because of serious or repetitive rule infractions.

Exhibit 13. Policies Governing High-Security/Maximum-Custody Inmates
Screening and Assessment 

Although inmate assessment and classification practices vary across states, most

agencies screen for the same basic inmate characteristics, including membership in

a gang or security threat group, escape risk, violent behavior, and suicide risk.

Exhibit 16 shows the different factors assessed and the number and percentage of

responding states that screen for each factor; the information is presented for both

genders, although most states screen male and female inmates for the same factors. 

All states responding reported that all prisoners are screened for suicide risk, mood

disorders, and psychotic disorders. Nearly all of the responding states (95 percent)

screen for mental retardation and escape risk. Mental health staff perform the psychological evaluations and base their conclusions on the results of interviews,

psychological assessment and testing, and professional clinical judgment. Inmates

found to have psychological disorders or mental deficits are eligible for special services and counseling provided by the mental health staff. Innovative methods

are being used to deliver such services. Iowa, for example, has implemented

“telemedicine”—consultation via two-way television—for inmate counseling and

psychiatric services. 

42

Chapter 4

Exhibit 14. Number and Percentage of States Reporting Consent Decrees

Active Decrees Pending Decrees

Number of Number of 

States States With Decrees States States With Decrees

Population Responding Number Percent Responding Number Percent

Administrative 

segregation 38 4 11 20 0 0

Disciplinary 

segregation 39 6 15 22 1 5

Mental health 41 11 27 20 0 0

Medical 40 10 25 22 0 0

Substance 

abuse 38 1 3 22 0 0

Other* 34 10 29 19 6 32

Source: National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates, National Institute of Corrections, 2002.

*Several states have more than one consent decree in this category.
43

Findings of the National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates

Administrative Segregation

California

Armstrong v. Davis

Coleman v. Davis

Madrid v. Wilson

Florida

Osterback v. Moore

Iowa

Goff v. Harper 

Michigan

Hadix v. Johnson

Mental Health/Mental Retardation

Arizona

Casey v. Lewis

California

Coleman v. Davis

Clark v. Davis

Madrid v. Wilson

Georgia

Cason v. Seckinger

Indiana

Anderson v. O’Bannon

Iowa

Goff v. Harper

Michigan

Hadix v. Johnson

New Hampshire

Laaman 

New Jersey

C.F. v. Terhune

New York

Harrell v. Senkowski

Langley v. Coughlin

Oklahoma

Battles v. Saffle

Washington

Hallet v. Payne

Substance Abuse 

Michigan

Hadix v. Johnson

Disciplinary Segregation

Arizona

Taylor v. Lewis

Indiana

Taifa v. O’Bannon

Iowa

Goff v. Harper 

Michigan

Hadix v. Johnson

New Hampshire

Laaman 

New York

Anderson v. Coughlin

Eng v. Smith

Rivera v. Coughlin

Salik v. Farrell

West Virginia

Berry v. Painter

Medical

California

Armstrong v. Davis

Madrid v. Wilson

Plata v. Davis

Connecticut

Doe v. Meachum

Georgia

Cason v. Seckinger

Indiana

Cox & Carr v. O’Bannon

Wellman et al. v. Faulkner et al. 

Taifa v. O’Bannon

Michigan

Hadix v. Johnson

Minnesota

Hines v. Anderson

Exhibit 15. Active and Pending Consent Decrees by Special Management

Population and State, 2002

Exhibit 15 continues on next page.
Only 22 states reported the number 

of inmates they had

identified as gang or

STG members, which

ranged from as much

as 20–40 percent of the

prison population in

some states to less than

5 percent in others.

Most of the responding states screen their prisoners for STG membership. This

screening is typically performed by classification or diagnostic staff, but several

states, such as Arizona, California, Indiana, and Texas, employ officers or investigators specifically for this purpose. Although assessors typically use a gang

validation checklist, they still rely on gang tattoos, interviews, and criminal history

to make final determinations.

Only 22 states that responded to the STG survey question reported the number of

inmates they had identified as gang or STG members. As exhibit 17 shows,

gang/STG affiliation varied widely in these 22 prison systems, from as much

as 20–40 percent of the prison population in some states to less than 5 percent in

others. Some of this variation may be the result of differences in classification methods or definitions of gang/STG membership used by the responding states.

44

Chapter 4

Medical, continued

New Jersey

Rouse v. Plantier

Row v. Fauver

New York

Milburn v. Coughlin

Todaro v. Coughlin

Clarkson v. Coughlin

Oklahoma

Battles v. Saffle

Washington

Hallet v. Payne

Other

Arizona

Does v. Stewart (protective segregation)

Harris v. Caldwell (conditions of 

confinement)

Gluth v. Kangus (legal access)

Hook v. State (inmate mail)

California

Armstrong v. Davis (Security Housing 

Unit)

Coleman v. Davis (Security Housing 

Unit)

Madrid v. Wilson (Security Housing 

Unit)

Idaho

McKinney v. State (capital punishment)

New Jersey

Lugo v. Middlesex (hearing impaired)

New York

Pease v. Coughlin (conditions of 

protective custody)

Dumont v. Coughlin (media review 

process)

Hughes v. Goord (Native American 

religious practices)

Hamilton v. Goord (cross-gender 

patdowns)

Griffin v. Goord (conditions of 

protective custody)

Forts v. Ward (male correctional officers at a female facility)

Ohio

Austin v. Wilkinson et al. 

Washington

Duffy v. Riveland (hearing impaired 

services)

Humanists v. Department of 

Corrections/Lehman (inmate mail,

legal access)

Source: National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates, National Institute of Corrections, 2002.

Exhibit 15 continued
45

Findings of the National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates

Exhibit 16. Screening for Various Factors at Initial Assessment

Male Inmates Female Inmates

Number of Number of 

Factor States States That Screen States States That Screen

Assessed Responding Number Percent Responding Number Percent

Security threat 

group membership 42 37 88 40 34 85

Escape risk 42 40 95 41 39 95

Witness protection 42 36 86 41 34 83

Sexual assault 

protection 42 35 83 41 34 83

Potential violence 

in prison 42 34 81 41 33 81

Enemies 42 37 88 41 36 88

Predatory sexual 

behavior 42 35 83 41 34 83

Suicide risk 40 40 100 39 39 100

Mood disorders 40 40 100 40 40 100

Psychotic disorders 40 40 100 39 39 100

Personality disorder 38 32 84 37 31 84

Mental retardation 38 36 95 37 35 95

Source: National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates, National Institute of Corrections, 2002.
46

Chapter 4

Exhibit 17. Inmate Population Classified as Gang or Security Threat Group

Members

Number of Inmates

Total Gang/STG Percentage of Total 

State Population Members Prison Population

Arizona 27,165 3,792 14

California 157,142 1,300 1

Connecticut 18,348 485 3

Florida 72,509 2,457 3

Kansas 8,574 565 7

Kentucky 15,805 387 3

Maryland 23,717 1,223 5

Massachusetts 10,197 1,951 19

Michigan 47,357 50 1

Minnesota 6,626 1,953 30

New Jersey 22,657 5,700 25

New Mexico 5,781 2,100 36

North Dakota 1,131 82 7

Oregon 11,023 1,100 10

Pennsylvania 37,995 1,300 3

Rhode Island 3,295 390 12

South Carolina 21,684 774 4

South Dakota 2,864 277 10

Texas 143,302 6,175 4

Washington 14,871 1,647 11

West Virginia 992* 25 3

Wisconsin 21,106 9,045 43

Source: National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates, National Institute of Corrections, 2002.

STG=security threat group.

*Male inmates only. West Virginia did not report data on female inmates.
No state reported

model programs or

policies directed at

high-risk prisoners

housed in the general

population whose

actions had not yet

led to their removal

to a special management population.

Identification and Review of Model

Programs

Identifying best practices for classifying and managing high-risk and special management prison populations was a major objective of this NIC project. Therefore,

the final section of the National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates

asked the states to provide information on two types of model or innovative

programs:

 Intervention programs designed to better identify, manage, and treat inmates

who have been removed from the general population.

 Programs developed to reduce or avoid the need to remove high-risk inmates

from the general population. 

Only a small number of states responded, and most of the programs they described

targeted inmates who had already been placed in administrative segregation. No

state reported programs or policies directed at high-risk prisoners housed in the general population whose actions had not yet led to their removal to a special management population. None of the programs described had been formally evaluated to

determine its effectiveness in reducing violence either among these prisoners or

within the prison system at large.

