U.S. Department of Justice 

National Institute of Corrections 
U.S. Department of Justice

National Institute of Corrections 

320 First Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20534 

Morris L. Thigpen 

Director 

Larry Solomon 

Deputy Director 

Susan M. Hunter 

Chief, Prisons Division 

Maureen Buell 

Project Manager 

National Institute of Corrections 

World Wide Web Site 

http://www.nicic.org 
Developing Gender-Specific Classification 

Systems for Women Offenders 

Patricia L. Hardyman, Ph.D.


The Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections


The George Washington University


Patricia Van Voorhis, Ph.D.


Center for Criminal Justice Research


University of Cincinnati


February 2004 

NIC Accession Number 018931 
The research for this report was funded by the National Institute of Corrections under cooperative agreements numbers 99P10IGL2, 00P12GIN1, and 2002D1–0002. Points of view or opinions stated in this 

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

U.S. Department of Justice or participating state correctional agencies.
Acknowledgments


The Center for Criminal Justice Research (CCJR) and The Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections (ICJC) acknowledge the National Institute of Corrections 

(NIC) for its leadership in the improvement of objective classification systems for 

women offenders. In particular, we want to acknowledge and thank our program 

manager, Sammie D. Brown, formerly with NIC and now back home in South Carolina, for her commitment to these efforts. She has been a strong and persistent 

advocate of objective prison classification and NIC’s technical assistance program. 

We also would like to acknowledge Mary Whitaker for her encouragement and support for this document. 

Special recognition and thanks are due to our research associates at CCJR and ICJC 

for their diligence and attention to the tasks as we worked with the states. The states’ 

classification steering committee members’ commitment to change was critical to 

our ability to learn and explore the issues. Their dedication and determination kept 

the work moving and their voices continued to sound the call for change. Special 

recognition is due to the project leaders: Scott Hromas, Noble Wallace, and Mary 

West in Colorado; Chuck Manning, William Maust, Jr., and S. Fred Roesel in Florida; Ted Sakai, Rhonda Sasaki, and Marion Tsuji in Hawaii; Terressa Baldridge and 

Julie McClaughlin in Idaho; Joseph Baldesano, Harold Clarke, and Ronald Limbeck 

in Nebraska; Wyetta Frederick and Mike Gilmore in West Virginia; and Pamela 

Brandon and Gerry Konitzer in Wisconsin. 

Finally we would like to thank Maggie Pettersen, Aspen Systems Corporation, for 

editing and coordinating the production of this document. 

iii 
Contents


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

Executive Summary ..........................................................................................vii

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

Chapter 2. Classification Issues for Women Offenders: The Literature .......3

Classification for Custody Purposes ...........................................................3

Classification for Case Management and Treatment Purposes ..................5

Legal Considerations for the Classification of Women Offenders .............6

Chapter 3. NIC Prisons Division: Women’s Classification Initiatives ...........9

National Assessment of Current Practices for Classifying 


Women Offenders .......................................................................................9

Working With Correctional Agencies To Improve Classification 


for Women Offenders................................................................................12

Chapter 4. Building Blocks to Effective Classification 


of Women Offenders .........................................................................................19

Validity of the Custody Classification Systems........................................19

Gender-Specific Needs Assessments ........................................................25

Chapter 5. Addressing Classification Issues That Require 


Systemic Change ...............................................................................................29

Inadequate Institutional Disciplinary Systems .........................................29

Location of Correctional Institutions for Women.....................................30

Management of Women Offenders ...........................................................30

Lack of Programming ...............................................................................30

Chapter 6. Future Steps ...................................................................................33

Notes ...................................................................................................................35

References ..........................................................................................................37

v 
Contents 

Appendix A: Descriptions of Seven States’ Women’s 


Classification Initiatives ....................................................................................43

Colorado Department of Corrections........................................................44

Florida Department of Corrections ...........................................................48

Hawaii Department of Public Safety ........................................................53

Idaho Department of Correction ...............................................................56

Nebraska Department of Correctional Services .......................................59

West Virginia Division of Corrections ......................................................62

Wisconsin Department of Corrections......................................................66

Notes .........................................................................................................68

References .................................................................................................70

Appendix B: Sample Initial and Reclassification Instruments 


Developed by Colorado and Idaho ...................................................................75

Option 1: Colorado Department of Corrections Women’s 


Initial Custody Rating ...............................................................................76

Model II: The Current System with Two Additional Needs 


(Mental Health and Relationships): Colorado Department 


of Corrections Women’s Initial Custody Rating.......................................78

Idaho Department of Correction Initial Classification 


Score Sheet—Female ................................................................................80

Idaho Department of Correction Reclassification 


Score Sheet—Female ................................................................................81

vi 
“There is widespread

agreement that incarcerated women differ

from their male

counterparts in terms

of their behavior, as

well as issues related

to medical, substance

abuse, mental health,

and family concerns.”

Executive Summary


Since 1990, the number of incarcerated women has increased by 108 percent, while 

the number of incarcerated men has increased 77 percent. Although these statistics 

do not surprise correctional administrators, many note that correctional systems 

remain ill equipped to address the security, programming, and unique needs presented by women offenders. There is widespread agreement that incarcerated 

women differ from their male counterparts in terms of their behavior, as well as 

issues related to medical, substance abuse, mental health, and family concerns. 

Moreover, the characteristics and needs associated with institutional adjustment 

manifest themselves differently for women than for men. Although generally 

women pose little threat of violence or escape, their histories of significant substance abuse and mental health problems can result in behaviors that are difficult to 

predict. 

These differences are particularly relevant to institutional classification systems, yet 

they are poorly accommodated and underresearched. In fact, earlier surveys of corrections personnel found a clear consensus of opinion: correctional classification 

systems have not provided necessary information about women offenders, were not 

adapted to women, and were not useful in matching women to appropriate custody 

levels or programming. While objective prison classification systems for male 

offenders were well established in virtually every state, similar systems for women 

offenders remained an afterthought. 

In response to this critical need for gender-specific objective classification systems, 

the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) entered into two cooperative agreements, 

one with the Center for Criminal Justice Research (CCJR) at the University of 

Cincinnati and another with The Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections at The 

George Washington University. The two projects produced a national assessment of 

current practices for classifying women offenders and technical assistance to 

improve classification systems in seven states. This report highlights the two projects’ findings. 

Classification Issues for Women 

Offenders: The Literature 

These projects were carried out in the context of uncertainty regarding the role and 

status of objective classification systems for incarcerated women. The literature was 

unclear as to what should be the goal of classifying women offenders: identification 

of treatment needs, custody requirements, or both. Furthermore, the scarcity of validation studies involving women prisoners made it impossible to determine whether 

systems were effectively serving either purpose. 

to medical, substance 

abuse, mental health, 

There is widespread 

agreement that incarcerated women differ 

from their male 

counterparts in terms 

of their behavior, as 

well as issues related 

and family concerns. 

vii 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Although it has long 

states used classification systems that had 

not been validated for 

been considered 

problematic, many 

women offenders. 

Executive Summary 

Classification for Custody Purposes 

Earlier cross-state surveys of correctional agencies reported that approximately 40 

states used the same objective classification system for women and men. Most used 

a variation of the NIC Model Prisons approach, a system for predicting disciplinary 

problems. The early NIC classification models contained mostly static variables 

(e.g., history of institutional violence, severity of current and prior convictions, 

escape history, current or pending detainers, prior felonies, substance abuse in the 

community, and prior assaultive behavior). Later NIC versions added such dynamic variables as age, education, employment, and performance in institutional programs and work. Although few disputed the classification focus on prison security, 

most correctional officials agreed that women offenders were not as dangerous as 

men. Scant empirical support for this perception was provided by a few state validation studies of custody-based classification systems and a limited number of academic studies conducted prior to the 1980s. 

Apart from the issue of dangerousness, some sources questioned the relevance of 

commonly used institutional custody factors (e.g., number and severity of prior 

felony convictions) and stability factors (e.g., age, education, and employment) for 

classifying women prisoners. Research has since identified a number of more relevant risk factors for women, including marital status, suicide attempts, family structure of the childhood home, child abuse, depression, substance abuse, single 

parenting, reliance on public assistance, dysfunctional relationships, and prison 

homosexual relationships. 

Although it has long been considered problematic, many states used classification 

systems that had not been validated for women offenders. A related concern questioned whether custody classification systems had been overclassifying women 

offenders (i.e., assigning them to higher security levels than warranted). Overclassification occurs when— 

 Prediction instruments for populations with low base rates on the criterion variable produce high rates of false-positive decisions. 

 Policies fail to consider that the meaning of custody is relative to the population 

at hand (e.g., maximum custody men and women who receive similar treatment 

when their behavior is quite different). 

 The dependent/criterion variable (number of misconducts) captures different 

behaviors for men and women. This occurs when staff who are ill prepared to 

supervise women offenders cope by citing women more readily than men for 

minor infractions. The results inflate reclassification scores for women because 

most reclassification instruments rely heavily on prison behavior. 

viii 
Some have argued

that not having separate systems is cause

for litigation.

Some have argued

that not having separate systems is cause

for litigation.

Developing Gender-Specific Classification Systems for Women Offenders 

Classification for Case Management and Treatment Purposes 

Institutional classification systems inform offender programming through needs 

assessments. Most often these are checklists indicating whether an inmate has a history of problems related to substance abuse, physical health, mental health, education, employment, and family issues. More recently, community correctional 

classification systems have simultaneously assessed risk and needs by tapping criminogenic needs (i.e., dynamic risk factors for criminal behavior). (Dynamic risk factors (e.g., use of illicit substances or alcohol, relationships with individuals involved 

in criminal behavior, and employment) are statistically correlated with criminal 

behaviors.) Unlike static risk factors, dynamic risk factors can change over time. 

Because criminogenic needs parallel many of the dynamic risk factors for custody, 

they too predict prison misconduct. Merging custody and criminogenic needs into a 

single prison classification model has its problems, however. Doing so creates an 

ethically questionable policy of elevating the inmate’s custody level according to 

problems rather than behavior. 

Regardless of whether criminogenic needs are used to inform custody decisions, 

recent interest in gender-specific programming has suggested that needs assessments 

for women should attend to victimization, childcare, self-esteem, relationships, and 

women’s unique health, substance abuse, and mental health issues. Such factors are 

seldom identified by the current generation of needs assessment instruments. 

Legal Considerations for Classification of Women Offenders 

Legal impediments to the development of separate classification systems for men and 

women may exist. Legal mandates require equal treatment of men and women offenders in matters such as housing, access to legal services, programming, employee 

wages, medical facilities, and other rights. According to some officials, these parity 

concerns also require identical classification systems for men and women. 

This stance is likely to provide misguided assurances, however. In fact, identical 

systems often work in unequal ways, as when they are valid for men but not for 

women; identical systems recognize men’s needs better than women’s; and they 

assign similar labels (e.g., maximum custody) to groups that differ in terms of their 

dangerousness. More logically, some have argued that not having separate classification systems is cause for litigation, as illustrated when the State of Michigan 

(Cain v. Michigan DOC) lost a class action suit brought by women offenders who 

were classified by the same system used for men. 

In summary, the projects began with four issues: validity, overclassification, lack of 

gender-responsivity, and equity. As an initial task of the NIC cooperative agreements, 

a national assessment conducted by the CCJR at the University of Cincinnati sought 

to determine the extent of these concerns among state correctional agencies. 

that not having separate classification systems is cause for 

litigation. 

whether criminogenic 

suggested that needs 

assessments for 

women should attend 

to victimization, 

women’s unique 

health, substance 

abuse, and mental 

health issues. 

Some have argued 

Regardless of 

needs are used to 

inform custody decisions, recent interest 

in gender-specific 

programming has 

childcare, self-esteem, 

relationships, and 

ix 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

had unique needs 

that should be 

tional settings.	

Ninety-two percent 

of the respondents 

asserted that women 

addressed in correcExecutive Summary 

NIC Prisons Division: Women’s Classification Initiatives 

National Assessment of Current Practices for 

Classifying Women Offenders 

The national assessment sought detailed descriptions of practices currently used for 

women offenders, including both problematic areas and emerging strategies. These 

issues were considered during lengthy telephone interviews with representatives 

from 50 state correctional agencies and the Federal Bureau of Prisons between February and May 2000. The findings are summarized as follows: 

 The majority of respondents indicated that security and public safety were the 

most important purposes to be served by incarcerating and classifying women 

offenders. Even so, respondents in 15 states voiced a desire for a classification 

model that would also support gender-responsive programming and move 

women offenders through the system and into community-level facilities more 

expediently. 

 Only 14 states reported validating their custody classification systems on a sample of women offenders. 

 Twelve states reported different classification procedures for men and women. 

These differences included four states with separate systems for men and 

women, four states with different scale cutoff points for men and women, and 

six states with expanded options on existing variables to better reflect the nature 

of women’s offending (e.g., employment, seriousness of the offense, and 

escapes). 

 Fifty-one percent of the respondents reported that women either posed less risk 

than men or a much smaller portion of women than men posed serious threats 

to institutional and public safety. 

 Ninety-two percent of the respondents asserted that women had unique needs 

that should be addressed in correctional settings. These needs included parenting and childcare (33 percent), trauma and abuse (23 percent), medical (21 percent), mental health (14 percent), self-esteem and assertiveness (10 percent), 

vocational (10 percent), and relationship issues (8 percent). However, most 

states failed to consider these issues in their needs assessments. All but eight 

states had identical needs assessments for men and women. 

 Many states reported that their systems were overclassifying women offenders. 

Override rates in 10 states surpassed 15 percent of their scored custody levels 

(rates ranged from 18 to 70 percent of their cases). 

 All concerns aside, many states were not using their classification system anyway. In a minimum of 35 states, women with different custody levels were 

housed together in at least one, if not all, of the state’s facilities for women. In 

x 
Developing Gender-Specific Classification Systems for Women Offenders 

such cases, custody levels did not affect housing, programming, or movement 

throughout the facility. Furthermore, this practice occurred without significant 

breaches of security. Custody levels could, however, affect whether a woman 

worked outside the facility’s perimeter, the types of restraints required when 

transporting her outside the institution, and, more importantly, her eligibility for 

community placement. 

 Seventeen states employed formal internal classification systems to guide housing 

assignments. The same systems were used for men and women in these states. 

Against the background of the information gathered during the initial stages of these 

projects (e.g., literature reviews, the national assessment, and focus groups with correctional staff, administrators, and inmates), the following directions were set for 

subsequent work with seven states: 

 Assess the validity of classification systems for women offenders. 

 Reduce overclassification resulting from invalid classification systems. 

 Improve the relevance of classification factors to women offenders. 

 Assess the contributions of more gender-responsive variables. 

Working With Correctional Agencies To Improve Classification 

for Women Offenders 

The projects’ cooperative agreements provided technical assistance to the departments of corrections (DOCs) in Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Nebraska, West 

Virginia, and Wisconsin. Each state presented a unique set of issues and questions 

regarding the classification of its women offenders, yet distinct patterns emerged. A 

brief synopsis of the work with these seven states follows. More detailed descriptions of their classification initiatives are provided in appendix A of this report and 

in the individual state reports submitted to NIC (see notes at the end of appendix A). 

Colorado Department of Corrections (CO DOC). Beginning in February 2000, 

this technical assistance project sought to develop a separate classification system 

for women offenders, identify and test classification factors that were likely to be 

relevant to women offenders, and assess needs, including gender-responsive needs, 

as a component of the classification system. 