A few states reported what they believe are model programs for addressing the

gang/STG problem:

 Connecticut’s Gang Awareness Program is a mandatory 8-week program for

inmates affiliated with a gang or other dangerous group. It is designed to help

high-risk inmates reevaluate their current situations, the choices they have

made, and the life they were leading prior to incarceration. Completion of the

program is required before the inmate is released from the Close Monitoring

Unit. A similar program for female STG members focuses on addictive behaviors, unhealthy involvements, and decisionmaking skills while teaching the

women the elements of a positive lifestyle.8

 California’s Sensitive Needs Yard (SNY) Program separates general population

inmates from predatory or gang-affiliated inmates. The program allows nonviolent inmates who would otherwise be segregated in protective custody units the

same opportunities available to the general population but without the threat of

violence. Inmates are carefully selected for participation in SNY, and those with

Chapter five

47
predatory, violent, disruptive, or unresolved gang behavior are generally excluded. Approximately 5 percent of the male general population were participating

in SNY at the time of the survey.

 Pennsylvania’s Long-Term Segregation Unit (LTSU) isolates combative, disruptive, and violent inmates who have continually posed a threat to security and

shown an unwillingness to comply with the rules governing the general population. Although privileges are limited in the LTSU, the unit provides inmates

with in-cell classes on drug and alcohol abuse, stress management, and academic subjects. Inmates are also permitted daily visits with the chaplain, twiceweekly visits with a correctional counselor, and psychological services as

requested. The LTSU houses only a small portion of the prison population and

is implemented only for male prisoners. 

The project team also sought recommendations of potential model programs from

the project Advisory Board, the Managing Disruptive Inmates Committee of the

Association of State Correctional Administrators, and NIC staff. This information,

combined with the experiences and observations of the project team—including

informal contacts with prison administrators who have implemented new approaches—

resulted in the identification of the model programs summarized in exhibit 18.

The project team made site visits to facilities of three jurisdictions that demonstrated well-structured, highly effective or promising programs: Connecticut and Ohio,

which have programs that focus on the disruptive prisoner who has been removed

from the general population, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which operates an

innovative program for female prisoners who have been traumatized by physical and

sexual abuse prior to being incarcerated. These programs are described in the sections that follow. 

48

Chapter 5

State and Program Description

Alaska

Youth Offender Program Targets high-risk offenders ages 15–20 who are involved in street and

gang cultures. Provides classes in cognitive skills, academic subjects,

substance abuse, vocational skills, mental health, and anger management.

California

Sensitive Needs Yard Provides general population (GP) inmates who have concerns about 

Program safety or enemies an environment free of predatory or gang-affiliated

inmates. Allows nonviolent inmates who would otherwise require segregated placement full access to programs in a GP setting.

Violence Control Program Will provide an alternative to segregated housing for disruptive inmates

and include self-help, educational, gang, and drug awareness programs.

Designed to provide progressive steps based on inmates’ participation in

programs and positive performance. 

Exhibit 18. Potential Model Programs for Managing Disruptive and High-Risk Prisoners
49

Identification and Review of Model Programs

State and Program Description

Colorado

Progressive Reintegration Targets inmates placed in administrative segregation and provides cogand Orientation Unit nitive programs; academics; vocational, recreational, and work assignments; and mental health services.

Connecticut

Close Custody Gang Programs for gang management, chronic disciplinary problems, and 

Management Program, administrative segregation operate at multiple facilities throughout the 

Close Custody Chronic state, including the Hartford area. Programs target up to 500 male and 

Disciplinary Program, and 25 female inmates.

Administrative Segregation 

Transition Phase Program 

Florida

Enhanced Close Targets closed management (CM) inmates housed in administrative segManagement Program regation. Inmates are eligible for specific levels of programming based on

management level (CM1 = most restrictive; CM3 = least restrictive).

Indiana

Residential Treatment Unit Serves 40 male inmates with mental health issues. Inpatient residential

treatment program provides individualized treatment plans, transitioning

programming, and rehabilitation therapy. Program uses a needs assessment process and a mental health diagnostic screening interview.

Iowa

Reintegration Program Targets inmates housed in administrative segregation for an extended

period of time. Provides classes in anger management, criminality, thinking for success, substance abuse treatment, and recreation. Program is

voluntary, with selection based on staff review and recommendations. 

New Jersey

Security Threat Group Provides psychological treatment, educational programming, and behavior

Management Unit modification. Serves inmates identified as STG members. (No indication

of whether this is a GP or administrative segregation program.)

New Mexico

Cognitive Re-Structuring Serves inmates in a variety of custody levels, including administrative 

Program segregation, protective custody, STG, high-risk GP, and disciplinary 

segregation.

Oklahoma

Mental Health Services Evaluates and classifies mental health of all inmates according to a fiveNeeds Classification level system ranging from MH–A (GP housing with outpatient treatment)

to MH–D (24-hour monitoring in a ward for inmates with acute mental

health problems). 

Oregon

Close Custody Unit Serves inmates making transition from the maximum custody intensive

management unit (total lockdown) to an open GP unit.

Exhibit 18 continued

Exhibit 18 continues on next page.
50

Chapter 5

State and Program Description

Pennsylvania

Long-Term Segregation Unit Houses extremely disruptive, violent, and problematic inmates. Provides

extremely high levels of security and sharply reduces level of privileges. 

Special Management Unit Securely houses inmates who are continually disruptive, violent, or dangerous or who pose a threat to the orderly operation of the facility. Inmates assigned to this unit have been repeatedly subject to disciplinary

action or investigation.

South Carolina

Stairway Treatment Program Provides housing and programming for HIV/AIDS inmates, who are

screened and identified at the reception center. Inmates are housed in a

segregated unit but interact with GP inmates when participating in programs and other support functions. 

Statewide Protective Custody Special management unit housing approved protective custody inmates,

Housing Unit who are monitored by institutional and central office staff while in the

unit. Protective custody placement is validated through a series of interviews and a formal investigation and is reviewed and approved by the

Institutional Classification Committee.

Washington

Assisted Living Facility Provides assisted living for inmates whose medical condition requires

such assistance.

Special Offender Unit Houses inmates who have a mental illness or are in acute distress (suicidal). Seeks to stabilize inmates with mental illness and return them to GP

through a diagnostic, treatment, and reintegration program.

Youthful Offender Program Houses juvenile offenders who have been sentenced as adults.

Twin Rivers Sex Offender Treats sex offenders who have been screened with multiple approved 

Treatment Program actuarial risk instruments.

West Virginia 

Stepdown Serves inmates who have been housed in the control unit for 6 months 

or more and are making the transition back into GP. Inmates progress

through a series of gradual stepdowns in the areas of supervision, security precautions, and privileges.

Source: National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates, National Institute of Corrections, 2002. 

Note: GP, general population; STG, security threat group.

Exhibit 18 continued
The Close Custody

Phase Program is

based on the belief

that gangs and their

associated problems

could be managed

and controlled

through a high level

of structure, regimentation, and focused

programming.

Connecticut Department of Correction 

Most jurisdictions manage and house all high-risk inmates through a single administrative segregation structure, irrespective of differences in the nature of the risk

they represent to the institution’s safety or in their security and programming needs.

The Connecticut Department of Correction (CDC) has taken another approach and

developed a model called the Close Custody Phase Program that it has adapted to

the specific needs of different groups of high-risk inmates. 

The development of the Close Custody Phase Program was a response to severe

management problems and increased violence caused primarily by the infiltration

and swift expansion of gangs in the CDC system in 1993. After identifying the gang

leaders and removing them from the general population, the CDC created a new

quasi-segregation status called close custody to manage this population at the Garner Correctional Institution in 1994. Inmates sent to close custody were to be held

there for as long as they remained affiliated with an STG. 

At the direction of the CDC commissioner, an internal task force came together at

Garner to consider how STG members in close custody might make the transition

back into the general population. This task force, which included staff from the custody, counseling, mental health, and educational departments, developed the structure and programming for the Close Custody Phase Program. The program’s

objective was to lead STG members to renounce their gang affiliation, based on the

belief that gangs and their associated problems could be managed and controlled

through a high level of structure, regimentation, and focused programming.

CDC has used the Close Custody Phase Program model in other programs designed

to safely manage high-risk and difficult-to-manage inmates, such as those who

repeatedly commit disciplinary infractions and those who require administrative

segregation. The department’s three Close Custody Phase Programs for high-risk

inmates are the Close Custody Gang Management Program (the original Close Custody Phase Program), the Close Custody Chronic Disciplinary Program, and the

Administrative Segregation Transition Phase Program. The structure and program

requirements of each unit are based on examination of outcome data and consideration of each group’s needs and characteristics and are intended to facilitate the

inmates’ return to the general population, if appropriate. The process includes regular and frequent reviews by the classification staff and structured movement of the

inmate through the levels, or phases, of the program until release.

To learn more about these programs and their outcomes, the project team visited the

MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution and the Northern Correctional Institution. These site visits included presentations on the purpose and objectives of the

program by department staff, a tour of the restricted housing units, and interviews

with administrative and line staff. The project team’s observations are summarized

in the following sections.

51

Identification and Review of Model Programs
Inmates who progress

to phase II are

grouped in squads

composed of different STGs. They complete all activities

together within the

squad, including

meals, recreation, 

and programs. 

Close Custody Gang Management Program 

The gang management program was developed by an internal task force at the Garner Correctional Institution in 1994 and has been expanded and replicated at multiple locations within the CDC, including the Northern Correctional Institution,

where the project team observed it. CDC administrative directive 9.4 describes the

program as a level 4 restrictive housing status that segregates inmates designated as

STG members whose behavior poses a threat to the security and orderly operation

of the facility or a risk to the safety of staff or other inmates.

The program is divided into phases, with each phase having specified security and

program privileges and restrictions. Phase I, the entry level status, is the most

restrictive. Inmates are housed with members of the same gang or nonrival gangs

and are on lockdown 23 hours per day. In addition to 1 hour of out-of-cell activity

per day, they are permitted three showers, three monitored phone calls, and two noncontact visits per week. In general, the operation of phase I parallels that of most

administrative segregation units.

The strict security, supervision, and management of phase I allow staff to observe

and evaluate the inmate for possible movement to phase II. Inmates in phase I are

reviewed continuously and monitored for compliance with the program’s rules and

regulations. To move to phase II, an inmate must complete a minimum of 120 days

in phase I. He must also sign a “Letter of Intent” stating his desire to renounce his

gang membership and an “acknowledgment of expectations” stating that he accepts

and understands the rules, regulations, and expectations of the Close Custody Gang

Management Program.

Inmates who progress to phase II are grouped in squads composed of different

STGs. They complete all activities together within the squad, including meals,

recreation, and programs. The squad concept is intended to enhance trust among the

members of different gangs and also requires them to work together and cooperate

in completing assigned tasks.

Inmates must remain in phase II for a minimum of 60 days and are expected to complete all required programs before they will be considered for promotion to phase

III. Programs required during this phase include gang awareness, anger management, conflict resolution, and programs designed to structure and encourage living

in a nonviolent manner.

Phase III is a transitional phase in which inmates are given work and program

assignments both inside and outside the restricted housing unit. The programming

emphasis continues and includes expanded cognitive restructuring programs, education, social skills training, and conflict resolution. Inmates who complete all the

required programs and maintain an acceptable level of behavior are considered for

review and reclassification to level 4 general population status.

52

Chapter 5
The Close Custody

Chronic Disciplinary

Program operates on

the assumption that

inmates who repeatedly violate institutional rules need a

structured environment and structured

programming to alter

their behavior so that

they can return to the

general population.

During any phase of the program, an inmate who fails to participate in the required

programming or violates the rules and regulations of the unit may be returned to

phase I or reclassified to administrative segregation. Inmates who complete the program and are returned to the general population are monitored for possible reinvolvement in gangs.

Close Custody Chronic Disciplinary Program 

This restricted status housing program is designed to reduce the threat to the safety

and security of the institution posed by inmates who commit serious and/or frequent

disciplinary violations. Assignment to the unit is based on the seriousness and repetitiveness of the disruptive behavior and is reviewed and approved by the director of

offender classification. Most of the inmates placed in the program have completed

punitive segregation sanctions and otherwise could be sent either to administrative

segregation or returned to the general population. Inmates may also be placed in the

first level of the program as a punitive segregation sanction.

The Close Custody Chronic Disciplinary Program operates on the assumption that

inmates who repeatedly violate institutional rules need a structured environment and

structured programming to alter their behavior so that they can return to the general population. The program consists of two intervals, and each inmate is initially

assigned to interval I. After meeting all established requirements, completing all

required programming, and maintaining an acceptable level of behavior, the inmate

is reviewed by the Unit Classification Review Committee for possible advancement

to interval II. On completion of interval II, the inmate can be approved for return to

the general population by the director of offender classification. The program policy manual indicates that those who fail to complete the program within 6 months

will be removed from the unit and recommended for administrative segregation. 

Interval I. This stage of the program is designed to isolate and confine the inmate

who has committed multiple and repetitive disciplinary violations within the institutional setting. Inmates assigned to the chronic disciplinary program are initially

moved in full restraints and are escorted by staff at all times when outside of the cell.

After 1 week in the unit, the level of restraints can be modified, and removing all

restraints becomes an option after an additional week. Inmates must complete a

minimum of 30 days in interval I before they can be considered for promotion to

interval II.

The privileges and programming in interval I are similar to those found in a typical

administrative segregation setting. All inmates receive their meals in their cells. Outof-cell time for recreational privileges is restricted to 1 hour per day, 5 days per

week, and only two 30-minute noncontact visits per week are allowed. Phone calls

are also limited, as is access to personal property. Work assignments are not permitted, and inmates have no access to televisions or radios.

53

Identification and Review of Model Programs
The Connecticut

Department of 

Correction’s administrative segregation

program is unique in

that it incorporates

restricted housing

phases intended to

facilitate the inmate’s

return to the general

population.

Interval II. Fewer security restrictions are imposed on inmates promoted to interval II. For example, no restraints are used and inmates move in groups as large as

48 within the unit. They may be given work assignments within the unit and are paid

in accordance with the established pay plan.

In interval II, inmates are required to participate in the curriculum developed for the

unit, which includes orientation and communication, anger management, relapse

prevention, problem solving/resolution, and transition planning. The curriculum is

designed to address the causes of chronic disciplinary problems and to prepare the

inmate for successful transition back to the general population.

Administrative Segregation Transition Phase Program 

Administrative segregation is designed for inmates who can no longer be managed

safely in the general population because their behavior or management factors pose

a threat to the security of the institution or to the safety of staff or other inmates. Virtually every correctional system has some form of administrative segregation. The

CDC’s administrative segregation program is unique in that it incorporates restricted housing phases intended to facilitate the inmate’s return to the general population.

The CDC developed its two-level administrative segregation structure in response to

a review of outcome data showing security deficiencies and programmatic shortcomings in the existing strategy. Administrative directive 9.4 sets forth the policy

and procedures that govern each level. The first level is a traditional administrative

segregation status similar to that found in most jurisdictions. The second level is the

department’s innovative Administrative Segregation Transition Phase Program, a

specialized housing status program designed to prepare an inmate for placement

back in the general population. 

The structure of the Administrative Segregation Transition Phase Program is similar to that of the Close Custody Gang Management Program. The transition program

has three distinct phases designed to prepare the inmate for return to the general

population and ensure that the transition does not jeopardize the safety and security of the institution. The program operates on the assumption that inmates who pose

a risk to the public, staff, or other inmates must be housed in a highly secure and

structured environment. The CDC believes that while inmates are housed in such a

restrictive environment, they should receive training in the coping skills necessary

to function successfully and safely in the general population. A major objective of

the program is to reduce the return rate of those leaving administrative segregation.

The operational procedures and programs of each phase are designed to achieve

these objectives.

Phase I. The operating procedures associated with phase I are similar to those found

in the typical administrative segregation unit. The objective of this phase is to incapacitate through controlled movement and intensive staff supervision. The security

standards of phase I include use of restraints; controlled and escorted movement;

limitations on showers, recreation, and visits; and limitations on property. All meals

54

Chapter 5
CDC data show 

that violence has

decreased significantly

in both general population and high-risk

units in department

facilities since it

began implementing

programs targeted to

specific groups of

high-risk inmates.

are served in the cell. Programs, including religious and counseling services, are

offered through in-cell programming only. Promotion to phase II is considered only

after a lengthy period of being discipline free and acknowledging and accepting the

requirements that accompany phase II. The normal minimum period of time an

inmate must remain in phase I is 6 months.

Throughout phase I and subsequent phases, the classification staff closely monitor

the inmate’s behavior and progress. A classification review is conducted every 7

days for the first 2 months and every 30 days thereafter.

Phase II. The operating standards, privileges, and access to programs in phase II are

designed to maintain the safety and security of the institution while initiating the

process of transition from administrative segregation back to the general population.

After 30 days in phase II, restraints are no longer required for routine movement out

of the cell, movement within groups is increased, and group participation in programs, recreation, and other out-of-cell activities is initiated. The program requirements for phase II include anger management and communication skills. Inmates

remain in phase II a minimum of 90 days. To be considered for promotion to phase

III, an inmate must participate in and complete all program requirements while

maintaining an acceptable disciplinary record.