Initially, focus groups with women offenders, correctional staff, and administrators 

and several meetings with the state’s classification steering committee identified several gender-responsive needs for further research (i.e., child abuse, adult victimization, 

parenting, relationships, self-esteem, and self-efficacy). The steering committee also 

identified additional needs pertaining to attitudes, peers, mental health, substance 

abuse, marriage/family, use of leisure time, finances, education, and employment 

(available through the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI–R)), and they 

xi 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

ed the assumption 

lated with institutional adjustment. The 

the assumption that 

men and women 

In Colorado, highneed inmates had 

higher rates of prison 

less of whether needs 

custody model. 

The results of the 

internal system’s validation study supportthat needs are corredata also supported 

some factors affect 

differently. 

misconduct, regardwere a part of the 

Executive Summary 

modified the CO DOC’s intake and reclassification instruments. Data analysis 

focused on measurement issues and an examination of the relative importance of custody, traditional needs, and gender-responsive needs in predicting prison misconduct 

and informing programming decisions. 

The following 3 classification models were tested on 156 women at prison intake: 

 Model 1: Revisions to the current system, an NIC Model Prisons model that 

included mostly static criminal and institutional history measures. The revisions 

included two criminogenic needs: history of substance abuse and employment. 

 Model 2: The revised custody system (same as model 1) augmented by two 

gender-specific needs: relationships and mental health.1 

 Model 3: The revised custody system (same as model 1) with a separate needs 

assessment that did not inform custody level. Gender-responsive needs included mental health, relationships, and child abuse. 

All models predicted prison misconduct, but the models containing the genderresponsive variables (models 2 and 3) were more strongly associated with prison misconduct than model 1. Moreover, the revised custody instrument was not valid without 

the inclusion of the two criminogenic needs, substance abuse and employment. When 

needs were assembled into a needs assessment instrument (model 3), they were relevant to prison misconduct even though they did not inform the custody levels. In other 

words, high-need inmates had higher rates of prison misconduct, regardless of 

whether needs were a part of the custody model. The CO DOC is currently validating 

the reclassification instruments for the project. 

Florida Department of Corrections. On review of the state’s classification systems and input from the state’s female advisory committee, this classification initiative sought to validate the external and internal classification systems and 

survey FL DOC inmates about parenting issues. 

The custody validation study found that the external system was statistically correlated with institutional adjustment but marred by heavy reliance on mandatory custody criteria, a high rate of discretionary overrides, and overclassification of women 

offenders into medium custody at initial classification. 

The results of the internal system’s validation study supported the assumption that 

needs are correlated with institutional adjustment. The data also supported the 

assumption that some factors affect men and women differently. Some risk factors 

hypothesized to be correlated with institutional adjustment among women offenders (e.g., family relationships and friends and peers) were not associated with institutional adjustment at admission. Child welfare and intimate relationships, however, 

were found to be related to institutional adjustment for both men and women 

offenders. 

xii 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Developing Gender-Specific Classification Systems for Women Offenders 

The parenting survey revealed several troubling findings. Children of women 

offenders were at greater risk of problems (e.g., out-of-home placements, arrests, or 

reliance on public assistance) than the children of male inmates. Children of women 

offenders were also less likely to visit their incarcerated parent. 

Hawaii Department of Public Safety. At the beginning of the cooperative agreement, the Hawaii Department of Public Safety (HI DPS) had one facility on the 

island of Oahu that housed approximately 236 women; an additional 79 women 

were housed in contracted facilities in Oklahoma. The goals of the project were to 

reduce overclassification, help women progress to community custody status when 

appropriate, and reduce the prison population, thereby freeing up sufficient bed 

space to return the women housed in Oklahoma to the Oahu facility. 

The technical assistance involved work with a classification steering committee to 

redesign and pilot test the state’s initial and reclassification instruments on a sample 

of 125 women. Modified instruments proved to be more valid than the original 

instruments, and the new instruments simulated a reduction in the custody level for 

approximately 10 percent of the research sample. 

Modifications to traditional custody variables improved the validity of the system, 

but the greatest improvement resulted from a recommendation to change several 

nondiscretionary overrides (which affected the majority of inmates) to risk factors 

on the custody instrument. In this way, these overrides would affect higher custody 

only if other risk factors were present. In addition, several systemic problems that 

were contributing to the state’s classification problems were identified. Officials 

sought to improve the systemic issues pertaining to staff shortages and training prior 

to a full implementation of the modified system. 

Idaho Department of Correction. Idaho was one of four states with a separate 

classification system for its men and women prisoners. Even so, the system had not 

been validated and appeared to be overclassifying women offenders. In addition, 

vague aspects of the classification manual raised concerns regarding the reliability 

and validity of the women’s classification system. 

The technical assistance entailed a validation study of the current and modified versions of the classification system. It also resulted in the development of a new classification manual. Staff were trained on the use of the modified instruments and the 

system was implemented in September 2001. 

Nebraska Department of Corrections (NE DOC). NE DOC struggled with the 

task of helping women serving short-term sentences to progress more efficiently to 

community custody facilities. Because at least 90 percent of incarcerated women 

offenders were released within 12 months of intake, many were released at a higher than community custody level. The existing custody classification system was 

designed for longer prison terms, and preliminary analyses suggested that it was 

invalid for women. A nonclassification issue pertaining to mandatory program 

In Hawaii, the 

of inmates) to risk 

factors on the cusgreatest improvement 

resulted from a 

recommendation 

to change several 

nondiscretionary 

overrides (which 

affected the majority 

tody instrument. 

xiii 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Dynamic risk factors 

women’s institutional 

adjustment than traditional static criminal 

were consistently better predictors of the 

history factors. 

Executive Summary 

requirements for all inmates also held women at higher than warranted custody levels. The NE DOC classification steering committee recognized that the custody 

classification model did not serve any real purpose regarding the management of 

women offenders. Many of the Nebraska classification issues were more pertinent 

to community risk and programming than to custody. 

The technical assistance project sought to validate and integrate a dynamic community risk assessment (LSI–R) to prioritize offender programming decisions and to 

facilitate community placement decisions. The initial intent was for the LSI–R to 

work in concert with a revised custody classification system. The custody system, 

likely to be more relevant to the minority of long-term inmates, would inform institutional placements. However, the committee chose to revise the custody system for 

both men and women, but to do so at a later date. 

Case management staff were trained on the LSI–R and administered the assessment 

to 100 women offenders. A validation study found that the risk levels were modestly related to serious misconduct and days served in segregation. However, the project experienced several delays. Most importantly, a substantial delay between staff 

training and their actual use of the LSI–R may have caused a number of reliability 

and validity problems. 

West Virginia Department of Corrections. The West Virginia Department of Corrections (WV DOC) sought to validate its current classification system to reduce 

overclassification of women offenders and provide better information for programming and housing assignments. 

Custody was determined by a public risk scale, which was not valid even when 

some of the criminal history and institutional adjustment risk factors were modified. 

The research also showed that dynamic risk factors were consistently better predictors of the women’s institutional adjustment than traditional static criminal history 

factors. 

As a result, a full redesign of the classification system for the male and female WV 

DOC prisoners was recommended. A system combining dynamic risk factors with 

traditional static risk factors (such as current offense and escape history) was 

expected to dramatically improve the validity of the classification system. 

Wisconsin Department of Corrections. The Wisconsin Department of Corrections 

requested technical assistance to assess its classification processes and provide recommendations for developing a gender-specific classification model. 

A comprehensive onsite assessment was conducted. The process included interviews with central office and facility-based staff, reviews of case files, tours of the 

facilities housing women offenders, observations of initial classification hearings, 

program review committee hearings, and reviews of the agency plan, a recent 

xiv 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Developing Gender-Specific Classification Systems for Women Offenders 

validation study, written policies, classification instruments, and needs assessment 

instruments. The technical assistance report supported current agency plans for 

modifying classification instruments and procedures. Based on current research and 

the experiences of other states, observations and suggestions were provided to 

strengthen the agency plan. 

Building Blocks to Effective 

Classification of Women Offenders 

Several themes and concerns, revealed consistently throughout the literature, the 

national assessment, and the work with the seven states that were part of the projects, are presented below along with recommendations for improvements. 

Validity of the Custody Classification Systems 

Recommendation 1: Ensure the validity of classification systems for women 

offenders. The current data suggest that approximately 30 states do not know 

whether their custody classification systems are valid because they have not conducted validity studies using samples of women offenders. Concern about this issue 

is underscored by the fact that validation studies typically find existing systems to 

be invalid for women. These situations are unethical because housing women at custody levels that affect the austerity of their environment, privileges, and the right to 

work outside of prison perimeters is unjustifiable. 

Recommendation 2: Avoid overclassifying women offenders. Officials from virtually every jurisdiction working with the project expressed concerns about the 

overclassification of women offenders. Their concerns were supported by the validation studies. Overclassification, however, was caused by invalid classification 

instruments as well as by certain systemic problems that are discussed in the final 

section of this report. In addition, modifications to the classification instruments seldom resulted in classification reductions for more than 10 percent of the sample or 

population. Further shifts in custody distributions—by either modifying custody 

scale points or changing weights or scores for key risk factors—were not possible 

due to mandatory restrictions or departmental directives. Moreover, modifications 

to scale cutpoints could occur only if the system remained valid after doing so. 

Often it did not. 

Recommendation 3: Modify current risk factors and/or scale cutpoints to 

reflect differences between women and men. Validation studies often find statistically significant differences in the predictive power of risk factors for men and 

women offenders. Factors pertaining to age, criminal history, current offense, and 

stability often work differently for men and women. 

states do not know 

whether their custody 

classification systems 

have not conducted 

validity studies using 

samples of women 

Approximately 30 

are valid because they 

offenders. 

xv 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

States have achieved 

tody classification systems for women by 

either excluding prior 

their weights or 

more predictive cuscriminal history risk 

factors or reducing 

scores. 

Executive Summary 

Age. Several validation studies indicated that the rate of institutional infractions 

decreases at an earlier age for men than for women. Therefore, different age categories for men and women offenders often enhanced the predictive power of the 

instruments. 

Criminal history. With few exceptions, criminal history factors have been poor predictors of institutional adjustment for women offenders—particularly at reclassification. However, very few women offenders receive high scores on these factors. 

Therefore, states have achieved more predictive custody classification systems for 

women by either excluding prior criminal history risk factors or reducing their 

weights or scores. 

Severity of the current offense. Recognition of women’s different pathways to crime 

prompted a number of attempts to reconfigure this risk factor. However, these efforts 

were hampered when files contained insufficient details pertaining to the current 

offense. Moreover, violent offenses characterized so few women that only an inordinately large sample could have supported an examination of the impact of types of 

violence. 

One exception to this pattern was observed in an Oklahoma study of the effects of 

victim-offender relationship, substance abuse, offender and co-offender relationship, 

and type of victim. Women incarcerated for victimless crimes (e.g., drug-related, 

property) had statistically fewer infractions, and women who were involved in crime 

with a male codefendant or family member had the highest rates of institutional 

infractions. 

In other studies, attempts to test whether women who murdered an abuser in selfdefense were less disruptive than other violent offenders found too few women who 

fit this description to support tests conducted on samples of 100–150 inmates. Even 

so, none of these women were observed to have a misconduct of any kind. Most of 

these matters should continue to be tested using larger samples. 

Stability factors. Many states include various indicators of offender stability on their 

initial classification and reclassification instruments. Most of these indicators also 

can be considered dynamic risk factors. The most common initial classification stability factors include age, employment at the time of arrest, education, and substance abuse. Reclassification instruments often add factors pertaining to 

institutional behavior, including participation in institutional programming. Correct 

use of these factors often enhanced the validity of classification systems for women: 

 Employment. This risk factor should include childcare and homemaker roles in 

the operational definition of fully employed. 

 Education. Academic achievement appeared to be an indicator of stability 

among men but not women offenders. In contrast to men, women with high 

school diplomas or the equivalency incurred more misconduct reports than less 

educated women. The factor was often omitted on modified systems for women. 

xvi 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Developing Gender-Specific Classification Systems for Women Offenders 

 Substance abuse. The reliability and validity of substance abuse as an indicator of stability have been problematic and results have been mixed. Too often 

operational definitions have allowed for subjective interpretations as to what 

constitutes substance abuse. One study that operationalized substance abuse 

according to two established assessments, however, found that both strongly 

predicted prison misconduct. Even with a valid and reliable indicator, however, 

the pervasiveness of substance abuse among women offenders (75 to 80 percent 

of the population) sometimes rendered the item useless for custody assessment 

purposes. 

 Relationships. Correctional staff often cited institutional and community relationships as risk factors for women offenders. Attempts to examine the role of 

relationships, however, often result in very different operational definitions and 

measures. Moreover, few data are available in inmates’ files to guide the development of reliable, objective risk factors to assess an inmate’s relationships. Therefore, findings regarding relationships varied considerably across the studies. 

Factors pertaining to child welfare, intimate relationships, and family relationships were unreliable and not related to institutional adjustment among women 

offenders in Florida. Data from West Virginia, on the other hand, indicated that 

stressful institutional relationships significantly predicted institutional infractions. 

Moreover, the presence of multiple stress factors, including child custody and 

legal matters, was highly correlated with institutional adjustment. In the Colorado 

study, the term “relationship” was operationalized as codependency or a tendency to loose too much personal power in intimate relationships and it was strongly 

related to prison misconduct. 

 Other stability factors. Other stability factors, such as the need for medical, mental health, and substance abuse services, were found in an Oklahoma study to be 

significantly related to women’s early prison adjustment.2 The Colorado study 

expanded this inquiry into additional gender-specific variables, including child 

abuse, adult victimization, parenting, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and relationships. 

Among a group of women at intake, child abuse, mental health, relationships, and 

substance abuse factors were strongly related to prison misconduct. Because these 

factors are dynamic, they must be updated for each reclassification. 

Gender-Specific Needs Assessments 

Recommendation 4: Develop comprehensive classification systems that assign 

women to meaningful programs. Long-standing correctional standards maintain 

that offenders should be classified according to needs related to prison adjustment, 

institutional safety, recidivism, and reentry to the community. Comprehensive needs 

assessments should consider both the presence and intensity of the need. They 

should triage certain high-need offenders into more detailed assessments and test 

batteries. Changes in the composition of prison populations as a result of the war on 

drugs and increases in the number of dual-diagnosed and mentally ill inmates, 

as well as calls for more gender-responsive programming, underscore the need for 

gender-specific needs assessments. 

ed institutional 

infractions. 

Data from West 

Virginia indicated 

that stressful institutional relationships 

significantly predictxvii 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Inadequate discipliin the institutional 

behaviors of men and 

women. 

nary codes are a primary contributor to 

the overclassification 

of women offenders 

because of differences 

Executive Summary 

Recommendation 5: Develop objective and reliable needs assessment processes. 

Needs assessments should specify objective criteria, require documentation, and 

require that raters indicate how many domains of a problem exist (e.g., does substance 

abuse affect work, family relationships, and medical problems?). They should not ask 

for judgment calls about the intensity of a problem. Needs assessments should be reliable, thereby resulting in consistent scores across raters. 

Recommendation 6: Focus on criminogenic needs to increase the utility of 

needs assessments. Dynamic criminogenic needs are those that have been statistically correlated with criminal behavior and that reduce criminal behavior when they 

are successfully treated. Agencies wishing to prevent future offending should focus 

on the problems associated with future offending. Such needs are often related to 

prison misconduct as well. 

Recommendation 7: Include gender-specific needs in screening and assessment 

tools. In addition to the considerations raised in recommendation 6, agencies should 

examine and test needs assessments for the presence of needs pertaining to abuse, 

parenting, relationships, health, substance abuse, and emotional stability. 

Addressing Classification Issues That Require Systemic Change 

In addition to exploring these building blocks, the project learned some very important lessons about systemic issues that can hamper correctional operations and render even the most valid and comprehensive classification system ineffective. The 

following issues, although not directly related to classification, were the most prevalent systemic issues that affected the classifications of prisoners. 