Phase III. In the final phase of the program, the unit’s environment and security

standards are further normalized to prepare the inmate for return to the general population. Group activities are broadened to include a wider range of programs and

more group movement. Inmates in phase III benefit from meals served in a group

setting in the dayroom, expanded passive recreational programs, and increased general privileges. 

The phase III curriculum includes relapse prevention, problem identification and

resolution, and improvement of interactive skills. The final transition program is the

Bridge Group, which is designed to ensure that inmates can communicate with others effectively and appropriately, deal with frustration, and see and understand others’ perspectives. The Bridge Group stresses staff involvement, including staff who

may have been assaulted by the inmate in the past.

Inmates who complete all activities and programs required during phase III are

reviewed by the unit classification committee, the facility classification committee,

the warden, and the deputy commissioner of programs and treatment, who is the

final approving authority. 

Program Effectiveness 

The CDC’s unique approach to managing its high-risk population has increased

staff and inmate safety. CDC data show that violence has decreased significantly in

both general population and high-risk units in department facilities since it began

implementing programs targeted to specific groups of high-risk inmates. Serious

assaults have decreased from 233 in 1993, the year before the Close Custody Gang

55

Identification and Review of Model Programs
All high maximumcustody inmates are

housed at the Ohio

State Penitentiary,

which is regarded 

as the department’s

most secure facility,

designed to hold 

the most dangerous

inmates.

Management Program was launched, to 129 in 2001. Since 1994, 550 inmates have

completed one of the CDC’s three programs for high-risk inmates and reentered the

general prison population. As of May 31, 2002, the annual return rate to administrative segregation was only 2.6 percent. 

The CDC’s approach is being replicated to some degree in other systems. The project team reviewed units within the Colorado Department of Corrections and New

Mexico Department of Corrections that were similar, although not identical, in their

structure and programmatic objectives to CDC programs. 

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 

In response to a major prison riot that occurred in the 1990s and the ensuing litigation, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) decided to construct and operate a super maximum-security facility to house its most difficult to

manage prisoners. After this facility, the Ohio State Penitentiary (OSP), opened in

the late 1990s, a lawsuit was filed contesting various aspects of its operations, with

particular focus on how prisoners are selected for admission and how they are able

to gain release. These issues, along with the conditions of confinement, are common

issues raised in litigation against high-security facilities like the OSP. This section

describes the OSP and its operations as of 2001.9

The DRC has a total population of approximately 45,000 inmates assigned to 34

facilities. As in some other large-population states, Ohio’s prison population has

been declining over the past few years and is not projected to grow in the near

future. The state has a well-structured, well-validated inmate classification system

that assigns inmates to five basic security levels: minimum, medium, close, maximum, and high maximum. Approximately 33 percent of the inmates are in minimum

custody, 40 percent in medium custody, 21 percent in close custody, 5 percent in

maximum custody, and less than 1 percent in high maximum custody. Inmates in

each security level may be assigned to a special management or segregation designation, and about 6 percent of the entire inmate population is so designated. Compared with other states, this is a relatively low percentage, the national average being

approximately 8–10 percent.

Approximately 2,200 inmates have been temporarily placed in a restricted unit due

to disciplinary actions taken by the local facility. These include designations of

administrative, security, disciplinary, and local control. Inmates sent to a security,

disciplinary, or local control unit are returned to the general population within a relatively short period of time. Those whom the DRC believes should be removed and

segregated on an indefinite basis are assigned to protective custody, administrative

control, or high maximum custody. Only 182 inmates are in protective custody, 280

in administrative control, and 365 in high maximum. All high maximum-custody

inmates are housed at the OSP, which is regarded as the department’s most secure

facility, designed to hold the most dangerous inmates.

56

Chapter 5
Estimates based on

admission and release

data and daily population figures put the

average length of stay

in the OSP at 3.5 to

6 years.

Overview of the Ohio State Penitentiary 

The OSP was opened in 1998 to house high-security inmates who the DRC determined could not be housed or managed within the general population. It has a bed

capacity of 504 single cells. These beds are distributed in 4 separate housing units,

each of which has 8 pods with 15–16 cells per pod. As of 2001, the population at

the OSP had declined to the extent that one housing unit had been closed temporarily. Estimates based on admission and release data and daily population figures put

the average length of stay in the OSP at 3.5 to 6 years (exhibit 19). If the number of

admissions and the daily population remain constant, the average length of stay will

be 6 years. Conversely, based on the larger number of releases, the average length

of stay will be 3.5 years. OSP officials indicate that the expected length of stay is

closer to 2–3 years, so inmates may move through the OSP more quickly than these

numbers suggest. If this is true, then admissions will have to increase for the population to remain at its current level. 

Assignment to the OSP. The process of assigning an inmate to the OSP has several steps. First, staff at the inmate’s facility refer the inmate’s case for consideration

to a three-person committee within the facility. This committee makes a recommendation to the warden or the warden’s designee, who has the option of rejecting

the recommendation or forwarding it to the Bureau of Classification (BOC). If the

warden forwards the recommendation and the BOC agrees, the inmate is transferred

to the OSP. If the BOC disagrees, the warden can appeal the BOC’s decision to the

regional DRC director, who can concur with or override the BOC’s decision.

At the time of this report, the DRC had drafted a new classification policy that

would improve the current classification process for high maximum-security

inmates. The new policy would establish a five-level classification system for all

DRC inmates. Levels 1, 2, and 3 would mirror the general population levels of minimum, medium, and close. Maximum and high maximum would be replaced by levels 4 and 5, each of which would have two privilege levels, A and B. Inmates would

be assigned to level 4A, 4B, 5A, or 5B. The new policy would not allow the warden

to appeal the BOC’s decision to the regional director. The policy also would allow

57

Identification and Review of Model Programs

Inmate population as of September 2001 365

Change in population July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001

Inmates admitted 61

Inmates released 103

Average length of stay (years)

Based on admissions 6.0

Based on releases 3.5

Source: Ohio State Penitentiary, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, September 26, 2001.

Exhibit 19. Average Length of Stay at the Ohio State Penitentiary
A treatment plan

established for each

inmate outlines the

types of programs the

inmate is expected to

participate in and the

areas of conduct in

which the inmate is

expected to improve.

inmates to be considered for level 4 or 5 placement either at reception or at any other

DRC facility.

Each inmate’s file contains narrative data and forms completed by DRC staff that

justify the designation of high maximum security. These reasons can be grouped

into the following categories:

 Assault of a staff member.

 Assault of another inmate.

 Possession of or conspiracy to smuggle drugs.

 Attempted escape from a secure facility.

 Designation as an STG leader.

Levels of confinement. The OSP has four levels of confinement with differing

degrees of privileges. On arrival at the OSP, inmates undergo orientation and are

placed in level 2 status, where they remain for 12 months or until their behavior warrants a change in privilege status. Inmates who engage in serious misconduct can be

assigned to level 1 status; otherwise, inmates can move from level 2 to level 3 within a year. They are likely to remain in level 3 another year before being transferred

to the least restrictive status, level 4. Inmates assigned to level 4 have been approved

for release from the OSP by the DRC and are awaiting transfer out of the OSP.

Although staff report that inmates can be released from the OSP within a year, this

policy suggests a minimum stay of 2–3 years for inmates who are recommended for

release. However, as suggested above, a growing number of inmates will spend a

considerably longer period at the OSP. 

A treatment plan established for each inmate outlines the types of programs the

inmate is expected to participate in and the areas of conduct in which the inmate is

expected to improve. This treatment plan is reviewed and updated as part of the

inmate’s reassessment at 6-month intervals. Movement from one privilege level to

another appears to be under the control of the unit management team, which consists of a unit manager, case manager, and mental health and security staff.10 Other

than being demoted directly to level 1 at any time for a serious misconduct, inmates

are not permitted to jump two levels at a time.

A change in privilege level does not necessarily mean an inmate will be moved to

another pod or block. Each pod and block at the OSP has the capacity to provide

meals and recreation, and all inmates are housed in secure cells. Therefore, inmates

can remain in place as their status changes. However, all level 4 inmates who are

scheduled to be released from the OSP are housed in the same unit until the transfers are completed.

58

Chapter 5
Exhibit 20 shows the distribution of the OSP population by level and housing unit.

Nearly 60 percent of OSP inmates were in level 3 and another 4 percent were in

level 4 status. Conversely, only 13 inmates—3 percent—were in level 1, the most

restricted status, suggesting that most of the OSP population was conforming to the

facility’s rules and regulations. 

Release from the OSP. Inmates are reviewed annually to assess their classification

level and determine whether they can be released from the OSP. The process is

relatively similar to the admission process. The three-person OSP classification committee initiates the review and forwards its recommendation to the warden. The warden’s recommendation is then forwarded to the BOC for its review and decision.

Finally, the regional director conducts an assessment and makes a final determination.

Part of the review process entails completion of the DRC’s security scoring instrument, which was designed to be used for inmates who are in the general population,

not for those assigned to high maximum custody. OSP inmates’ scores on this

instrument can show dramatic fluctuations because serious misconducts are no

longer counted after 12 months, which might result in a recommendation to

decrease an inmate’s security level. The instrument also deducts points if the inmate

has not been removed from a job assignment; however, there are no jobs at the OSP,

except for a few porter positions for level 4 inmates.

Exhibit 21 summarizes the results of this multistage decision process. Of 369

inmates reviewed for release during a 12-month period, 71 were approved for

release by the regional director. At each decision point in the review process, the

number of inmates being recommended for release declined. Whereas the OSP classification committee recommended 157 (43 percent) of the inmates under review for

59

Identification and Review of Model Programs

Number of Inmates in Each 

Total Inmates Housing Unit

Classification Level Number Percent A B C D

Assessment 4 1 0 3 0 1

Orientation 5 1 5 0 0 0

Level 1 13 3 3 3 2 5

Level 2 116 31 25 45 1 45

Level 3 223 59 67 82 2 72

Level 4 16 4 16 0 0 0

Total 377 100 116 133 5 123

Source: Ohio State Penitentiary, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, September 2001.

Exhibit 20. Ohio State Penitentiary Population, by Classification Level and

Housing Unit, September 2001
The rate of serious

misconduct among

OSP inmates is

impressively low. A

review of randomly

selected cases found

that most inmates

had few, if any, disciplinary reports since

arriving at the OSP.

release, the warden reduced that number by nearly half. There was little change at

the BOC level, but the regional director’s final decision reduced the approval rate to

19 percent. 

Effectiveness of the Ohio State Penitentiary System 

The DRC’s classification process limits the potential for inmates to be inappropriately classified as “high maximum” security and admitted to the OSP. The number

of inmates designated as “high maximum security” is relatively small and appears

to be declining. Review of a sample of cases found that the inmates’ misconduct at

other facilities warranted their separation from the general population and placement in a special management or segregated setting.

The rate of serious misconduct among OSP inmates is impressively low, undoubtedly because of the security precautions in effect at the facility. As shown in exhibit 20, the majority of OSP inmates were in levels 2 and 3—those with the fewest

restrictions—and only 3 percent were in level 1, the most restricted status, suggesting that most of the OSP population was conforming to the facility’s rules and regulations. Other data support this conclusion:

 A review of randomly selected cases found that most inmates had few, if any,

disciplinary reports since arriving at the OSP, and many of these were for nonviolent behavior.

 OSP inmates had a lower rate of Class II violations (these are the more serious

offenses an inmate can be reported and disciplined for) than inmates at the nearby OSP Corrections Camp (OSPCC). OSPCC is a facility for low-custody

general population inmates, many of whom work at the OSP in trusty type positions. Additionally, as shown in exhibit 22, the OSP rate of Class II reports

resulting in a referral to the rules infraction board was only slightly higher than

the OSPCC rate.

The absence of behaviors such as banging on cell doors, destroying cell property,

flooding cells, or threatening staff is noticeable at the OSP, which suggests that

placement in that facility stabilizes or suppresses the inmates’ institutional conduct. 60

Chapter 5

Inmates Recommended for Release

Number 

Review Stage (N = 369) Percent

Classification committee 157 43

Warden 88 24

Bureau of Classification 90 24

Regional director 71 19

Source: Ohio State Penitentiary, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, September 2001.

Exhibit 21. Ohio State Penitentiary Release Recommendations
A recent study by the

Federal Bureau of

Prisons found that 60

percent of its women

prisoners have been

the victim of either

sexual or physical

abuse, almost exclusively committed 

by men.

At the same time, OSP houses inmates who, by virtue of the severity of the offenses they committed while incarcerated at another facility (e.g., assaulting a corrections officer, attempting to murder another inmate, participating in a riot, or leading

an STG), will be held longer in high maximum custody, regardless of improvements

in their behavior. The DRC is working on a separate management strategy for a fifth

level of confinement at the OSP—inmates who pose no management problems but

cannot be transferred to another facility for many years due to the severity of their

past misconduct.

Federal Bureau of Prisons 

A recent study by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) found that 60 percent of its

women prisoners have been the victim of either sexual or physical abuse, almost

exclusively committed by men. A significant portion of the abuse was inflicted during the women’s childhood, often by family or extended family members. These

findings are similar to statistics reported by state correctional systems. Often, the

abuse predates the prisoner’s involvement in criminal activities. In other situations,

the abuse is linked to criminal behavior. 

BOP’s New Pathways program has been in existence since 2001 and is still considered a pilot effort. This program is included in this report because the incidence of

lengthy histories of physical and sexual abuse among women prisoners is so pronounced and the response to the problem has been so weak.

New Pathways is offered at the Dublin Correctional Facility (DCF) in Dublin, California. DCF is the major women’s facility for the BOP’s western region, with

approximately 1,000 prisoners. Attached to the complex are a male detention facility and a minimum-security camp for women. Most of the women incarcerated in

DCF have been convicted of drug-related offenses. 

61

Identification and Review of Model Programs

Class II Reports Referred 

Class II Reports to Rules Infraction Board

Rate per 100 Rate per 100 

Facility Number Inmates Number Inmates

Ohio State Penitentiary

(N=375)* 967 258 247 66

Ohio State Penitentiary 

Corrections Camp

(N=160)* 544 340 88 55

Source: Ohio State Penitentiary, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, September 2001. 

*N = average inmate population.

Exhibit 22. Ohio State Penitentiary Class II Disciplinary Incidents, May 2000

to August 2001 
In the treatment of trauma associated with sexual and physical abuse, professional

mental health experts argue that there are two major stages of treatment. The first

phase is designed to initiate discussions about sexual and physical abuse without

going into specific details about the abuse experienced by the victim. The objective

is to begin discussing the forms abuse may take and the effect it can have on mental health status. Sometime thereafter, it may be possible and desirable to initiate a

second phase of treatment where the therapist and client address specific instances

of abuse. Since this level of treatment can often be painful and discomforting for the

client, it must be done in confidential, one-to-one sessions that may be needed for

several years. 

The New Pathways program addresses the first phase of treatment. Groups of 10 or

fewer women meet under the guidance of a psychologist to discuss the general topic

of sexual and physical abuse. The program provides opportunities for individual followup sessions with the supervising psychologist if issues raised in the group bring

up painful or disturbing reactions. 

New Pathways is not intended to be a vehicle for the treatment of mental health

problems associated with the trauma of prior sexual and physical abuse. The feasibility of delivering such treatment in a prison environment is questionable, given

that professional mental health services for one-to-one treatment are rarely available. However, the program may be helpful in preparing a woman to enter more

intensive treatment on release from prison. 

62

Chapter 5
Research to develop

better classification

tools and a more

proactive approach to

managing high-risk

and special management prisoners will

be hampered until

the states adopt a

common terminology

for classifying the

prison population.

Issues and Recommendations

In the United States, the prevailing approach to managing high-risk and special

management prison populations has been to build larger, more secure, and heavily

staffed administrative segregation and super maximum-security housing units. Prisoners are typically placed in these units only after their destructive behavior has

made it obvious that they should be removed from the general population. Much

less consideration has been given to preventing violent incidents from occurring in

the first place through the use of classification tools, aggressive management techniques, and programming and treatment services designed to modify prisoners’

behavior. Of the states that responded to the National Survey of the Management of

High-Risk Inmates, only a small number answered the question about model programs, and most of the programs they described targeted inmates who had already

been placed in administrative segregation. Neither the survey nor the other efforts

of the project team identified any programs or policies directed at high-risk prisoners housed in the general population whose actions had not yet led to their removal

to a special management population.

Research is needed to develop better classification tools and a more proactive

approach to managing high-risk and special management prisoners. Such research

will be hampered, however, until the states adopt a common terminology for classifying prison populations. The National Survey revealed the lack of consensus

among the states regarding even the most basic classification terms such as “general population,” “protective custody,” and “administrative” versus “disciplinary” segregation. To facilitate meaningful cross-jurisdictional comparisons of the types of

prisoners held in state correctional systems and the effectiveness of methods for

managing prison populations, states should agree, at a minimum, on a common definition of each of the following categories and to the use of these categories to designate all prisoners:

 General population.