Inadequate institutional disciplinary systems. Inadequate disciplinary codes are 

a primary contributor to the overclassification of women offenders because of differences in the institutional behaviors of men and women. Institutional infractions 

that vary in threats to the safety and security of the institution (e.g., assaults) should 

not be combined and assigned identical codes. For classification purposes, the disciplinary policy should be revised to ensure that infraction codes are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. 

Location of correctional institutions for women. Most state correctional systems 

have very few correctional facilities for women offenders. Frequently these are 

located in rural areas, far from the urban communities in which the majority of the 

women lived prior to their incarceration. This distance creates barriers to family visitation, work and educational opportunities, and access to medical and mental health 

services. The rural setting sometimes creates cultural barriers within the facility 

between staff and inmates. These problems may exacerbate disciplinary problems if 

not properly addressed because women’s institutional adjustment is often influenced by their relationships (within and outside the facility), concerns for children, 

and other stress factors. 

xviii 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Developing Gender-Specific Classification Systems for Women Offenders 

Management of women offenders. In most state correctional agencies, basic training for correctional officers and caseworkers does not focus on women offenders.3 

Many staff resist working in the women’s facility and see the job assignment as a 

second-tier position or steppingstone to a more coveted position. Inexperienced staff, 

especially, may be quick to write up women for disobedience of a direct order, disrespect to staff, disorderly conduct, yelling, and unauthorized possession of property. 

Although these are relatively minor incidents, multiple infractions of this nature could 

quickly elevate a woman to medium or close custody. 

Lack of programming. In addition to the concerns about the absence of genderresponsive programming, many correctional systems are hampered by the lack of 

resources for any type of programming. These problems may contribute to overclassification because participation in work and programs often translates into more 

successful prison adjustment and lower reclassification scores. Additionally, program participation sometimes is a prerequisite for a reduced classification. Prisoners who cannot participate in program requirements because programs are 

unavailable may be held at higher custody levels regardless of the adequacy of the 

classification system. 

Future Steps 

The call for more data and more research is a common theme among researchers. 

The suggestion for continued work to validate classification systems, test alternative 

risk factors, and develop more relevant needs assessment processes may appear to 

be redundant and trite. Yet the requests from state and local correctional systems to 

assess and fine-tune their classification systems speak to the need to continue this 

research. Indeed, 30 states still have not validated their classification systems for 

women. 

Furthermore, the research highlighted in this report needs to be replicated in other 

jurisdictions before any further generalizations can be made. NIC has long advocated that validation studies be specific to the populations being classified. The 

inconsistencies in the risk factors observed thus far suggest that there is still much 

to learn about the classification of women offenders. At the same time, the number 

of women offenders under correctional supervision continues to grow while 

resources decline. In spite of fewer resources, the need to develop valid and reliable 

risk and needs assessment systems for managing and serving prison populations 

becomes more critical each year. 

Given these harsh realities, future efforts should focus on helping agencies develop 

systems that are both practical and feasible. Just as researchers dependably call for 

more research, correctional administrators are consistently asked to “do more with 

Prisoners who cannot 

unavailable may be 

held at higher cusof the adequacy of 

the classification 

system. 

participate in program requirements 

because programs are 

tody levels regardless 

xix 
Executive Summary 

less.” Scarce resources should provide maximum returns; therefore, future initiatives should concentrate on models that require reasonable efforts in terms of training, staffing, validation, and implementation. With these initiatives, it is anticipated 

that new lessons will be learned and previous lessons will be further refined. If the 

classification system is to continue to serve as the brain of the correctional system, 

it must be responsive to risks and needs posed by women as well as men. Unfortunately, there is still much to discover about how to make the systems more gender 

specific. 

Notes 

1. Of the gender-responsive needs, mental health, relationships, and child abuse 

were found to be strongly correlated with prison misconduct. The classification 

steering committee did not recommend including child abuse in a custody instrument; it was, however, included in the needs assessment for model 3. 

2. One variation of stability factors included substance abuse, emotional stability, 

mental health, sex offender, and reintegration needs. These factors were not statistically correlated with institutional adjustment. 

3. The National Institute of Corrections provides training on women offender 

issues as a part of its curriculum offerings on agency planning, operational practices, sexual misconduct, and classification. However, because of limitations on 

class size, only a small percentage of the personnel who work at women’s correctional facilities have an opportunity to attend. In addition, because of the nature of 

the training—operational practices and agency planning—the sessions are limited 

to more experienced staff. 

xx 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Chapter one


Introduction 

The number of women offenders in federal and state prisons doubled in the 1990s, 

growing faster than the male population (General Accounting Office, 1999). Since 

1995, the female prison population has grown at least 10 percent each year in 13 

states. North Dakota reported the highest average annual increase in female prisoners (23 percent), followed by Montana (22 percent), West Virginia and Idaho (both 

18 percent), and Wisconsin (17 percent). New York (-2.4 percent) was the only state 

to report a decrease in female prisoners since 1995 (Harrison and Beck, 2002). By 

the end of 2001, women accounted for 6.6 percent of state and federal prisoners, up 

from 4.1 percent in 1980 and 5.7 percent in 1990 (Harrison and Beck, 2002). 

Although these statistics do not surprise administrators, correctional systems remain 

ill equipped to address the security, programming, and special needs presented by 

women offenders. Many have argued that because both facilities and policies in U.S. 

correctional systems were designed to accommodate male inmates, they are based 

on behaviors and risk factors that have little or no relevance to women offenders. 

Although the literature regarding the design and effectiveness of correctional programming for women offenders is somewhat limited and dated, women offenders’ 

unique needs and issues have been well documented. There is widespread agreement that incarcerated women differ from their male counterparts in terms of their 

behavior, as well as their medical, substance abuse, mental health, and family concerns (Snell and Morton, 1994). The characteristics and needs associated with institutional adjustment manifest themselves differently in women than in men. 

Although generally women pose little threat of violence or escape, their histories of 

significant substance abuse and mental health problems can produce behaviors that 

are difficult to predict. These differences are particularly relevant to institutional 

classification systems, yet they are poorly accommodated and underresearched. 

In 1994, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) sponsored a study to assess the programming needs of incarcerated women and to identify promising interventions 

(Morash, Bynum, and Koons, 1998). Among the identified management issues were 

problems emerging from overcrowding, inadequate programming, and shortcomings in classification procedures. Administrators reported that their classification 

systems did not provide needed information, were not adapted to women, and were 

not useful in matching women to appropriate custody levels or programs. Further, 

classification and screening instruments did not direct where women should be 

housed or what programs should be offered to them. This was true even in larger 

states that had a greater range of options. A lack of space and the constant movement of large numbers of women were cited as operational barriers. 

Correctional systems 

remain ill equipped 

to address the security, programming, 

and special needs 

presented by 

women offenders. 

1 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

While objective 

prison classification 

systems for male 

systems for women 

prisoners were well 

established in virtually 

every state, similar 

offenders remained 

an afterthought. 

Chapter 1 

Dissatisfied with the current classification systems, correctional administrators 

appeared to have only three options: use the current instruments and override the 

scored custody levels, modify the current risk factors and/or scale cutpoints, or discontinue use of the current instruments and classify the women based on an intuitive, subjective process. Regardless of the option selected, the agencies have 

continued to classify women according to systems that were not designed or validated according to the risk factors relevant to their custody, housing, or programming needs. Thus, while objective prison classification systems for male prisoners 

were well established in virtually every state, similar systems for women offenders 

remained an afterthought. 

In response to this critical need for gender-specific and objective classification systems, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) entered into a cooperative agreement with the Center for Criminal Justice Research at the University of Cincinnati 

under which the university assessed state correctional agencies’ existing classification policies and procedures for women offenders. The project also provided technical assistance to three state correctional agencies to develop and implement 

gender-specific classification systems. Because interest and commitment expressed 

by state agencies was greater than what could be accommodated under the first 

cooperative agreement, NIC entered into a second agreement with The Institute on 

Crime, Justice and Corrections at The George Washington University to provide 

technical assistance to four additional state agencies. 

Together, the two projects amassed a wealth of information about existing practices 

for classifying women offenders; they also provided a rich opportunity to test 

options for improvement. This report highlights the two projects’ findings. 

2 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

Chapter two


Classification Issues for Women 

Offenders: The Literature 

The national assessment of state correctional agencies and the provision of technical assistance to seven states occurred in the context of uncertainty regarding the 

role and status of objective classification systems for incarcerated women. The literature was unclear as to what should be the goal of classifying women: identification of treatment needs, custody requirements, or both. Had agencies intended their 

classification systems to inform custody, programming, or housing decisions or a 

combination of these? Furthermore, so few validation studies involving women prisoners existed that it was impossible to determine whether systems were effectively 

serving any of these purposes. 

Classification for Custody Purposes 

Earlier cross-state surveys of correctional agencies reported that approximately 40 

states used the same objective classification system for women and men (Burke and 

Adams, 1991; Morash, Bynum, and Koons, 1998). Most used a variation of the NIC 

Model Prisons approach, a system for predicting disciplinary problems (National 

Institute of Corrections, 1979). Early NIC classification models contained mostly 

static variables (e.g., history of institutional violence, severity of current and prior 

convictions, escape history, current or pending detainers, prior felonies, substance 

abuse in the community, and prior assaultive behavior). Later NIC versions added 

such dynamic variables as age, education, employment, and performance in institutional programs and work. 

A focus on prison security seemed appropriate given the increases in the size of 

female populations and changes in their composition (e.g., increases in the number 

of members of security threat groups and younger offenders). However, most correctional officials agreed that women offenders were not as dangerous as men 

(Burke and Adams, 1991; Morash, Bynum, and Koons, 1998). Scant empirical support for this perception was provided by a few state validation studies of custodybased classification systems (Alexander and Humphrey, 1988; Hardyman, 1999). 

Several additional studies conducted prior to the 1980s also supported this assumption (Bowker, 1981). Others asserted that women offenders were becoming more 

aggressive and problematic (Kruttschnitt and Krmpotich, 1990; Tischler and Marquart, 1989; Williams, 1981). 

ous as men. 

Most correctional 

officials agreed that 

women offenders 

were not as danger3 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

If the behavior to be 

event (e.g., serious 

institutional violence), then the 

number of women 

to be involved in a 

serious institutional 

predicted is a rare 

erroneously predicted 

assault increases. 

Chapter 2 

Apart from the issue of dangerousness, some sources questioned the relevance of 

commonly used institutional custody factors (e.g., number and severity of prior 

felony convictions) and stability factors (e.g., age, education, and employment) for 

classifying women prisoners (Burke and Adams, 1991; Morash, Bynum, and Koons, 

1998). Research has since identified a number of more relevant risk factors for 

women, including marital status, suicide attempts, family structure of the childhood 

home, child abuse, depression, substance abuse, single parenting, reliance on public assistance, and dysfunctional relationships (Forcier, 1995; Balthazar and Cook, 

1984; Kruttschnitt and Krmpotich, 1990; McClellan, Farabee, and Crouch, 1997; 

Bonta, Pang, and Wallace-Capretta, 1995; Covington, 1998). More controversial 

works cited prison homosexual relationships as the impetus for aggressive behavior 

among women prisoners (Tischler and Marquart, 1989). 

Even more difficult were questions regarding the validity of the current classification models for women offenders. Although it has long been considered problematic to apply a risk or needs assessment to a population for which it has not been 

validated (American Association of Correctional Psychologists Standards Committee, 2000; American Psychological Association, 1992), failure to validate correctional assessments to specific populations has occurred too frequently (Van Voorhis 

and Brown, 1996). This problem has not been unique to corrections. Indeed, the failure to assess the applicability of research findings to specific populations also was 

found on notable occasions in the fields of education, mental health, and medicine 

(Sternberg and Williams, 1997; Gilligan, 1993; Arnstein, Buselli, and Rankin, 1996; 

Martin et al., 1998). Whether pertinent to drug dosages, health screens, educational 

tests, mental health assessments, or correctional classification, the practice of testing a procedure on predominantly male populations and then generalizing findings 

to women historically has endangered women’s health, safety, and opportunities for 

advancement. 

A closely related issue was whether custody classification systems have been overclassifying women offenders (i.e., assigning them to higher security levels than warranted). Overclassification can occur in three ways. First, prediction instruments for 

populations with low base rates on the criterion variable produce high rates of falsepositive decisions (Brennan, 1998; Clear, 1988). In other words, if the behavior to 

be predicted is a rare event (e.g., serious institutional violence), then the number of 

women erroneously predicted to be involved in a serious institutional assault 

increases. The result is that too many women are classified at higher custody levels 

than needed to ensure the safety of the facility. 

Second, even among inmates for whom a maximum custody classification indicates 

a greater likelihood of problematic behavior than among minimum custody inmates, 

the meaning of “serious” is relative to the population at hand (Van Voorhis and 

Brown, 1996). Maximum custody for a group with a low base rate (e.g., women 

offenders) could translate into 5 percent of the group committing a serious prison 

misconduct, whereas the same label for a group with a higher base rate (e.g., male 

4 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Classification Issues for Women Offenders: The Literature 

inmates) could translate into a 20-percent rate of serious misconduct. Simply put, 

women assigned to maximum custody have different rates of serious misconduct 

reports than men assigned to maximum custody. 

Third, if the dependent/criterion variable (number of misconduct reports) captures 

different behaviors for men and women, the custody level for one group is inflated 

at reclassification because of the weight assigned to recent institutional misconduct 

at reassessment. Staff who are ill prepared to supervise women offenders may cope 

by citing women more readily than men for minor infractions (Dobash, Dobash, and 

Gutteridge, 1986). The result inflates reclassification scores because most reclassification instruments rely heavily on prison behavior. 

Classification for Case Management and 

Treatment Purposes 

Most custody classification systems have not been designed to inform treatmentrelated decisions (Andrews and Bonta, 1998; Van Voorhis, 1994). Such decisions 

require needs-based assessment tools. These typically consist of checklists indicating whether the inmate has a history of problems related to substance abuse, physical health, mental health, education, employment, and family issues. More recently, 

community correctional classification systems have simultaneously assessed risk 

and needs by tapping criminogenic needs (i.e., dynamic risk factors for criminal 

behavior) (Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge, 1990; Andrews and Bonta, 1998). Dynamic 

risk factors (e.g., use of illicit substances or alcohol, relationships with individuals 

involved in criminal behavior, and employment) are statistically correlated with 

criminal behaviors and are subject to change. Because dynamic risk factors for 

criminal behavior parallel many dynamic risk factors for custody, they too predict 

prison misconduct (Andrews and Bonta, 1995). Some authors argued, however, 

against merging custody and needs assessments into a single prison classification 

model able to serve both purposes (Adams and Henning, 1982). This admonition 

reflected ethical concerns about the potential of elevating custody levels based on 

inmates’ problems rather than their behavior. 

Whether criminogenic needs inform custody decisions or not, the return of treatment as a core feature of correctional policy and philosophy highlights the importance of accurate needs assessments. At the same time, recent interest in 

gender-specific programming has suggested that needs assessments for women also 

should address the issues of victimization, childcare, self-esteem, relationships, and 

women’s unique health, substance abuse, and mental health conditions and problems (Brennan, 1998; LIS, Inc., 1998; Morash, Bynum, and Koons, 1998). Although 

previous studies argued that criminogenic needs are the same for men and women, 

research on this issue remains equivocal. In a meta-analysis of delinquency causation studies, for example, Simourd and Andrews (1994) reported that the most 

important criminogenic needs were the same for men and women. Lowenkamp and 

and philosophy highof accurate needs 

assessments. 

The return of treatment as a core feature 

of correctional policy 

lights the importance 

5 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

housing women in 

ments on the basis of 

raises disturbing ethical issues. 

and less likely to 

involve antisocial 

rationalizations. 

The prospect of 

more austere environtheir problems, rather 

than their behavior, 

Women’s offenses are 

more likely to involve 

relationship issues 

Chapter 2 

Latessa (2002) suggested that only some criminogenic needs are the same for men 

and women and that even these may have different roles and predictive powers for 

men and women. However, because neither study adequately considered genderspecific needs, it is not known whether adding such factors would change their conclusions in important ways. 

In many ways, current needs assessments do not reflect the most recent research on 

women’s criminality. Women appear to have different paths to substance abuse than 

men (Wanberg and Milkman, 1998). Their offenses are more likely to involve relationship issues and less likely to involve antisocial rationalizations (Taylor, Gilligan, 

and Sullivan, 1995; Covington, 1998; Erez, 1988). Women offenders are far more 

likely than men to be diagnosed with mental illness. Therefore, advocates of 

gender-responsive programming have recommended interventions that target physical and sexual abuse, relationships, self-esteem, gender-responsive dimensions of 

substance abuse, and mental health (Belknap, Holsinger, and Dunn, 1998; Bloom 

and Owen, 2004; Dembo et al., 1992; Holsinger, 1999; Miller et al., 1995; Morash, 

Bynum, and Koons, 1998). Including gender-specific needs on needs assessment 

instruments would facilitate the development and provision of gender-responsive 

programming. 

The possibility that some of the gender-specific needs may also predict prison misconduct or new offending complicates matters. Although problematic for both men 

and women, abuse and neglect are stronger predictors of future offending for 

women than they are for men (McClellan, Farabee, and Crouch, 1997; Rivera and 

Widom, 1990). Studies of incarcerated men and women consistently found that 

many more women than men report past physical and sexual abuse (Dembo et al., 

1992; Holsinger, 1999; McClellan, Farabee, and Crouch, 1997; Morash, Bynum, 

and Koons, 1998; Snell and Morton, 1994). Finally, the causal paths between physical and sexual abuse and offending among women may be intertwined with anxiety, depression, emotional problems, low self-esteem, and substance abuse (Miller 

et al., 1995; McClellan, Farabee, and Crouch, 1997). 

Of course, incorporating needs resulting from such problems as abuse, depression, and 

low self-esteem into risk assessments or custody determinations presents a new set of 

concerns for treatment and classification staff. Even though such factors may be highly predictive, the prospect of housing women in more austere environments on the 

basis of their problems, rather than their behavior, raises disturbing ethical issues. 

Legal Considerations for the Classification of


Women Offenders


Although researchers and practitioners have highlighted a number of reasons for 

constructing separate classification systems for men and women, legal impediments 

exist. As a result of much litigation and legislation, correctional agencies were mandated to afford equal treatment to men and women in such matters as housing, 

6 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classificaClassification Issues for Women Offenders: The Literature 

access to legal services, programming, employee wages, medical facilities, and 

other rights. Many interpreted classification to fall within this rubric. As a result, 

some corrections officials vehemently defined parity as requiring identical classification systems for men and women (Brennan, 1998). 

This stance, however, provides misguided assurances. Indeed, when identical systems are valid for men but not for women, equity is not present. Moreover, a system 

that better recognizes men’s risk than women’s risk is inherently unequal. Finally, if 

proportionately more maximum custody men commit predatory acts than similarly 

classified women, the system already lacks parity. In these instances, even though the 

classification instruments and procedures look identical, they produce disparate outcomes. In response, some have argued that not having separate systems is cause for 

litigation (Austin, Chan, and Elms, 1993; Brennan, 1998). This was recently illustrated when the state of Michigan (Cain v. Michigan Department of Corrections) lost 

a class action suit brought by women offenders who were classified by the same system as that used for men. 

In summary, this literature review frames four crucial issues: validity, overclassification, lack of gender responsivity, and equity. Earlier, somewhat dated, national surveys indicated that most agencies used identical systems to classify men and women 

offenders (Burke and Adams, 1991; Morash, Bynum, and Koons, 1998). It was clear 

that the validity of the current systems for women offenders was a question that had 

long beset the corrections field. The surveys detected no examples of classification 

factors that were optimally relevant to women’s offending patterns or programming 

needs. In fact, the use of gender-responsive factors has been discouraged because 

of legal reasons, such as equal protection concerns, the lack of research on womenspecific predictors of institutional infractions, ongoing disagreements as to whether 

women offenders exhibited enough dangerous behaviors to predict, and arguments 

about whether women should be classified according to risk.1 

A system that better 

than women’s risk is 

recognizes men’s risk 

inherently unequal. 

7 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Chapter three


NIC Prisons Division: Women’s 

Classification Initiatives 

National Assessment of Current Practices for 

Classifying Women Offenders 

As an initial task of the NIC cooperative agreement, the Center for Criminal Justice 

Research at the University of Cincinnati conducted a national assessment of existing classification practices for women offenders (Van Voorhis and Presser, 2001). 

The assessment sought to explore the prevalence of problems highlighted in the literature and the approaches that agencies had formulated for resolving them. Of 

interest were correctional officials’ perceptions of whether their systems worked for 

women and the purposes they assigned to their classification systems—custody, 

programming, and/or housing. The assessment also explored the extent to which 

officials perceived the classification issues of women and men to be different and 

whether changes to their systems had been made to account for these differences. 

Finally, the assessment examined the psychometric quality of the systems: What 

were the origins of these models? Were they developed specifically for women 

offenders or were they designed for men and applied to women? How many states 

had validated their classification systems using samples of women offenders? 

These issues were addressed during lengthy telephone interviews with representatives from the 50 state correctional agencies and the Federal Bureau of Prisons 

between February and May 2000. Most of the respondents (33) were state directors 

of classification, 5 were administrators of women’s facilities, 4 were research analysts, 1 was a clinical director, and 8 served in another administrative capacity (e.g., 

regional administrator). Consultants and researchers who had worked with the agencies were contacted as needed regarding the design and validation of the classification systems. 

Although many respondents discussed clear differences between men and women 

offenders in terms of their needs and risks to institutional and public safety, very few 

states had incorporated these differences into their objective prison classification 

systems. Their responses to key questions are summarized below.2 

Are Women and Men Classified Differently? 

Most respondents reported that the systems in which they worked did not classify 

men and women differently. They considered the custody assessment to be the foundation of their classification system. 

Although many 

between men and 

and risks to institutional and public safeincorporated these 

objective prison classification systems. 

respondents discussed 

clear differences 

women offenders in 

terms of their needs 

ty, very few states had 

differences into their 

9 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

tem had been developed for both men 

and women did not 

mean that it had been 

validated for use with 

that it used factors 

Assertions that a syswomen offenders or 

relevant to women. 

Chapter 3 

Twenty-one states used a system based on the NIC Model Prisons instrument in 

which reclassification occurred at intervals ranging from 3 to 6 months. Fourteen 

states reclassified women annually. Of course, for women serving short sentences, 

annual reclassification often meant no reclassification. 

Most states’ classification systems were either developed for both men and women 

(39 states) or developed for men and later applied to women (4 states). However, 

assertions that a system had been developed for both did not mean that it had been 

validated for use with women prisoners or that it used factors relevant to women. 

Thirty-four states used an objective tool to summarize offenders’ needs. Yet only 

eight states reported use of a system that identified needs in a gender-specific manner. Seventeen states employed formal internal classification systems to guide housing assignments. In all these states, the same systems were used for men and 

women. 

Twelve states reported different classification procedures for men and women. 

The distinctions were as follows: 

 Four states—Idaho, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio—used different custody assessment instruments for women. 

 Four states used the same custody assessment instruments for men and women, 

but used different custody scales, or cutpoints, for women. 

 Two states changed specific variables to better reflect the nature of women’s 

offending and their prison misconduct. For example, New York State reduced 

points on a common variable, seriousness of the current offense, for women 

who killed an abuser in self-defense. 

 Four states expanded the operational definition of risk factors to better fit the 

nature of women’s offenses and infractions. Employment variables, for example, 

were changed to avoid scoring full-time homemakers or parents as unemployed. 

What Should Be the Primary Purpose of Classifying


Women Offenders?


Security and public safety were reported by the majority of respondents as the most 

important goals served by classifying women offenders. 

What Additional Considerations Should Govern the


Classification of Women Offenders? 


The expedient movement of women to the least restrictive environment and the provision of gender-responsive programming were common responses. Even though 

safety was their primary concern, respondents in 15 states voiced a strong desire for 

10 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

NIC Prisons Division: Women’s Classification Initiatives 

classification models that also would move lower risk women to minimum or community custody more quickly. An additional concern for respondents was genderresponsive assessment and programming that addressed such needs as parenting and 

childcare (33 percent), trauma and abuse (23 percent), medical (21 percent), mental 

health (14 percent), self-esteem/assertiveness (10 percent), vocational (10 percent), 

and relationship issues (8 percent). In fact, 49 respondents (92 percent) agreed that 

the unique needs of women should be addressed in correctional settings. 

What Problems Are Encountered When Classifying 

Women Offenders? 

Problems observed by respondents included the following: 

Custody classification systems appeared to overclassify women offenders. 

Many reported that their systems assigned too many women to unnecessarily high 

custody levels. Officials had to override the classification instrument to properly 

place the women in lower custody levels. Representatives of 10 states indicated 

that more than 15 percent of cases required an override (rates ranged from 18 to 70 

percent of cases). When override rates surpass 15 percent, most classification 

researchers maintain that the classification system begins to reflect staff discretion 

rather than objective criterion-based scoring. 

Custody classification systems had not been validated among women offenders 

in many states. Only 14 states had validated their classification system using samples that included only women prisoners. Eleven states (not included in the 14 with 

women-specific studies) included women in validation samples that were predominately male.3 

Custody classification systems were not always used to inform assignments to 

facilities, housing units, or programming. Given that public safety and security 

were reported as the primary concerns of these respondents, it was surprising to 

learn that women with different custody levels were housed together in 35 states. 

Thus, for women, unlike men, the assigned custody level did not have an impact on 

decisions about housing, privileges, programming, or movement throughout the 

facility. Custody levels did, however, affect job assignments and the types of 

restraints required outside the security perimeter. More importantly, custody level 

determined eligibility for a community placement. 

Most needs assessment instruments were not gender specific. Although 49 

respondents (98 percent) identified needs that were unique to women offenders, 

most states had not tailored their needs assessment processes to track these needs. 

Only eight states had provisions to assess men and women differently. 

In sum, the national assessment found that most states continued to use identical 

systems for men and women and most had no empirical basis for knowing whether 

their classification systems were valid for women offenders. Almost all respondents 

For women, unlike 

men, the assigned 

custody level did not 

have an impact on 

decisions about housgramming, or 

ing, privileges, promovement throughout the facility. 

11 
Chapter 3 

claimed that women’s needs were different from those of men, but only eight agencies incorporated these differences into objective needs assessments processes. The 

number of states making improvements had not changed significantly since the earlier surveys. In fact, two states that had gender-specific classification systems had 

changed back to systems that are uniform for men and women.4 

Working With Correctional Agencies To Improve


Classification for Women Offenders


As previously indicated, NIC entered into two cooperative agreements to provide 

direct technical assistance to state correctional agencies. The first, with Dr. Patricia 

Van Voorhis of the Center for Criminal Justice Research at the University of Cincinnati, provided technical assistance to Colorado, Hawaii, and Nebraska. The second, 

with Dr. Patricia Hardyman at The Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections at 

The George Washington University, provided technical assistance to Florida, Idaho, 

West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Each state presented a unique set of issues and questions regarding the classification of its women offenders, yet distinct patterns 

emerged across the states. A brief synopsis of the issues and developments with 

these seven states follows. (More detailed descriptions of the classification initiatives of the seven states are provided in appendix A and the individual state reports 

submitted to NIC.) 

Colorado Department of Corrections 

As of April 2000, the Colorado Department of Corrections (CO DOC) housed 

approximately 1,200 women in 3 correctional facilities. CO DOC staff requested 

technical assistance to develop a separate classification system for women offenders, identify and test classification variables that were likely to be relevant to women 

offenders, and assess needs (including gender-responsive needs) as a component of 

the classification model. With the development of a new multiple custody facility 

with space for extensive programming and services, the CO DOC wanted to use a 

gender-responsive model that would support its programming efforts and prevent 

overclassification of women offenders. 

Through focus groups with women offenders, line staff, and administrators, the following gender-responsive needs and issues were identified for further research: child 

abuse, adult victimization, parenting, relationships, self-esteem, and self-efficacy. 

Scales were selected or constructed to assess these needs. An agency classification 

steering committee suggested modifications to the existing custody classification and 

reclassification instruments. Measures pertaining to additional needs (e.g., attitudes, 

peers, mental health, substance abuse, marriage/family, use of leisure time, finances, 

education, and employment) were available through Level of Service 

Inventory–Revised (LSI–R) (Andrews and Bonta, 1995) and through additional assessments conducted at prison intake and available on the CO DOC information system. 

12 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

NIC Prisons Division: Women’s Classification Initiatives 

Data on the current and revised intake custody instruments, LSI–R scores, and 

gender-responsive scales were collected for a sample of 156 newly admitted women 

offenders. These women also were tracked for 6 months to obtain followup data pertaining to prison misconduct. 

Using these measures, the analyses tested three possible classification models: 

 Model 1: Revisions to the current system, an NIC Model Prisons structure, 

which included mostly static criminal and institutional history measures. The 

revisions included two criminogenic needs: history of substance abuse and 

employment. 

 Model 2: The revised custody system (model 1) augmented by two genderresponsive needs: relationships and mental health.5 

 Model 3: The revised custody system (model 1) with a separate needs assessment. In this case, the needs assessment consisted of the LSI–R with a “trailer” 

instrument to measure child abuse, mental health, and relationships. 

All of the models were valid, but those containing the gender-responsive variables 

(models 2 and 3) were more strongly associated with prison misconduct than model 1. 

Moreover, the revised custody instrument (model 1) was not valid without the two 

criminogenic needs: substance abuse and employment. When needs were assembled 

into a needs assessment instrument, model 3, they were relevant to custody even though 

they did not inform the custody levels. In other words, high-need inmates incurred 

more prison misconduct reports, regardless of whether their needs were a part of the 

custody model. 

A gender-specific reclassification instrument also was developed as a part of this 

cooperative agreement. Although it was not tested during the cooperative agreement 

due to time constraints, the CO DOC is currently validating this instrument. 

Florida Department of Corrections 

The Florida Department of Corrections (FL DOC) requested technical assistance to 

assess the validity of its external and internal classification systems for its female 

inmate population. Because its classification systems were primarily designed 

and piloted on the male inmate population, the FL DOC wanted to ensure that the 

gender-specific risks and needs of the female population were addressed adequately. 

The FL DOC’s female advisory committee also expressed interest in the development of a needs assessment process that would systematically compile and assess 

the inmates’ social, physical, and economic problems. The committee observed that, 

although the internal system assesses inmates’ mental health, substance abuse, educational, and vocational needs, data on inmates’ wellness/life skills, financial management skills, relationships (both within and outside the penal system), and 

High-need inmates 

model. 

incurred more prison 

misconduct reports, 

regardless of whether 

their needs were a 

part of the custody 

13 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for inmates. 

In Florida, children 

of women offenders 

appeared to be at 

greater risk than the 

children of male 

Chapter 3 

parenting skills were not assessed. The committee also suggested that the current 

assessment of vocational needs should be expanded to include inmates’ vocational 

aptitudes to facilitate placement in an appropriate training program. 

Based on a review of the classification systems and input from the female advisory 

committee, this classification initiative sought to validate the external and internal 

classification systems and conduct a parenting survey among FL DOC inmates. 