 Special management:

❖ Administrative segregation.

❖ Disciplinary segregation.

❖ Protective custody.

Chapter six

63
Research into proactive methods for

preventing prison violence should examine

the effects of environment on prisoner

behavior and assess

the often advocated

but still highly controversial super 

maximum-security

facilities.

❖ Severe mental health care.

❖ Severe medical care. 

The National Survey also revealed that few states had correctional data systems that

could quickly and accurately aggregate the numbers and types of prisoners in their

custody. States are strongly encouraged to upgrade their correctional data systems

so that they can track and monitor the prisoner population daily according to the five

basic categories listed above. State correctional data systems should also provide

more detailed information about the basis for assigning a prisoner to a category and

about the movement of prisoners from one category to another.

Research into proactive methods for preventing prison violence should include an

examination of the effects of environment on prisoner behavior. It is well known

among corrections professionals that prison architecture influences inmate behavior

and also that similarly situated inmate populations can have very different rates of

serious misconduct. However, these observations are not supported by research.

States and the federal government are strongly advised to initiate studies to determine the impact of architecture and prison management methods on inmate disruptive behavior. 

Such studies should include assessments of the often advocated but still highly controversial super maximum-security facilities. More information is needed on how

best to identify inmates who require this level of segregation, how long they should

remain segregated from the general population, what interventions should be used

to control their high-risk behavior, when and how they should be returned to the

general population, and how they behave after release from these units. In the

absence of such basic research, it is difficult to propose new methods for identifying such high-risk prisoners and to apply interventions that will help control and

manage them.

64

Chapter 6
1. See California Department of Corrections, Data Analysis Unit, Inmate Incidents

in Institutions: Calendar Year 2002, Sacramento: California Department of Corrections, 2003. Available at the California Department of Corrections Web site:

http://www.corr.ca.gov/OffenderInfoServices/Reports/Annual/BEH1/BEH1d2002.

pdf. California is one of the few states that openly report data on prisoners.

2. Personal communication with staff of the New Mexico and California Departments of Corrections.

3. For more discussion of internal management systems, see Internal Prison 

Classification Systems: Case Studies in Their Development and Implementation

(Hardyman et al., 2002).

4. Source: National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates, National

Institute of Corrections, 2002.

5. For a more detailed description of the Level of Service Inventory–Revised, see

“Reliability and Validity Study of the LSI–R Risk Assessment Instrument” (Austin

et al., 2003).

6. For more information about the COMPAS or to contact the Northpointe 

Institute, visit the company’s Web site at www.northpointeinc.com.

7. The Sex Offender Assessment Board, which is part of the Pennsylvania Board

of Probation and Parole, is also mandated to review all convicted sex offenders

about to be sentenced by the courts.

8. See Connecticut Department of Correction, Program Services, Compendium of

Programs and Services for Offender Population, available at the department’s Web

site: http://www.doc.state.ct.us. Although the Gang Awareness Program is related to

the Close Custody Phase Program discussed later in this chapter, it is a separate program that targets a different group of inmates.

9. Much of the information in this section is drawn from a report prepared by

James Austin for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

10. Security staff assigned to each unit are under the supervision of the unit

manager.

65

Notes
Austin, J. 1992. “Impact Evaluation of the PMC Classification System.”

San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

———. 2001. “Prisoner Reentry: Current Trends, Practices and Issues.” Crime and

Delinquency 47(3): 314–334.

Austin, J., and G. Davies. 2001. PBPP Inter-Rater Reliability Analysis of the LSI–R:

Preliminary Analysis. Washington, DC: The Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections, The George Washington University.

Austin, J., D. Coleman, J., Peyton, and K.D. Johnson. 2003. “Reliability and Validity Study of the LSI–R Risk Assessment Instrument.” Washington, DC: The Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections, The George Washington University.

Austin, J., S. Repko, R. Harris, K. McGinnis, and S. Plant. 1998. Evaluation of the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice Administrative Segregation Population.

Washington, DC: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Report funded by

the National Institute of Corrections Cooperative Agreement 98P09G112.

Baird, C.S. 1981. “Probation and Parole Classification: The Wisconsin Model.”

Corrections Today 43: 36–41.

Beck, A.J., and B.E. Shipley. 1989. Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of

Justice Statistics.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2003. “Reentry Trends in the United States: Releases

from State Prison.” Retrieved December 4, 2003, from the Web: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/

bjs/reentry/releases.htm/.

Ditton, P.M. 1999. Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers. Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Ditton, P.M., and D.J. Wilson. 1999. Truth in Sentencing in State Prisons. Special

Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Duguid, S. 2000. Can Prisons Work? The Prisoner as Object and Subject in Modern Corrections. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Dunne, F. 2000. “A Framework for Reducing Reoffending: Differentiated Case

Management in Victorian Corrections.” Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Department

of Justice, Victoria.

67

References
Girard L., and J.S. Wormith. 2004. “The Predictive Validity of the Level of Service

Inventory–Ontario Revision on General and Violent Recidivism Among Various

Offender Groups.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 31(2): 150–181.

Gleick, J. 1988. Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Penguin.

Gottfredson, S., and D. Gottfredson. 1993. “The Long-Term Predictive Utility of the

Base Expectancy Score.” Howard Journal 32(4): 278.

Hanson, K.R., and D. Thorton. 1999. Static–99: Improving Actuarial Risk Assessments for Sex Offenders. Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada,

Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Hardyman P.L., J. Austin, J. Alexander, K.D. Johnson, and O.C. Tulloch. 2002.

Internal Prison Classification Systems: Case Studies in Their Development and

Implementation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of

Corrections.

Harrison, P.M., and A.J. Beck. 2002. Prisoners in 2001. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

———. 2003. Prisoners in 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Justice Research and Statistics Association. 2001. The Forum 19(4).

Langan, P., and D. Levin. 2002. Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Moore, M.W., R.L. Dugger, and R.J. Nimer. 2002. Impact of the “Rethinking Personal Choice” Program on Inmate Behavior and Facility Operations at Florida

State Prison (FSP). Tallahassee: Florida Department of Corrections, Bureau of

Research and Data Analysis.

Morris, N., and M. Miller. 1985. “Predictions of Dangerousness,” in Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, vol. 6, edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Naro, W. 2002. “Nevada Department of Corrections Ten-Year Population Projections.” Washington, DC: The Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections, The

George Washington University.

Petersilia, J. 1999. “Prisoner Reentry in the United States” in Prisons, edited by M.

Tonry and J. Petersilia (Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, vol. 26).

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

68

References
Quay, H. 1984. Managing Adult Inmates: Classification for Housing and Program

Assignments. College Park, MD: American Correctional Association.

Quinsey, V., G. Harris, M. Rice, and C. Cormier. 1998. Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Wood, R., and H.R. Cellini. 1999. “Assessing Risk of Recidivism in Adult Male

Sexually Violent Offenders.” Offender Programs Report 3(4): 49–50, 60–61.

69

Classification of High-Risk and Special Management Prisoners 
71

Austin, J., ed. 1986. Crime & Delinquency. Special Edition: Prison Classification

Systems 32(3).

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: National Council on

Crime and Delinquency.

Austin, J., and J. Irwin. 2001. It’s About Time: America’s Imprisonment Binge. 3d

ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Bednarowski, J. 1993. “Creating a Treatment Culture for Special Needs Inmates.”

Corrections Today (December 1993): 100–104.

Bloom, B., B. Owen, and S. Covington. 2003. Gender-Responsive Strategies:

Research, Practice, and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders. Washington, DC:

National Institute of Corrections.

Boin, A., and W. Rattray. 2004. “Understanding Prison Riots: Towards a Threshold

Theory.” Punishment & Society 6(1): 47–65.

Briggs, C., J. Sundt, and T. Castellano. 2003. “The Effect of Supermaximum Security Prisons on Aggregate Levels of Institutional Violence.” Criminology 41(4):

1341–1375.

Carlson, P. 2001. “Prison Interventions: Evolving Strategies To Control Security

Threat Groups.” Corrections Management Quarterly 5(1): 10–22.

Carroll, L. 1977. “Humanitarian Reform and Biracial Sexual Assault in a Maximum

Security Prison.” Urban Life 5(4): 417–437.

Chonco, N.R. 1989. “Sexual Assaults Among Male Inmates: A Descriptive Study.”

The Prison Journal 69(1): 72–82.

Cooke, D.J. 1998. “The Development of the Prison Behavior Rating Scale.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 25(4): 482–506.

Deemer, W., and A. Conine. 1984. “An Institutional Programming Model for the

Adult Developmentally Disabled Offender.” Corrections Today (June 1984): 30–31.

Dumond, R.W. 1992. “The Sexual Assault of Male Inmates in Incarcerated Settings.” International Journal of the Sociology of Law 20(2): 135–157.

Dumond, R.W. 2000. “Inmate Sexual Assaults: The Plague That Persists.” The

Prison Journal 80(4): 407–414.

Farr, K.A. 2000. “Classification for Female Inmates: Moving Forward.” Crime &

Delinquency 46(1) 3–17.

Suggested Readings
Fernandez, K., and M. Neiman. 1998. “California’s Inmate Classification System:

Predicting Inmate Misconduct.” The Prison Journal 78(4): 406–422.

Fleisher, M., and S. Decker. 2001. “Going Home, Staying Home: Integrating Prison

Gang Members Into the Community.” Corrections Management Quarterly 5(1):

65–77.

Gaes, G., S. Wallace, E. Gilman, J. Klein-Saffran, and S. Suppa. 2002. “The Influence of Prison Gang Affiliation on Violence and Other Prison Misconduct.” The

Prison Journal 82(3): 359–385.

Gorski, T. 1993. “Changing Thought Processes: A Prescription for Recovery From

Addictive Behaviors.” Corrections Today (December 1993): 78–82.

Grann, M., H. Belfrage, and A. Tengstrom. 2000. “Actuarial Assessment of Risk for

Violence: Predictive Validity of the VRAG and the Historical Part of the HCR–20.”

Criminal Justice and Behavior 27(1): 97–114.

Hammett, T., C. Roberts, and S. Kennedy. 2001. “Health-Related Issues in Prisoner Reentry.” Crime & Delinquency 47(3): 390–409.

Hardyman, P.L., J. Austin, and O.C. Tulloch. 2002. Revalidating External Prison

Classification Systems: The Experience of Ten States and Model for Classification

Reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of

Corrections.

Hardyman, P.L., J. Austin, and J. Peyton. 2004. Prisoner Intake Systems: Assessing

Needs and Classifying Prisoners. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Corrections.

Harer, M.D., and N.P. Langen. 2001. “Gender Differences in Predictors of Prison

Violence: Assessing the Predictive Validity of a Risk Classification System.” Crime

& Delinquency 47(4): 513–536. 

Herrick, E. 1989. “The Surprising Direction of Violence in Prison.” Corrections

Compendium 14(6): 1–9.

Hollin, C., and E. Palmer. 2003. “Level of Service Inventory–Revised Profiles of

Violent and Nonviolent Prisoners.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 18(9):

1075–1086.

Krebs, C. 2002. “High-Risk HIV Transmission in Prison and the Prison Subculture.”

The Prison Journal 82(1): 19–49.

Leeke, W., and H. Mohn. 1986. “Violent Offenders.” Corrections Today (May

1986): 22–24.

Lockwood, D. 1980. Prison Sexual Violence. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.

72

Suggested Readings
McGinnis, K.L. 2000. “Make ’em Break Rocks,” in Building Violence: How America’s Rush To Incarcerate Creates More Violence, edited by J.P. May and K.R. Pitts.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

McGinnis, K., and J. Austin. 2001. “Texas Board Parole and Pardon Guidelines Project. Phase II.” Austin, TX: Texas Board Parole and Pardons.

Mills, J., D. Kroner, and J. Weekes. 1998. “Measuring Alcohol Abuse and the Incidence of Serious Misconduct in Violent Offenders.” The Prison Journal 78(1):

45–54. 

Moran, M.M., M.G. Sweda, M.R. Fragala, and J. Sasscer-Burgos. 2001. “The Clinical Application of Risk Assessment in the Treatment-Planning Process.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45(4): 421–435.

Morris, N., and M. Tonry. 1990. Between Prison and Probation: Intermediate Punishments in a Rational Sentencing System. New York: Oxford University Press.

Moss, C.S., A.E. Hosford, and W.R. Anderson. 1979. “Sexual Assault in Prison.”

Psychological Reports 4: 823–828.

Nacci, P.L., and T.R. Kane. 1983. “The Incidence of Sex and Sexual Aggression in

Federal Prisons.” Federal Probation 47(4): 31–36.

Payne, B.K., and R.R. Gainey. 2002. Family Violence and Criminal Justice: A LifeCourse Approach. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co.

Roy, K. 2000. “The Systemic Conditions Leading to Violent Human Behavior.” The

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 36(4): 389–406.

Ryan, T.A. 1990. “Effects of Literacy Training on Reintegration of Offenders.”

Paper presented at Freedom to Read: An International Conference on Literacy in

Corrections, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Saum, C.A., H.L. Surratt, J.A. Inciardi, and R.E. Bennett. 1995. “Sex in Prison:

Exploring the Myths and Realities.” The Prison Journal 75(4): 413–430.

Smith, N.E., and M.E. Batiuk. 1989. “Sexual Victimization and Inmate Social Interaction.” The Prison Journal 69(2): 29–38.

Smith, W. 1993. “Eight Essential Keys to Designing Manageable, Livable Housing

Units.” Corrections Today (April 1993): 88–90.

Struckman-Johnson, C., D. Struckman-Johnson, L. Rucker, K. Bumby, and S.

Donaldson. 1996. “Sexual Coercion Reported by Men and Women in Prison.” Journal of Sex Research 33(1): 67–76.

73

Classification of High-Risk and Special Management Prisoners 
Struckman-Johnson, C., and D. Struckman-Johnson. 2000. “Sexual Coercion Rates

in Midwestern Prison Facilities for Men.” The Prison Journal 80(4): 379–390.

Suedfeld, P., C. Ramirez, J. Deaton, and G. Baker-Brown. 1982. “Reactions and

Attributes of Prisoners in Solitary Confinement.” Criminal Justice and Behavior

9(3): 303–340.

Sutherland, I., and J. Shephard. 2002. “A Personality-Based Model of Adolescent

Violence.” The British Journal of Criminology 42: 433–441.

Tewksbury, R. 1989. “Fear of Sexual Assault in Prison Inmates.” The Prison Journal 69(1): 62–71.

Toch, H. 1992. Living in Prison: The Ecology of Survival, rev. ed. Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

———. 2003. “The Contemporary Relevance of Early Experiments With Supermax

Reform.” The Prison Journal 83(2): 221–228.

Toch, T., and K. Adams. 1986. “Pathology and Disruptiveness Among Prison

Inmates.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 23(1): 7–21.

Van Voorhis, P., and P.L. Hardyman. 2004. Developing Gender-Specific Classification Systems for Women Offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Corrections.

Wooden, W.S., and J. Parker. 1982. Men Behind Bars: Sexual Exploitation in Prison.

New York: Plenum.

74

Suggested Readings
Appendix

National Survey of the Management

of High-Risk Inmates
77

Classification of High-Risk and Special Management Prisoners

Introduction

The National Survey of the Management of High-Risk Inmates was part of a project funded by the National Institute of Corrections to better understand the classification of high-risk, aggressive, disruptive, and predatory offenders in the general

population, close-custody management units, maximum custody, or administrative

segregation. This study also directed attention to special topics such as identification and classification of inmates involved in serious incidents who are mentally ill,

risk assessment for younger inmates and sexual predators within prison systems,

and application of community risk assessment instruments for civil commitments.

This survey, which was sent in 2002 to the correctional agencies of all 50 states and

the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, was designed to obtain information on the

procedures used to classify high-risk inmates, particularly those in protective custody or administrative segregation, and inmates with mental illnesses or medical

problems. The last section of the survey asked for information on new or model programs, including the name and location of the program, the target population,

screening processes, programs and services offered, and staffing levels.

It was hoped that this project would result in state and federal prison systems learning more about the practices and procedures in correctional agencies and that the

survey would provide examples of some innovative programs and policies that hold

great promise for other agencies.

Definition of a High-Risk, Predatory, and Special Management Inmate:

For purposes of this survey, a high-risk or disruptive inmate is one who cannot be

housed in the general inmate population and/or is likely to be placed in a special

housing unit. In general, a high-risk inmate will be assigned to one of the following

special management categories: 1) Administrative Segregation, 2) Protective Custody, 3) Mental Health and 4) Medical.

However, this study also asked some questions about high-risk, aggressive, disruptive, and predatory offenders who are in the general population but who may become

management problems due to their high-risk, aggressive, disruptive, and predatory

behavior. The study also asked some questions about these inmates as well.