The custody validation study indicated that the external system was statistically correlated with institutional adjustment and identified statistically distinct custody levels. The analyses identified three concerns: 

1.	 Heavy reliance on mandatory custody criteria. 

2.	 High rate of discretionary overrides. 

3.	 Overclassification of women offenders designated as medium custody at initial classification. 

The results of the internal system’s validation study supported the assumption that 

needs are correlated with institutional adjustment. The factors with the strongest 

correlation were outside work assignment, internal management (inmate’s potential 

for institutional violence), internal housing (inmate’s need for secure cell, room, or 

open day dorm), and restructuring potential (inmate’s potential to benefit from program participation). The data also supported the assumption that some factors affect 

men and women differently. It was surprising that some risk factors hypothesized to 

be correlated with institutional adjustment among women offenders, such as family 

relationships, friends, and peers, were not associated with institutional adjustment 

at admission. Child welfare and intimate relationships were related to institutional 

adjustment for both men and women offenders. 

Although the parenting survey offered few surprises, a troubling finding was that 

children of women offenders appeared to be at greater risk than the children of male 

inmates. For example, women offenders’ children were more likely to have been 

placed out of the home by the court, arrested, and supported by welfare, foster parents, or the juvenile justice system. Children of women offenders also were less 

likely to visit their incarcerated parent. 

Hawaii Department of Public Safety 

The Hawaii Department of Public Safety (HI DPS) had a facility on the island of 

Oahu that housed approximately 236 women at the beginning of the cooperative 

agreement (March 2000). At that time, an additional 79 women were housed in 

contracted facilities in Oklahoma. The HI DPS requested technical assistance to 

address concerns regarding overclassification and the inability of the women to 

progress to community custody status. The goal was to develop a new classification 

model that would safely eliminate the overclassification of women offenders, and 

14 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

NIC Prisons Division: Women’s Classification Initiatives 

efficiently move more of them to community-based facilities, and ultimately provide sufficient bed space in the Oahu facility to return the women from Oklahoma 

to Hawaii. 

Through the technical assistance, the custody classification and reclassification 

instruments were redesigned and pilot tested on a sample of 125 women. In Hawaii, 

modified instruments proved to be more valid than the original instruments. In addition, the new instruments showed that it would be possible to reduce the custody 

level for approximately 10 percent of the research sample. 

Modifications were made to several classification variables, and they contributed to 

a more valid system. However, the greatest improvement resulted from a recommendation to change the mandatory override factor regarding “time remaining to 

serve” to a risk factor on the custody instrument. In this way, time-to-serve only 

raised the inmates’ custody level if additional risk factors were present. On the original classification instruments, mandatory override factors determined the custody 

level of the majority of Hawaii’s inmates. 

In addition, several systemic problems contributing to the state’s classification problems were identified, along with recommendations for addressing them. Officials 

sought to improve the systemic issues pertaining to staff shortages and training prior 

to a full implementation of the modified system. 

Idaho Department of Correction 

At the start of the technical assistance initiative, the Idaho Department of Correction (ID DOC) maintained two correctional facilities for women and housed an 

additional 52 women at local jail facilities and 120 women out of state in contract 

beds. The primary facility, Pocatello Women’s Correctional Center, housed about 

266 inmates, and another 38 resided at the East Boise Community Work Center. 

However, during the course of the project, all out-of-state women were transferred 

back to an ID DOC facility. Idaho is one of four states that have separate classification systems for men and women offenders. 

The primary concern that prompted the ID DOC to request technical assistance was 

that the system appeared to overclassify the women, placing them in more restrictive housing units than required given their level of threat to the safety and security 

of the facility and the public. The classification system had not been revalidated for 

the female inmate population since its design and implementation in the early 

1990s. Because the female inmate population had grown substantially since the 

design and initial testing of the system, the ID DOC suspected that the system might 

not be appropriate for the current inmate population. Initial onsite meetings with 

staff and a review of the classification instruments and manual suggested that the 

poor quality of the classification manual contributed to inconsistencies in scoring 

the instruments among staff who completed the instruments. These factors reduced 

the classification and security staffs’ confidence in the system. 

In Hawaii, modified 

ments. In addition, 

showed that it would 

the custody level for 

instruments proved 

to be more valid than 

the original instruthe new instruments 

be possible to reduce 

approximately 10 

percent of the 

research sample. 

15 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Idaho’s classification 

system identified distinct custody levels 

among women 

tutional adjustment. 

offenders that were 

correlated with instiChapter 3 

The technical assistance entailed a validation study of the current classification, 

development of a new classification manual, and modification of the initial and 

reclassification score sheets. On completion of the project, the classification system 

identified distinct custody levels among women offenders that were correlated with 

institutional adjustment. Staff were trained on the use of the modified instruments 

and the system was implemented in September 2001. 

Nebraska Department of Corrections 

Over the course of technical assistance to the Nebraska Department of Corrections 

(NE DOC), the women offender population in its single facility changed from 250 

to 180 and back to 250. Like Colorado and Hawaii, the NE DOC struggled with 

overclassification and restrictions that kept women from progressing to community 

custody. 

This was primarily because at least 90 percent of women offenders were released 

within 12 months of their admission, while the state’s custody classification system 

was designed for longer prison terms. Overclassification in the context of such short 

sentences usually resulted in overrides of classification scores and more releases 

from minimum custody and higher, rather than from community custody. Community settings for women were underused. Additional sources of overclassification 

included mandatory program requirements that could not be met by existing program resources and requirements that parole violators (30 percent of all admissions) 

be classified at medium custody without sufficient time remaining on their prison 

term to be reclassified. 

The existing NE DOC custody classification system had been developed in-house 

and had not been validated for either its male or its female inmate population. Preliminary analyses suggested that the system was invalid for women offenders. As in 

many states, Nebraska’s custody instrument was not used to make decisions regarding institutional assignment, housing, or privileges for women offenders. NE DOC 

staff reported that the custody classification system was used primarily to inform 

community release decisions, work furloughs, and use of restraints for inmates leaving the secure perimeter. Such decisions, however, were community issues rather 

than prison management issues. 

A classification grid that jointly considered community risk (as measured by the 

LSI–R total score) and institutional risk (as measured by a modified version of the 

NIC custody model) was recommended. The grid was designed to place long-term 

inmates in minimum or medium custody, triage offenders into more detailed assessments and programs according to needs, and inform community-based placement 

and work assignments. 

Use of a dynamic risk-needs assessment seemed well suited to NE DOC women 

offenders because— 

16 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

NIC Prisons Division: Women’s Classification Initiatives 

 Most of their classification issues were related to community risk rather than to 

institutional risk. Traditional custody instruments are not appropriate for predicting community recidivism. 

 Dynamic risk-needs assessments often predict prison misconduct and therefore 

are relevant to institutional custody issues. 

 The NE DOC needed a dynamic risk-needs instrument to triage women into 

more detailed assessments and programming. Their current one-size-fits-all 

approach to assessment and programming was time consuming and contributed 

to overclassification. 

This project experienced a number of starts and stops. Early on, the classification 

steering committee requested additional time to study the legal merits of having different systems for men and women. In addition, revisions to the custody instrument 

were halted because the state planned to revise both the men’s and the women’s custody models. 

As a result, technical assistance involved LSI–R training for case management staff 

who work with women offenders and testing the validity of the LSI–R for predicting institutional misconduct. Even though this left the issue of the custody instrument for another day, the LSI–R results suggested that the use of mandatory 

programming and detailed assessments could be substantially reduced. The results 

also identified a group of inmates (at least 13 percent, probably higher) who were 

most appropriate for community settings. In addition, the LSI–R was modestly predictive of serious prison misconduct and days in segregation. However, the validation results were adversely affected by an excessive delay between staff training and 

actual use of the LSI–R and rushed interviews (and errors). Excessive citations for 

minor misconducts also adversely affected the predictive validity of the LSI–R (as 

they do in other validation studies) because the behavior at issue is as reflective of 

the staff’s supervision style as it is of the inmates’ behaviors. This, in turn, misrepresents the relationship between inmate characteristics and inmate behavior. 

West Virginia Department of Corrections 

The West Virginia Department of Corrections (WV DOC) was concerned that its 

existing classification system overclassified women offenders and did not provide 

quality information for programming or housing assignments. 

A validation of the current classification system for women offenders was undertaken. In addition, some of the criminal history and institutional adjustment risk factors were modified in an attempt to better assess the behavior and risk factors of 

women offenders. These analyses suggested that dynamic risk factors were consistently better predictors of women’s institutional adjustment than traditional criminal 

history factors. The analyses also suggested potential modifications to risk factors 

Dynamic risk-needs 

assessments often 

institutional custody 

issues. 

predict prison misconduct and therefore are relevant to 

17 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

A system combining 

dynamic risk factors 

with traditional static 

risk factors would 

the validity of the 

classification system. 

dramatically improve 

Chapter 3 

to improve their predictive power. However, simply tinkering with criminal history 

factors did not address the problems associated with the overall classification system. One of the most problematic findings was that the public risk scale was the primary determinant of the custody level for most inmates, yet it was not a valid or 

reliable predictor of institutional adjustment. 

On consideration of these findings, a full redesign of the classification system for 

both male and female WV DOC prisoners was recommended. It appeared that a system combining dynamic risk factors with traditional static risk factors (such as current offense and escape history) would dramatically improve the validity of the 

classification system. 

Wisconsin Department of Corrections 

The Wisconsin Department of Corrections (WI DOC) requested technical assistance 

to assess its classification processes for women offenders and obtain feedback and 

recommendations regarding its plans to develop a gender-specific classification system. As part of its planning process, the WI Bureau of Classification and Movement 

sought feedback to ensure the system had been fully assessed and that the most 

recent research and perspectives concerning the classification of women offenders 

were included in its plan. 

A comprehensive onsite assessment was conducted, including interviews with central office and facility-based staff, tours of facilities that house women offenders, 

observation of initial classification staffing and program review committee hearings, 

and review of case files, the agency plan, written policies, classification instruments, 

and needs assessment instruments. In addition, briefing papers and a previous report 

of the validity of the existing classification system were reviewed. The assessment 

clearly indicated that the agency plan was a realistic examination of the strengths 

and weaknesses of the classification process. Overall, the objectives and recommendations outlined in the agency plan were on target and, if fulfilled, would provide high-quality management of the risks and needs presented by the WI DOC 

women offender population. Based on current research and the experiences of other 

states, observations and suggestions were provided to strengthen the agency plan. 

18 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

Chapter four


Building Blocks to Effective 

Classification of Women Offenders 

Several themes and concerns surfaced consistently in the literature, during the 

national assessment, and throughout the technical assistance work with the seven 

states. These concerns are prioritized below according to their potential impact on 

the classification of women offenders. The recommendations emerging from these 

concerns, also discussed below, will contribute to sound, comprehensive classification models for women offenders. 

Validity of the Custody Classification Systems 

Recommendation 1: Ensure the Validity of Classification 

Systems for Women Offenders 

Agencies need to devote more intensive efforts toward validating their classification 

systems for women offenders. The current data suggest that approximately 30 states 

do not know whether their custody classification systems are valid because they 

have not conducted separate validation studies with samples of women offenders. 

Underscoring this concern is the fact that validation studies typically find that existing systems are invalid for women. In such systems, assignment to a custody level 

(e.g., maximum, close, medium, or minimum) is not based on risk factors related to 

prison adjustment or to the women’s threat to the safety and security of the institution. Often, misconduct rates are not different across the custody levels. In such situations, then, how can anyone justify housing women at custody levels that affect 

the austerity of their environment, their privileges, or their right to work outside of 

prison perimeters? 

The ethical concerns are obvious. Is it ethical, for example, to place a woman in 

maximum custody, thus restricting her access to preferred work assignments, programs, and other privileges if she is no greater threat to the safety and security of 

the facility than a woman placed in medium or minimum custody? Is it ethical to 

use classification instruments for a population on which they have not been validated (American Association of Correctional Psychologists Standards Committee, 

2000; American Psychological Association, 1992)? The obvious response is that 

classification systems should be valid for women offenders and that validation studies should be specific to women offenders. 

Is it ethical to use 

ments with a population on which they 

have not been 

validated? 

classification instru19 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

trained to manage 

citations as a management tool. 

Staff who are not 

women offenders use 

excessive disciplinary 

Chapter 4 

Recommendation 2: Avoid Overclassifying Women Offenders 

Overclassification of women offenders was a common complaint regarding existing 

custody classification systems for women. Within virtually every jurisdiction that 

was provided technical assistance, staff repeatedly expressed concerns about the 

overclassification of women offenders. These observations were supported by 

empirical analyses conducted for the respective jurisdictions. 

Overclassification occurs when— 

 The classification system is invalid. 

 Other systemic and organizational factors place women in custody levels higher than their behavior warrants (e.g., when women are retained in medium custody because of a detainer or pending case, regardless of the severity of the 

pending charges). 

 Correctional administrators fail to recognize that women are less dangerous 

than men even when their custody classifications are the same. 

Modifications to classification systems conducted throughout the course of the cooperative agreements reduced overclassification to some extent. Validations of the modified systems, however, seldom resulted in classification reductions for more than 10 

percent of the sample or population. Further shifts in the custody distributions—by 

either modifying the custody scale points or changing the weights or scores for key 

risk factors—were not possible, primarily due to mandatory restrictions or departmental directives. Moreover, modifications to the custody scale cutpoints could occur 

only if the systems remained valid after doing so. Often they did not. 

Addressing overclassification requires that agency officials also reconsider systemic 

factors that contribute to it, such as the following: 

 Staff who are not trained to manage women offenders and use excessive disciplinary citations as a management tool. 

 Program and other mandates that keep women at certain custody levels until 

scarce programs become available. 

 Nondiscretionary overrides pertaining to time-to-serve, minor escapes, and other 

factors that do not predict prison misconduct. 

Recommendation 3: Modify Current Risk Factors and/or Scale 

Cutpoints To Reflect Differences Between Women and Men 

Modifying risk factors and/or scale cutpoints is a common strategy employed by 

systems that have undertaken a validation study and found statistically significant 

differences in the predictive power of the risk factors for their men and women 

20 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

Building Blocks to Effective Classification of Women Offenders 

offenders (e.g., the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Delaware, New York, and Oklahoma). Across jurisdictions, the research has been inconsistent regarding the 

success of enhancing the validity of the classification system by simply revising the 

current custody assessment instruments. Thus, any and all changes must be validated before any modification of the classification system. 

The most common gender-specific risk factors were age, criminal history, severity 

of the current offense, and stability. 

Age. Several states (e.g., Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Tennessee, West Virginia, and 

Wyoming) observed that the relationship between age and institutional adjustment 

differed for men and women offenders. Among a sample of women offenders, the 

Colorado validation study also found a need to modify age categories. The most 

common pattern observed is that the rate of institutional infractions decreased at an 

earlier age for men than women; that is, male inmates “burned out” in their mid- to 

upper 30s, while women offenders continued to have high rates of infractions in 

their mid- to late 40s. 

Most validation studies have found age to be a statistically significant predictor of 

institutional adjustment for both men and women offenders; however, behavior patterns vary by gender. As a result, different age categories for men and women 

offenders should improve the predictive power of the instruments. 

Criminal history. Several researchers have observed differences between men and 

women offenders in the pathways leading to involvement in the criminal justice system. Specifically, differences in the number and type of crimes for which men and 

women offenders are convicted and incarcerated have been noted (Owens and 

Bloom, 2001). The primary question considered for the design and validation of a 

classification system is what difference, if any, do these patterns have on the determination of the appropriate custody level for women offenders? The data have been 

rather mixed in that some studies have shown criminal history risk factors to have 

about the same predictive power for men and women offenders, while others have 

suggested that the severity of prior convictions is a stronger predictor for men than 

women. Other validation studies have found that criminal history factors are poor 

predictors of institutional adjustment, particularly at reclassification for both men 

and women. 