What follows is the questionnaire that was used for this survey.
I. Background Information

Name of Agency: ___________________________________________________

Agency Address: ____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

Name and Title of Person Completing this Form: __________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Telephone Number: _________________________________________________

Fax: ______________________________________________________________

E-mail Address: ____________________________________________________

We are also interested in doing a followup interview with someone in your agency

who is responsible and familiar with how the department monitors the general population to identify inmates and situations that may lead to a serious incident if not

attended to. Please provide the name(s) of persons with whom we can have a more

detailed and comprehensive discussion of these issues.

1. _________________________ _____________________ __________

Name Position Telephone

2. _________________________ _____________________ __________

Name Position Telephone

3. _________________________ _____________________ __________

Name Position Telephone

4. _________________________ _____________________ __________

Name Position Telephone

5. _________________________ _____________________ __________

Name Position Telephone

78

Appendix
79

Classification of High-Risk and Special Management Prisoners

II. Current Inmate Population Attributes 

This first section is designed to provide us with some basic numbers and trends concerning the types of inmates currently assigned to special population units. These

numbers should be based on the most recent data you have available at the time you

receive this survey.

1. Please indicate how many inmates are placed in the following classification 

designations. Note that the numbers reported for items 2–6 must equal the

numbers reported in item 1. 

Number of Inmates and Beds as of ____/ ____/ ________/

Males Females

Classification Level Inmates Beds Inmates Beds

1. Total Inmate Population

2. Total General Population (GP)

2a. Total Maximum or High 

Custody in GP

3. Total Special Population not 

in GP

3a. Administrative Segregation

3b. Disciplinary Segregation

3c. Protective Custody

3d. Mental Health/Mental 

Retardation

3e. Medical/Infirmary 

(24-hour segregation)

4. Total Unclassified

5. Other – List

6. Other – List
2. How many inmates are currently taking psychotropic medications?

Male: ________ Female: ________ Not Sure: ________

3. How many inmates are civil committed?

Male: ________ Female: ________ Not Applicable: ________

4. Please indicate the number of inmates under the age of 18.

Male: ________ Female: ________

5. Please describe your agency’s definition of “maximum- or high-custody”

populations. 

5a. Are high-risk inmates segregated from the general population 24 hours 

a day?

Yes: ________ No: ________

5b. Do these inmates have contact with other high-security inmates?

Yes: ________ No: ________

5c. Are there restrictions on contact with visitors?

Yes: ________ No: ________

5d. Do inmates wear restraints when moving?

Yes: ________ No: ________

5e. How much out-of-cell time is allocated for high-security 

inmates? ________

Please elaborate on the above answers, if necessary, and/or provide additional

information on your agency’s definition of “maximum-custody inmates.”

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

6. Is the same definition applied to mentally ill inmates?

Yes: ________ No: ________ Not Sure: ________

If no, how is administrative segregation different for mentally ill inmates?

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

7. Please indicate if, in the past year, your maximum- or high-custody populations have been Increasing, Decreasing, or are Unchanged. For each cell,

be sure to use only the appropriate response of Increasing, Decreasing, or

Unchanged.

80

Appendix
Trends in the Number of Inmates in the Past Year, by Classification Level

Classification Level Males Females

1. Total Inmate Population

2. Total General Population (GP)

2a. Maximum or High Custody 

in GP

3. Total Special Population not in GP

3a. Administrative Segregation

3b. Disciplinary Segregation

3c. Protective Custody

3d. Mental Health/Mental 

Retardation

3e. Medical/Infirmary 

(24-hour segregation)

4. Total Unclassified

5. Other – List

6. Other – List

8. Has the rate of inmate assaults on staff changed in recent years? 

No Change: __ Increased Violence: __ Decreased Violence: __ Not Sure: __

Has the rate of inmate assaults on other inmates changed in recent years?

No Change: __ Increased Violence: __ Decreased Violence: __ Not Sure: __

If yes, to what do you attribute these increases or decreases? ______________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

81

Classification of High-Risk and Special Management Prisoners
9. Are there any active consent decrees that govern, or that pending litigation will

govern, the operations and policies of the following special inmate population

units?

82

Appendix

Consent Pending 

Decree? Settlement?

Special Population (Y/N) (Y/N) Name(s) of Case(s)

Administrative 

Segregation

Disciplinary 

Segregation

Mental Health/Mental 

Retardation

Medical

Substance Abuse 

Populations

Other – List

10. Once inmates have been placed in special housing, are they able to return to

the general population? 

Yes: ________ No: ________ Not Sure: ________

10a. If yes, under what circumstances may inmates return to the general 

population? ________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

10b. If yes, do you provide any type of transitional programming to assist

inmates in moving from special housing to the general population? 

Yes: ________ No: ________ Not Sure: ________

If yes, please describe the type of programming and attach any supplementary information/materials. _________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________
11. Are you satisfied with the way your agency handles disruptive inmates?

Yes: ________ No: ________

11a. If no, what circumstances or policies do you think would help you manage disruptive inmates? _______________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

11b. Are there any administrative barriers (e.g., security rules, administration 

concerns, legislation) that affect the ability of your department to provide 

special housing units?

Yes: ________ No: ________ Not Sure: ________

Please explain your answer: ____________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

11c. Are you interested in new approaches to dealing with disruptive inmates?

Yes: ________ No: ________

11d. How could NIC assist you? 

83

Classification of High-Risk and Special Management Prisoners
III. Screening and Assessment Methods

1. Please indicate if inmates are screened upon admission for any of the following attributes associated with special management concerns. Also, please specify whether or not these assessment procedures are the same for both male and

female inmates.

84

Appendix

By Whom?

(e.g., Nurse, Is the 

Doctor, Instrument or Original

Screened Classification Assessment Tool Assessment

High-Risk (Y/N) Staff, and Methods Updated?

Indicator M F Psychiatrist...) Applied by Staff (Y/N) How Often? By Whom?

Security Issues

Gangs/ 

Security 

Threat 

Groups

Escapee

Protection – 

Witness

Protection – 

Sex Assault

Violence – 

In Prison

Violence – 

Public

Enemies

Sexual 

Predator

Mental Health Issues

Suicidal

Mood 

Disorders

Psychotic 

Disorders

Other Axis 

I (specify)

Other Axis 

I (specify)

Personality 

Disorders

Mental 

Retardation

Other – List
High-Risk Number Stored in MIS Access

Indicator of Inmates (Y/N) Restrictions

Security Issues

Gangs/Security Threat 

Groups

Escapee

Protection – Witness

Protection – Sex Assault

Violence – In Prison

Violence – Public

Enemies

Sexual Predator

Mental Health Issues

Suicidal

Mood Disorders

Psychotic Disorders

Other Axis I Diagnoses

Personality Disorders

Mental Retardation

Other – List

2. Please identify the number of inmates currently in your custody by risk indicator and specify who has access to this information in your MIS system.

85

Classification of High-Risk and Special Management Prisoners
IV. Model Intervention Programs

Some states have developed model or new programs designed to better identify,

manage, and treat inmates who are removed from the general population. Other

departments however, have developed programs that attempt to avoid or reduce the

need for the use of protective custody or segregation. Please indicate below if you

believe your department has such a program(s) and if that program is worthy of further analysis by NIC. If you have more than one program, please complete additional forms.

1. Model Program Name: ____________________________________________

2. Facility Name and Address: ________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

3. Contact Person Name: _________________ Phone Number: ______________

4. Target Population (Check one): ___ Administrative Segregation

___ Disciplinary Segregation

___ Protective Custody (Involuntary)

___ Protective Custody (Voluntary)

___ Mental Health

___ Medical 

___ General Population (Possible High-Risk)

___ Other (list)

5. Number of Inmates Currently in the Program:

Males: ____ Females: ____ Under Age 18: ____

6. Admissions Per Year: _____ 

Releases Per Year: _____

Average Time in Program: _____

7. Describe how inmates are screened and admitted to the program: __________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________ 

8. What Services are provided to the inmates while in the program? __________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

86

Appendix
9. What is the Staffing Level (including contractual staff) for the program?

Total Staff: _____ Clerical: _____ Mental Health: _____ Medical: _____

Educational: _____ Case Workers: _____ Security: _____ Other (list): _____

10. How many inmates have successfully completed or graduated from the program in the past year? _____ 

Please attach organizational chart and official program descriptions as well as

the program’s policies and procedures with the survey if they are available. 

11. If you have any additional comments that you believe would be pertinent to

our study, please attach them to this survey. Thank you!

87

Classification of High-Risk and Special Management Prisoners
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

Classification of High-Risk and Special Management Prisoners:

A National Assessment of Current Practices