In these validation studies, the predictive power of criminal history also varied 

according to its operational definition. Items that considered the number of prior 

felony convictions or incarcerations had poor predictive power. In some states, however, the severity of prior convictions was statistically correlated with institutional 

adjustment. Pilot testing alternative operational definitions for criminal history 

remains the most useful strategy for developing a valid and reliable risk factor for 

women offenders. Idaho, for example, completely revised its criminal history risk 

factor on the initial classification instrument and deleted it from the reclassification 

instrument based on analyses of women’s history and institutional adjustment. In 

other states, reducing the weights of the prior history variables was helpful. 

The rate of institutional infractions 

age for men than 

women. 

decreased at an earlier 

21 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

had higher rates of 

institutional infractions than those 

Women incarcerated 

for some street crimes 

incarcerated for other 

violent offenses. 

Chapter 4 

Severity of the current offense. Modifications of the current offense risk factor 

were among the first gender-specific changes to classification systems. New York 

has scored the severity of the current offense differently for men and women offenders since the 1980s. In the New York system, points for a woman who kills an abuser in self-defense are lower than for other women convicted of murder. 

The common argument for assigning different weights to the current offense for 

women offenders typically cites differences in their offense patterns relative to men. 

Violent crimes among women are often among family members or within the context of personal relationships. For victimized women, these crimes can also occur in 

self-defense. As a result, women offenders are seen as less predatory and thus as 

posing less of a security risk than male offenders. 

Unfortunately, it was difficult to test these assertions in the context of classification 

research. Prison files often provided insufficient details about the nature of the current offense (whether it was in self-defense or perpetrated against a known victim). 

Moreover, few women are incarcerated for violent crimes and testing the importance of types of violence would require inordinately large samples. The Colorado 

and Hawaii studies, for example, attempted to determine whether women who killed 

an abuser in self-defense were less disruptive than other violent offenders. Too few 

women fit this description to support tests conducted on samples of 100 to 150 

inmates. However, none of these women were observed on followup to have a misconduct record of any kind. 

In another examination of the effect on offender behavior of type of violence committed, an Oklahoma study found that women incarcerated for some street crimes 

(e.g., robbery, aggravated assault, and weapons offenses) had higher rates of institutional infractions than those incarcerated for other violent offenses (e.g., murder, 

rape, and kidnap). 

More generally, most of the studies found that women offenders convicted of violent crimes tended to have higher rates of disciplinary infractions than women convicted of nonviolent crimes. These relationships did not always achieve statistical 

significance, however. Even when the tests were significant, the studies found very 

few women with high scores on criminal history factors. With respect to violent 

offenses, the variable affected relatively few classifications. 

The Oklahoma validation study also sought to examine the importance of additional offense-related factors, including the relationship between the victim and offender, the role of substance abuse in the offense, and the relationship between the 

offender and her codefendant (Hardyman and Tulloch, 2000). In contrast to the 

hypothesis, the type of victim (child, familiar adult, acquaintance, or stranger) was 

not statistically related to the rate of institutional infractions. Women whose victim 

was their spouse, partner, or child had slightly higher rates of institutional infractions than women incarcerated for crimes against strangers. However, these differences were not statistically significant. As expected, women incarcerated for 

victimless crimes (e.g., drug-related, property) had statistically fewer infractions. 

22 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

Building Blocks to Effective Classification of Women Offenders 

Finally, women who were involved with a male codefendant or family member had 

the highest rates of institutional infractions. This suggested that women who were 

involved with negative peers in the community were likely to be more aggressive 

and disruptive within the institution than women who did not have a codefendant. 

However, these differences were not statistically significant. 

Because of the small numbers of cases for which these data were available, the findings were inconclusive and did not support modification of the operational definitions for rating the severity of the current offense among women offenders. The only 

consistent observation across multiple states was that women offenders incarcerated for violent offenses tend to have higher rates of disciplinary infractions than 

those incarcerated for nonviolent crimes. Differentiation among types of violent 

crimes has been inconclusive because of the small number of cases. 

Stability factors. Many states include various indicators of offender stability on initial classification instruments and dynamic risk factors on reclassification instruments. The most common initial classification stability factors include employment 

at the time of arrest, education, and substance abuse. Familiar dynamic reclassification risk factors (i.e., factors that can change throughout an inmate’s incarceration) 

include institutional behavior and participation in institutional programming and 

treatment. Age is frequently used at initial classification as a stability factor and then 

on the reclassification instrument as a dynamic factor. Analyses of the relationship 

between these factors and institutional adjustment begin to identify ways to make 

classification systems more gender specific, especially when dynamic factors pertaining to employment, substance abuse, mental health, and family issues are considered. Although the results have been inconsistent across the states, it is clear that 

these factors require special consideration when attempting to refine the classification instruments to respond appropriately to each gender. 

Women whose primary role was homemaking or providing childcare at the time of 

arrest, for example, had rates of institutional infractions comparable to those with 

full-time employment. This supported the inclusion of childcare and homemaker 

roles in the operational definition of employment as an indicator of community stability. Similar findings were observed in validation studies for states that were not 

included in the current cooperative agreements (Hardyman and Davies, 2001a). 

Education appeared to be an indicator of stability among men but not women offenders. Male inmates with at least a high school or general equivalency diploma had 

lower rates of institutional misconduct than men who did not have a high school education. In contrast, women offenders with a high school or general equivalency 

diploma had higher rates of institutional misconduct than those who did not. Thus, 

educational achievement appears to have a different relationship to institutional 

adjustment for men and women offenders. When including educational achievement 

on classification instruments, operational definitions and weights should be tailored 

to accurately reflect the behavior of the men and women offenders. Alternatively, the 

variable could be eliminated from a gender-specific instrument for women. 

to be an indicator of 

stability among men 

but not women 

Education appeared 

offenders. 

23 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had adjustment. 

The presence of multiple stress factors was 

highly correlated 

with institutional 

Chapter 4 

The use of substance abuse as a stability factor may be problematic. The measure 

yielded mixed results in the current research. The reliability and validity of this factor are often questionable because operational definitions allow for subjective bias 

and interpretation as to what constitutes substance abuse. Some staff consider any 

use of illicit substances, for example, an indication of substance abuse because it is 

a criminal offense, whereas for others substance abuse is defined as the involvement 

of illicit substances and/or alcohol in the current offense or daily use of these substances. Information needed to score an item may be marred by the biases of the presentence report writer and the inmate’s self-report. Demographic and need data 

compiled as part of the classification validation initiatives suggested that 75 to 80 

percent of the women offenders had substance abuse problems. Even if problems 

associated with subjectivity and interpretation were resolved, the pervasiveness of 

the problem among women offenders sometimes rendered the item useless for custody assessment purposes. 

As previously noted, the most common institutional risk factors identified by correctional staff working with women offenders pertained to relationships (both institutional and community) and mental health. Unfortunately, information pertaining 

to relationships often is not contained in inmates’ files and, therefore, it is difficult 

to develop reliable and valid measures of this factor. Changes in inmates’ relationships throughout the term of incarceration also may affect the reliability and validity of measures pertaining to women’s relationships while incarcerated. 

Preliminary tests of risk factors pertaining to child welfare, intimate relationships, 

and family relationships indicated these factors were unreliable and were not correlated consistently with institutional adjustment among women offenders in Florida 

(Hardyman, 2000; Hardyman and Davies, 2001b). Data from West Virginia, however, indicated that institutional relationships were a valid predictor of misconduct 

(i.e., women for whom institutional relationships were a stress factor had higher 

rates of institutional infractions). Children and legal issues, individually, were not 

directly correlated with institutional adjustment, although the presence of multiple 

stress factors was highly correlated with institutional adjustment. This suggested 

that women’s experiences both inside and outside the prison impacted on their institutional adjustment. 

The Colorado study measured relationships, mental health, substance abuse, selfesteem, self-efficacy, parenting, child abuse, and adult victimization using established scales in some instances and constructed but validated scales in other 

instances. The relationships variable in this study was operationalized as codependency, or a tendency to lose too much personal power in intimate relationships. At 

prison intake, four variables—relationships, mental health, child abuse,6 and substance abuse—were strongly related to prison misconduct. 

This strategy was also tested by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. An institutional stability item that considered inmates’ emotional stability and need for medical, mental health, and substance abuse services was developed based on the need 

areas correctional staff most frequently cited as critical to women’s adjustment to 

24 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

Building Blocks to Effective Classification of Women Offenders 

institutional life.7 The data suggested that stability was an important factor for 

women’s initial adjustment but was not statistically correlated with long-term institutional adjustment. This finding contradicted the observations of correctional staff. 

Although the inconsistencies in the relationships among these dynamic factors and 

institutional adjustment throughout women’s incarceration sometimes were contrary to the researchers’ stated hypothesis, the finding that these factors are more 

important at initial classification is logical. An alternative explanation is that as 

women are institutionalized longer, their behaviors are affected more by the day-today relationships and activities in the institution than by noninstitutional influences, 

relationships, and concerns. However, as observed by institutional staff, these factors are very dynamic and, therefore, their ability to predict behavior over a 6- to 12­

month period may be diminished. As an alternative, reclassification systems should 

reassess these factors, thereby accommodating stabilization of mental health and 

substance abuse, educational accomplishments, and other changes. Clearly, as classification or custody reclassification risk factors, they require and merit further 

research. 

Gender-Specific Needs Assessments 

Recommendation 4: Develop Comprehensive Classification 

Systems That Assign Women to Meaningful Programs 

Longstanding correctional standards maintain that offenders should be classified 

according to needs related to prison adjustment, institutional safety, recidivism, and 

reentry to the community (Clements, McKee, and Jones, 1984). Comprehensive 

needs assessments should consider both the presence and the intensity of the need. 

Such screening tools are intended to identify potential problems and triage individuals for more detailed assessments. 

Just the same, needs assessments (or screening tools) are not intended to replace the 

more detailed test batteries and other needs-specific assessment protocols from 

which diagnoses and formal treatment plans can be developed. A formal, detailed 

assessment that includes an interview with the offender and a thorough review of 

historical information from which a diagnosis is derived and recommendations for 

treatment services are then developed is particularly important when evaluating substance abuse, health, mental health, and educational problems. 

Although needs assessments are not new to corrections, clear changes in the nature 

and size of prison populations now place more urgent demands on systems to adopt 

appropriate assessments and sound programming. Prison populations have changed 

as a result of the war on drugs and an increase in the number of dual-diagnosed and 

mentally ill inmates (Austin et al., 2000). The growth in the proportion of troubled 

inmates has been greater for women than for men (Owens and Bloom, 2001). 

Emerging interest in prisoner reentry initiatives and gender-responsive programming creates additional demands for valid and reliable needs assessments. 

bled inmates has been 

than for men. 

The growth in the 

proportion of trougreater for women 

25 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classifica-

“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

advised to track needs 

and use the changing 

Assessments should 

specify objective critetation, and oblige 

raters to indicate how 

many domains of a 

than ask for judgment calls about 

Officials are well 

information. 

ria, require documenproblem exist rather 

the intensity of a 

problem. 

Chapter 4 

Recommendation 5: Develop Objective and Reliable Needs


Assessment Processes


Asking classification staff to differentiate between, for example, substance abuse 

that substantially interferes with functioning and substance abuse that severely disrupts functioning invites unreliable responses. Assessments should specify objective 

criteria, require documentation, and oblige raters to indicate how many domains of 

a problem exist (e.g., does substance abuse affect work, family relationships, and/or 

medical problems) rather than ask for judgment calls about the intensity of a problem. More confidence can be placed in assessments that incorporate the results of 

needs-specific assessments using established mental health, substance abuse, and 

educational tests. Simply put, needs should not be determined by checklists that 

reflect the subjective impressions of a nonclinical rater. 

The first criterion for a valid classification system is reliability. To accurately assess 

the needs or risks of a population, both inter- and intra-rater reliability are essential. 

Inter-rater reliability is present, for example, when two caseworkers assessing the 

same offender generate the same rating or score. Intra-rater reliability implies that 

if a caseworker rates an offender today, he or she will score the offender the same 

way this afternoon or tomorrow if there are no significant changes in the presenting 

problems or needs. Mood, fatigue, an unrelated event, the amount of coffee consumed, and other such factors should not substantially alter the caseworker’s assessment of the problem. 

Notwithstanding requirements for consistent ratings within short spans of time, 

needs should be reassessed over longer time spans. Many needs are dynamic, changing over time and are successfully addressed by prison programming or medical 

services. Often, successfully addressed needs also translate into less prison disruption and reduced recidivism. Officials are well advised to track needs and use the 

changing information. 

Recommendation 6: Focus on Criminogenic Needs To Increase 

the Utility of Needs Assessments 

Dynamic criminogenic needs have been statistically correlated with criminal behavior 

and prison misconduct. Therefore, successfully treating dynamic criminogenic needs 

can reduce criminal behavior and prison misconduct. Agencies wishing to prevent 

future offending should focus on the problems associated with future offending 

(Andrews and Bonta, 1998). 

However, the research on this issue leaves some questions unanswered with respect 

to women offenders. Some studies have found that criminogenic needs are the same 

for men and women, while other studies have suggested that only some criminogenic needs are the same for men and women and that the respective needs have 

different roles and predictive powers for men and women. Still other studies suggest 

that needs assessments for women offenders should consider additional, more 

gender-responsive needs, such as relationships, child abuse, adult victimization, 

self-efficacy, self-esteem, and parenting. Therefore, to ensure the utility of the needs 26 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Building Blocks to Effective Classification of Women Offenders 

assessments and avoid the pitfalls of using assessment instruments that are not 

designed and constructed for women offenders, agencies should validate any commercial needs assessment instrument prior to its full implementation to ensure its 

reliability and validity for the women incarcerated in their institutions. 

Recommendation 7: Include Gender-Specific Needs in 

Screening and Assessment Tools 

In addition to the considerations raised in recommendation 6, agencies should 

examine and test needs assessments for the presence of needs pertaining to abuse, 

parenting, relationships, self-esteem, and self-efficacy. Most of the current assessments used by correctional agencies ignore these important needs of women offenders. The national assessment found 92 percent of the respondents indicated that 

women and men had different needs patterns yet only eight states indicated any 

unique provisions for assessing these gender-specific needs. Literature reviews, survey respondents, focus group participants (with inmates, line staff, and administrators) identified the following needs as being more characteristic of women than 

men: dealing with abuse/trauma, relationships, parenting skills, self-efficacy, housing, health, mental health, and self-esteem. Some of these needs (e.g., child abuse, 

relationships, and mental health) were correlated with prison adjustment. 

Agencies should 

examine and test 

needs assessments for 

ships, self-esteem, 

Agencies should valineeds assessment 

its full implementafor the women ininstitutions. 

the presence of needs 

pertaining to abuse, 

parenting, relationand self-efficacy. 

date any commercial 

instrument prior to 

tion to ensure its 

reliability and validity 

carcerated in their 

27 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Chapter five


Addressing Classification Issues 

That Require Systemic Change 

The classification initiatives undertaken by the seven states that received technical 

assistance from NIC were similar in that each state struggled with how to best assess 

the risks and needs posed by women offenders in order to place them in the least 

restrictive environment and to provide relevant programming. The initiatives began 

with the assumptions that the institutional behavior of women offenders differed 

from that of male offenders and that a different set of risk factors and/or classification processes were required to manage this population efficiently and effectively. 

Many states were concerned that the traditional systems modeled after the behavior 

of male inmates were insufficient and counterproductive. The building blocks 

of classification described above are just that—building blocks. Much is still to 

be explored and learned regarding the classification and assessment of women 

offenders. 

Some very important lessons were learned about systemic issues that can render 

even the most valid and comprehensive classification system ineffective. The following issues, although not directly related to classification, were the most prevalent systemic issues that affected the classification of women prisoners. 

Inadequate Institutional Disciplinary Systems 

Imprecise institutional discipline codes and policies often prevent inmates with 

minor and old infractions from progressing to lower custody levels. Inadequate disciplinary codes are a primary contributor to the overclassification of women offenders because of differences in the institutional behaviors of men and women. 

Sometimes institutional infractions with very different threats to the safety and 

security of the institution are combined and assigned identical codes. All assaults, 

for example, regardless of the intent of the assailant, degree of injury, and nature of 

the offense are coded as assaults. Thus, sexual assaults, aggravated assaults that 

require hospitalization of the victim, and simple assaults with no injury are not differentiated. For classification purposes, the disciplinary policy should be revised to 

ensure that infraction codes are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. This would 

make possible automatic scoring of the institutional disciplinary history (thus eliminating mathematical errors and increasing reliability), avoid the need for subjective 

assessments of the severity of assaults by case workers, and facilitate the use of different weights and timeframes according to the severity of the misconduct and the 

threat to the safety and security of the institution. 

Sometimes institutional infractions with 

to the safety and 

security of the instituand assigned identical 

codes. 

very different threats 

tion are combined 

29 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

tional agencies, basic 

caseworkers neglects 

any focus on women 

In most state correctraining for correctional officers and 

offenders. 

Chapter 5 

Location of Correctional Institutions for Women 

Most state correctional systems have very few correctional facilities for women 

offenders. Frequently these facilities are located in rural areas, far from the urban 

communities in which most of the women lived prior to their incarceration and to 

which they will return. This distance creates barriers to family visitations, work and 

educational opportunities, and access to medical and mental health services. The 

rural setting sometimes creates cultural barriers within the facility if local staff are 

unfamiliar and uncomfortable with the social norms and experiences of urban 

women. These problems exacerbate the disciplinary problems, if not properly 

addressed, because women’s institutional adjustment is often influenced by relationships within and outside the facility, concerns for children, and other stress factors. 

Management of Women Offenders 

One of the most troubling observations was the minimal training provided to staff 

who are working with women offenders. In most state correctional agencies, basic 

training for correctional officers and caseworkers neglects any focus on women 

offenders.8 Although the staff were clearly dedicated and skilled, they almost universally reported that they did not receive any specialized or gender-specific training for working with women offenders. Their skills had been developed through 

years of on-the-job training. Many had resisted working in the women’s facility and 

had originally seen the job assignment as a second-tier position or steppingstone to 

a more coveted position. Thus, recognition of the needs of the women offenders 

and strategies for managing their institutional behavior had to be rediscovered 

by each staff member. Inexperienced staff were often quick to write up women for 

disobedience of a direct order, disrespect to staff, disorderly conduct, yelling, and 

unauthorized possession of property. Although these are relatively minor incidents, 

multiple infractions of this nature could quickly elevate a woman to medium or 

close custody. 

Lack of Programming 

In addition to the concerns about the absence or inadequacy of gender-responsive 

programming, many correctional systems are hampered by the lack of resources for 

any type of programming. Long waiting lists for substance abuse, academic, and 

vocational programs were common complaints among state correctional staff. Correctional programming for both men and women suffered tremendous cutbacks 

under the “get tough on crime” sentiments of the 1980s and 1990s. The current 

interest in reentry and transition to the community has created an opportunity to 

rebuild some of the programming. However, budget deficits and cutbacks faced by 

many states have prevented or delayed programming efforts. Thus, even if a state 

has an objective, gender-specific needs screening and assessment process, without 

programs in which to place the women, the assessment becomes a meaningless 

exercise. 

30 
Addressing Classification Issues That Require Systemic Change 

These problems also contribute to overclassification for two reasons. First, participation in work and programs often translates into more successful prison adjustment 

and lower reclassification scores. Second, in some jurisdictions, participation in recommended programs is a prerequisite for reducing classification. Therefore, 

inmates who cannot participate in program requirements because programs are 

unavailable may be held at higher custody levels regardless of the adequacy of the 

classification system. 

31 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Chapter six


Future Steps 

The call for more data and more research is a common theme among researchers. 

Thus, the suggestion for continued work to validate classification systems, test alternative risk factors, and develop objective, gender-specific needs assessment 

processes to make systems more gender responsive appears to be obvious. Yet 

requests from state and local correctional systems to assess and fine-tune their classification systems confirm the need to continue the research. In addition, the 

research described in this report needs to be replicated in other jurisdictions before 

any further generalizations or conclusions can be made. NIC has long advocated for 

the validation of any classification system for the population to which it is applied. 

The inconsistencies in the risk factors observed thus far suggest that much is still to 

be learned about the classification of women offenders. At the same time, the number of women offenders under correctional supervision continues to grow while 

resources decline. The need to develop valid and reliable risk and needs assessment 

systems for managing and serving the prison population with fewer resources 

becomes more critical each year. 

Future efforts should focus on helping agencies develop systems that are both practical and feasible given these harsh realities. Just as researchers dependably call for 

more research, correctional administrators are consistently asked to do more with 

less. Scarce resources should provide maximum returns, and, therefore, future initiatives should concentrate on models that require reasonable efforts in terms of 

training, staffing, validation, and implementation. New lessons will be learned with 

these initiatives, and previous lessons will be further refined. If the classification 

system is to continue to serve as the brain of the correctional system, it must be 

responsive to risks and needs posed by women as well as men. Unfortunately, there 

is still much to discover about how to make systems more gender specific. 

If the classification 

system is to continue 

system, it must be 

and needs posed by 

women as well as 

men. 

to serve as the brain 

of the correctional 

responsive to risks 

33 
Notes 

1. Burke and Adams (1991) attach a legal analysis conducted by Nicholas and Loeb 

(1991) that effectively dispels these concerns. See Brennan, 1998; Burke and 

Adams, 1991; and Stanko, 1997. 

2. For a more detailed description of the national assessment and its findings, see 

Van Voorhis and Presser, 2001. 

3. Unfortunately, combined validation samples are inadequate for women offenders 

if they contain much fewer women than men. In such cases, the statistics measure 

the power of the risk factor for the majority of the sample—i.e., the men. 

4. In the time since the survey was conducted, these same two states have returned 

again to separate systems for men and women. 

5. Of the gender-responsive needs, mental health, relationships, and child abuse 

were found to be strongly correlated with prison misconduct. Although the classification steering committee did not recommend including child abuse in a custody 

instrument, it was, however, included in the needs assessment for model 3. 

6. Child abuse was not recommended for inclusion on the custody instrument, 

however. 

7. One variation of the stability factor included substance abuse, emotional stability, mental health, sex offender status, and reintegration needs. However, this variation was not statistically correlated with institutional adjustment. 

8. The National Institute of Corrections provides training on women offender issues 

as a part of its curriculum offerings on agency planning, operational practices, sexual misconduct, and classification. However, because of limitations on class 

size, only a small percentage of the personnel who work at women’s correctional 

facilities have an opportunity to attend. In addition, because of the nature of the 

training—operational practices and agency planning—the sessions are limited to 

more experienced staff. 

35 
References 

Adams, L., and J. Henning. 1982. “Illinois Adult Classification System Design.” In 

Classification as a Management Tool: Theories and Models for Decision-Makers. 

Ed. American Correctional Association. College Park, MD: American Correctional 

Association. 

Alexander, J., and E. Humphrey. 1988. “Initial Security Classification Guidelines 

for Females: Working Paper XVI.” Albany: New York State Department of Correctional Services. 

American Association of Correctional Psychologists Standards Committee. 2000. 

“Standards for Psychology Services in Jails, Prisons, and Correctional Facilities and 

Agencies,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 27 (4): 433–493. 

American Psychological Association. 1992. “Ethical Principles of Psychologists 

and Code of Conduct.” American Psychologist 47 (12): 1597–1611. 

Andrews, D., and J. Bonta. 1995. The Level of Supervision Inventory–Revised (LSI–R). 

North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems. 

———. 1998. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. 2nd ed., Cincinnati, OH: 

Anderson Publishing Co. 

Andrews, D., J. Bonta, and R. Hoge. 1990. “Classification for Effective Rehabilitation: Rediscovering Psychology.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 17 (1): 19–52. 

Arnstein, P., E. Buselli, and S. Rankin. 1996. “Women and Heart Attacks: Prevention, Diagnosis, and Care.” Nurse Practitioner 21 (5): 57–69. 

Austin, J., M. Bruce, L. Carroll, P. McCall, and S. Richards. 2000. “The Use of 

Incarceration in the United States: A Policy Paper Presented by the National Policy 

Committee to the American Society of Criminology.” Columbus, OH: American 

Society of Criminology. 

Austin, J., L. Chan, and W. Elms. 1993. Indiana Department of Corrections: 

Women Classification Study. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and 

Delinquency. 

Balthazar, M., and R. Cook. 1984. “An Analysis of the Factors Related to the Rate 

of Violent Crimes Committed by Incarcerated Female Delinquents.” In Gender 

Issues, Sex Offenses, and Criminal Justice: Current Trends. Ed. S. Chaneles. New 

York: Haywarth Press: 103–118. 

Belknap, J., K. Holsinger, and M. Dunn. 1998. “Understanding Incarcerated Girls: 

The Results of a Focus Group Study.” Prison Journal 77 (4): 381–404. 

37 
References 

Bloom, B., and B. Owen. 2004. Gender-Responsive Strategies: Research Practice 

and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 

Bonta, J., B. Pang, and S. Wallace-Capretta. 1995. “Predictors of Recidivism 

Among Incarcerated Female Offenders.” The Prison Journal 75 (3): 277–294. 

Bowker, L. 1981. “Gender Differences in Prison Subcultures.” In Women and Crime 

in America. Ed. L. Bowker. New York: Macmillan. 

Brennan, T. 1998. “Institutional Classification of Females: Problems and Some Proposals for Reform.” In Female Crime and Delinquency: Critical Perspectives and 

Effective Interventions. Ed. R. Zaplin. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishing, Inc.: 

179–204. 

Burke, P., and L. Adams. 1991. Classification of Women Offenders in State Correctional Facilities: A Handbook for Practitioners. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 

Clear, T. 1988. “Statistical Prediction in Corrections.” Research in Corrections 

1 (1): 1–39. 

Clements, C., J. McKee, and S. Jones. 1984. Offender Needs Assessments: Models 

and Approaches. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Corrections. 

Covington, S. 1998. “The Relational Theory of Women’s Psychological Development: 

Implications for the Criminal Justice System.” In Female Crime and Delinquency: 

Critical Perspectives and Effective Interventions. Ed. R. Zaplin. Gaithersburg, MD: 

Aspen Publishing, Inc.: 113–131. 

Dembo, R., L. Williams, W. Wothke, J. Schmeidler, and R. Brown. 1992. “The Generality of Deviance Replication of a Structural Model Among High-Risk Youth.” 

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 29 (2): 200–216. 

Dobash, R.P., R.E. Dobash, and S. Gutteridge. 1986. The Imprisonment of Women. 

Totowa, NJ: Blackwell. 

Erez, E. 1988. “Myth of the New Female Offender: Some Evidence from Attitudes 

Toward Law and Justice.” Journal of Criminal Justice 16 (6): 499–509. 

Forcier, M. 1995. Massachusetts Department of Correction Female Offender Objective Classification Technical Assistance Project: Final Report. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 

General Accounting Office. 1999. Women in Prison: Issues and Challenges Confronting U.S. Correctional Systems. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. 

GAO/GGD–00–22. 

38 
Developing Gender-Specific Classification Systems for Women Offenders 

Gilligan, C. 1993. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Hardyman, P.L. 1999. Wyoming Department of Corrections Prison Objective Classification System: Final Report on 1999 Revalidation Effort. Washington, DC: The 

George Washington University, Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections. 

———. 2000. Assessment of the Florida Department of Corrections Risk and 

Needs System: An Ambitious Internal Classification Design and Implementation 

Effort. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Institute on Crime, 

Justice and Corrections. 

Hardyman, P.L., and G. Davies. 2001a. Revalidation of the Kentucky Department of 

Correction Objective Classification System: Final Report. Washington, DC: The 

George Washington University, Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections. 

———. 2001b. Validation of the Florida Department of Corrections Objective 

Classification System: Draft Report. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections. 

Hardyman, P.L., and O.C. Tulloch. 2000. Validation of the Oklahoma Department 

of Correction Objective Classification System for the Female Inmate Population: 

Final Report. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Institute on 

Crime, Justice and Corrections. 

Harrison, P., and A.J. Beck. 2002. Prisoners in 2001. Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

NCJ 195189. 

Holsinger, K. 1999. “Addressing the Distinct Experience of the Adolescent Female: 

Explaining Delinquency and Examining the Juvenile Justice System.” Unpublished 

doctoral dissertation. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati. 

Kruttschnitt, C., and S. Krmpotich. 1990. “Aggressive Behavior Among Women 

Offenders: An Exploratory Study.” Justice Quarterly 7 (2): 371–389. 

LIS, Inc. 1998. Current Issues in the Operation of Women’s Prisons. Boulder, CO: 

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 

Lowenkamp, C.T., and E. Latessa. 2002. “Assessing Female Offenders: Prediction 

Versus Explanation.” Women, Girls, & Criminal Justice 3 (4): 49–64. 

Martin, R., P. Biswas, S. Freemantle, G. Pearce, and R. Mann. 1998. “Age and Sex 

Distribution of Suspected Adverse Drug Reaction to Newly Marketed Drugs in 

General Practice in England: Analysis of 48 Cohort Studies.” British Journal of 

Clinical Pharmacology 46 (5): 505–511. 

39 
References 

McClellan, D., D. Farabee, and B. Crouch. 1997. “Early Victimization, Drug Use, 

and Criminality.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 24 (4): 455–476. 

Miller, D., D. Trapani, K. Fejes-Mendoza, C. Eggleston, and R. Dwiggin. 1995. 

“Adolescent Female Offenders: Unique Considerations.” Adolescence 30: 429–435. 

Morash, M.T., T. Bynum, and B. Koons. 1998. Women Offenders: Programming 

Needs and Promising Approaches. NIJ Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 171668. 

National Institute of Corrections. 1979. Classification Instruments for Criminal Justice Decisions, Volume 3: Institutional Custody. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, National Institute of Justice. 

Nicholas, S., and Loeb, A. 1991. Legal Analysis. In Classification of Women 

Offenders in State Correctional Facilities: A Handbook for Practitioners. Eds. P. 

Burke and L. Adams. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 

Owens, B., and B. Bloom. 2001. “Guiding Principles and Strategies Document,” 

working draft for the National Institute of Corrections Gender-Responsive Strategies: Research, Practice, and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders Project. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 

Rivera, B., and C. Widom. 1990. “Childhood Victimization and Violent Offending.” 

Violence and Victims 5 (1): 19–35. 

Simourd, D., and D. Andrews. 1994. “Correlates of Delinquency: A Look at Gender Differences.” Forum on Corrections Research 6 (1): 26–31. 

Snell, T., and D. Morton. 1994. Women in Prison. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ 145321. 

Stanko, E. 1997. “Safety Talk: Conceptualizing Women’s Risk Assessment as a 

‘Technology of the Soul.’” Theoretical Criminology 1 (4): 479–499. 

Sternberg, R., and W. Williams. 1997. “Does the GRE Predict Meaningful Success 

in the Graduate Training of Psychologists?” American Psychologist 52 (6): 

630–641. 

Taylor, J., C. Gilligan, and A. Sullivan. 1995. Between Voice and Silence: Women 

and Girls, Race and Relationship. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Tischler, C., and J. Marquart. 1989. “Analysis of Disciplinary Infraction Rates 

Among Female and Male Inmates.” Journal of Criminal Justice 17: 507–513. 

Van Voorhis, P. 1994. Psychological Classification of the Adult Male Prison Inmate. 

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 

40 
Developing Gender-Specific Classification Systems for Women Offenders 

Van Voorhis, P., and K. Brown. 1996. Risk Classification in the 1990s. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 

Van Voorhis, P., and L. Presser. 2001. Classification of Women Offenders: A National Assessment of Current Practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

National Institute of Corrections. 

Wanberg, K., and H. Milkman. 1998. Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment: Strategies for Self-Improvement and Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Williams, T. 1981. “Sentencing Time in Corrections and Parole.” In Women in 

Prison: Michigan 1968–1978. Eds. J. Figueira-McDonough, A. Inglehart, R. Sarri, 

and T. Williams. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan School of Social Work and the 

Institute for Social Research. 

41 
Appendix A: Descriptions of Seven 

States’ Women’s Classification 

Initiatives 

43 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Like Hawaii and 

Nebraska, Colorado 

was experiencing 

classification of 

problems with overwomen offenders and 

high rates of discretionary overrides. 

Appendix A 

Work completed as part of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) cooperative 

agreements with the Center for Criminal Justice Research at the University of 

Cincinnati and The Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections at The George Washington University is summarized in this appendix. More lengthy and detailed reports 

about each state have been submitted to NIC and the state’s correctional agency. 

Colorado Department of Corrections 

Classification Issues and Validation Tasks 

In February 2000, the Colorado Department of Corrections (CO DOC) requested 

assistance to develop a classification system based on custody variables that were 

predictive for women offenders and assessed their gender-specific needs. Several 

classification-related issues prompted this request. First, like Hawaii and Nebraska, 

Colorado was experiencing problems with overclassification of women offenders 

and high rates of discretionary overrides. Second, women offenders appeared to be 

more troubled than men in a number of ways. Most notably, women were more likely (26 percent) than men (11 percent) to be diagnosed with mental illness. The current classification system did not provide quality information for management and 

programming decisions regarding these offenders. Third, the existing custody system did not appear relevant to women offenders, as certain variables (e.g., escapes 

and assaults) appeared to assess different behaviors for men and women. Finally, 

staff voiced concerns about the validity and reliability of both the needs and custody 

classification factors. The CO DOC classification system was based on the NIC 

Model Prisons approach. In the most recent validation study, Austin and associates 

(1995) recommended the development of a separate system for women offenders. 

The steering committee preferred to develop a new classification model for women 

offenders rather than alter the current system because they wanted a system that 

would inform both custody and programming decisions. In doing so, the committee 

hoped to include both gender-responsive needs (e.g., relationships, parenting skills, 

child abuse, adult victimization, self-efficacy, and self-esteem) and the more commonly assessed needs (e.g., education, employment, mental health, and substance 

abuse). Given time limits associated with the cooperative agreement and the complexity of the data and design tasks for the gender-responsive needs assessment system, this project was limited to the design and validation of an initial classification 

instrument. The project included three phases: 

 A qualitative review of the current system and recommendations for revision. 

This phase involved focus groups with inmates, custody staff, case management 

staff, and administrators from all three women’s facilities; and work sessions 

with the steering committee to revise the current custody items, examine 

the current needs process, review new items developed by University of 

Cincinnati staff, and recommend changes to the initial and the reclassification 

instruments. 

44 
Descriptions of Seven States’ Women’s Classification Initiatives 

 Construction of gender-responsive scales pertaining to relationships, selfesteem, self-efficacy, adult victimization, and child abuse. 

 Validation of the existing initial classification instrument and comparisons 

among three options for updating the system. 

Phase I: Qualitative Review. The focus groups and working sessions of the steering committee generated numerous possible revisions to the current classification 

system. Proposed revisions included changing or reducing weights of history of 

institutional violence, escapes, and prior felony convictions; improving needs variables (e.g., substance abuse, education, and mental health); adding new genderresponsive variables (self-esteem, self-efficacy, relationships, parenting, and 

victimization);1 changing weights associated with infractions on the reclassification 

instrument; and adding work and program incentives to the reclassification instrument. 

Phase II: Construction of Needs Scales. CO DOC’s automated information system greatly facilitated this phase. Most importantly, the system included LSI–R total 

and subscale scores and ratings (on a scale of 1 to 5) for substance abuse, mental 

health, violence potential, and sexual deviance. The substance abuse and mental 

health scales were critical for the analyses. Gender-responsive needs scales were 

constructed at the University of Cincinnati to assess relationships and parenting 

needs.2 A literature review identified two scales that could be used in their current 

forms, the Rosenberg (1979) Self-Esteem Scale and the Sherer and Maddux SelfEfficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982). Child abuse and adult victimization scales consisted of a checklist of abusive behaviors (Campbell et al., 1994; Coleman, 1997; 

Holsinger, Belknap, and Sutherland, 1999; Murphy and Hoover, 1999; Rodenburg 

and Fantuzzo, 1993; Shephard and Campbell, 1992; Briere and Runtz, 1989). The 

final scales reflected the results of several construct validity and reliability tests and 

factor analysis for data reduction (Van Voorhis et al., 2001). 

Phase III: Validation. Because the project included variables that were not available for the women, validation of the proposed system required a prospective study. 

CO DOC research and classification staff collected data for a cohort of 156 women 

offenders admitted to the CO DOC between October 10, 2000, and January 8, 2001. 

Within 30 days of admission, the women completed the needs assessment survey 

(containing the gender-responsive items) and the classification staff completed the 

revised initial classification. Electronic data files that included data pertaining to the 

women’s current intake classification, LSI–R scores, CO DOC substance abuse and 

mental health scales, and social, demographic, and criminal history data were downloaded from the CO DOC information system. At a later point, data pertaining to the 

women’s disciplinary infractions during the first 6 months of incarceration were 

downloaded from the system. 

45 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

The following needs 

prison adjustment: 

abuse, mental health, 

substance abuse, and 

employment. 

were correlated with 

relationships, child 

Appendix A 

Validation Efforts and Key Results 

The custody distribution from the existing classification system was as follows: 

minimum, 19 percent; minimum-restricted, 51 percent; medium, 29 percent; and 

close, 1 percent. This distribution differed from that observed for other recent validation studies for women offenders in that the proportion of CO DOC women classified as medium custody or above was high (Hardyman and Pearson, 2001). This 

suggested that the classification system being used was overclassifying the women. 

Further analyses indicated that the initial classification instrument was invalid for 

women offenders. 

Modifications proposed by the steering committee offered only modest improvements to the predictive validity of the custody instrument; i.e., the predictive accuracy of age improved slightly. Even after reducing the scores for severity of current 

and number of prior convictions, these factors had negative relationships with prison 

misconduct. In contrast to other validation studies, modification of the escape factor to differentiate walkaways did not significantly improve its predictive power. 

Even with the modifications, only two factors (severity of prior felony convictions 

and history of institutional violence) had strong correlations with misconduct. Simply put, static custody variables were not impressive predictors of prison misconduct. 

Offender needs, on the other hand, were stronger predictors of institutional adjustment. The following needs were correlated with prison adjustment: relationships, 

child abuse, mental health, substance abuse, and employment. Adult victimization 

was not related to institutional adjustment. A different set of needs was correlated 

with risk of future offending (as measured by the total LSI–R score): self-efficacy, 

self-esteem (to a very modest degree), relationships, troubled parenting, child abuse, 

mental health, substance abuse, education, and employment. 

One of the most interesting findings was that the relationship of some genderresponsive needs to institutional adjustment was the opposite of that to risk of future 

offending. For example, women with favorable self-efficacy scores are more likely 

than women with low self-efficacy to incur prison misconduct. At the same time, 

women with high self-efficacy scored low risk on the LSI–R. Similarly, good parents adjusted poorly to prison but scored low risk on the LSI–R. 

It is also noteworthy that LSI–R subscales for substance abuse and education/ 

employment were more predictive of prison adjustment than existing CO DOC 

scales. The LSI–R emotional needs subscale was comparable to the CO DOC mental 

health scale. 

Given the finding that needs, particularly gender-responsive needs, were more 

important than traditional custody variables when predicting misconduct among 

women offenders, the next task was to examine options for using this information 

for the initial classification decision. Three options predictive of prison adjustment 

were presented to the CO DOC: 

46 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Descriptions of Seven States’ Women’s Classification Initiatives 

Option 1: Modify the Current Intake Custody Classification System. Once the 

custody factors were modified, a valid custody system was developed. The classification factors included history of institutional violence, severity of the current conviction, severity of prior convictions, escape history, number of prior felonies, 

employment, substance abuse, parole eligibility date, and age. No gender-responsive 

variables were added to this model. This revised system was significantly related to 

all misconduct variables (overall, serious, and aggressive). Analyses of the option 1 

custody distribution suggested that the modifications reduced overclassification and 

improved the validity of the system. 

Option 2: Add Gender-Responsive Factors to the Modified Custody Classification System. A second option added two of the three needs related to prison misconduct among women offenders—mental health and relationships—to the 

modified custody classification system. (The child abuse variable was not added to 

this option.) The addition of these two needs enhanced the predictive validity of the 

option 1 custody instrument. Although custody distributions for the two options 

were virtually identical, option 2 more sharply differentiated each custody level in 

terms of prison adjustment. Therefore, the correlation between prison adjustment 

and custody level was considerably higher for option 2 than for option 1. 

Option 2 posed a unique set of concerns. A state could be faulted for increasing a 

woman’s restrictions or reducing her privileges according to problems over which 

she has no control, such as her mental health status or history of dysfunctional relationships. In contrast, the current practice of increasing custody according to one’s 

behavior is far more defensible. (This was the rationale for not incorporating child 

abuse into option 2 even though the child abuse factor increased the predictive validity of the classification system.) A second concern was whether women would honestly report their needs or experiences if they knew that the information would raise 

their custody assignments. 

One answer to the ethical considerations raised by option 2 is to restrict placement 

of inmates in close custody levels, except for extenuating behaviors. In this way, 

high-need inmates could not be placed in a custody situation that was more stringent than medium custody unless subsequent prison adjustment warranted movement to close custody. In doing so, the model remained highly predictive. 

Option 3: Separate the Needs Assessment From the Custody Assessment. 

Regardless of whether gender-responsive needs are incorporated into custody classifications, they are important in their own right. With the exception of relationships 

and adult victimization, gender-responsive needs were significantly related to 

LSI–R scores pertaining to offenders’ risk of future offending. This underscored the 

urgency of addressing these needs programmatically. Option 3, a grid for guiding case 

management and program assignments (Van Voorhis et al., 2001), added genderresponsive needs (except parenting and adult victimization) to the total LSI–R score. 

(The LSI–R includes needs scores pertaining to criminal associates, employment, education, substance abuse, and other factors.) Gender-responsive needs were not added to 

the intake custody instrument. 

A state could be 

which she has no 

mental health status 

faulted for increasing 

a woman’s restrictions or reducing her 

privileges according 

to problems over 

control, such as her 

or history of dysfunctional relationships. 

47 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

CARS is a fully 

automated system 

that monitors the 

inmate’s criminal hisif changes to the 

inmate’s custody level 

tory and disciplinary 

data and prompts 

the classification staff 

appear warranted. 

Appendix A 

If total needs scores are collapsed into three categories (low, moderate, and high 

needs) and these categories are then cross-tabulated with the custody levels derived 

from option 1, the needs categories can inform a wide array of correctional decisions. Doing so enables staff to use the needs categories to inform public safety, and 

treatment decisions could be made without affecting an inmate’s custody level. Such 

a system would allow inmates to progress to the least restrictive environment and 

would inform appropriate program assignments. However, further research is 

required to assess the power of the needs assessments to inform decisions regarding 

work assignments outside the security perimeter, furloughs, and prerelease community placements. In addition, staff training regarding management strategies for 

high-need offenders could reduce staff reliance on disciplinary reports for controlling disruptive behavior. 

The CO DOC adopted option 1 because the research using gender-responsive needs 

for custody decisions is not well established. This was only one study, and it takes 

many studies with consistent findings to appropriately build an assessment instrument (Van Voorhis et al., 2001). Additional research is needed to test the stability of 

the scales across different groups of incarcerated women. Moreover, the usefulness 

of a gender-responsive needs assessment would be more impressive if these factors 

were correlated with recidivism as well as prison misconduct. 

Florida Department of Corrections 

Classification Issues and Validation Tasks 

The Florida Department of Corrections (FL DOC) requested technical assistance 

to assess the validity of its external and internal classification systems for its 

female inmate population. Because its classification systems were designed and 

piloted primarily for the male inmate population, the FL DOC wanted to ensure 

that the gender-specific risk and needs of the female population were addressed 

adequately. 

During 1999 and 2000, the FL DOC implemented its external Custody Assessment 

and Reclassification System (CARS) in response to increased concerns about public safety, changes in state sentencing policies, and changes in the characteristics of 

the inmate population. CARS is a fully automated system that monitors the inmate’s 

criminal history and disciplinary data and prompts the classification staff if changes 

to the inmate’s custody level appear warranted. The system places inmates into one 

of five custody levels: community, minimum, medium, close, or maximum. The 

same risk factors are considered for both the initial classification and reclassification: time remaining to serve, escape history, severity of current offenses, type of 

prior convictions, positive adjustment (institutional programming and work), number and severity of recent disciplinary reports, and stability factors (e.g., age, education, or 6 continuous months of employment or student status prior to the date of 

the current offense). In addition to these numerically scored risk factors, mandatory policy criteria are considered that determine the least restrictive custody level in 

48 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Descriptions of Seven States’ Women’s Classification Initiatives 

which an inmate may be placed. These include outstanding felony detainer, current 

offense (e.g., high-risk or violent sex offender), escape history, internal management 

score, release date, alien to be deported, and Immigration and Naturalization Services decision pending. 

The impact of CARS was simulated for the entire FL DOC inmate population; however, the validity of the system and the predictive power of the individual risk factors were not assessed for either men or women offenders. Although CARS 

appeared to differentiate among inmates as to the level and type of custody required 

for their management, the FL DOC wanted to ensure that the custody levels were 

distinct and accurate reflections of the inmates’ threat to the security and safety of 

the institution. 

The development and implementation of an objective, systematic process for housing the inmate population were identified as part of the 1998–2003 FL DOC Strategic Plan. The system was required to be cost effective and legal and to ensure 

community safety. An internal classification system that included 16 risk and need 

factors was automated and fully implemented by October 1998.3 The primary components of the Risk and Needs System are the Risk and Needs Instrument and the 

Inmate Management Plan. The Risk and Needs Instrument contains information on 

risk and need factors, as well as information on membership in a security threat 

group via an interview with the inmate. The factors are rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 

represents highest need) and based on the inmate’s life history, institutional adjustment, and prior participation in recommended programs and jobs. 

A preliminary assessment of the Risk and Needs System suggested the need to 

refine the criteria for placing or maintaining inmates in dormitories and to conduct 

additional staff training and monitoring to ensure scoring reliability (Hardyman, 

2000). Because no closed units are available for females, the need to clarify their 

housing criteria was particularly critical. Because these preliminary findings were 

based on the first year of the operation of the Risk and Needs System, the FL DOC 

wanted to assess the validity and reliability of the system further. 

At the same time that the FL DOC’s Bureau of Classification and Central Records 

was planning to assess the validity of CARS and the Risk and Needs System, the 

department’s female advisory committee expressed interest in developing a needs 

assessment process that systematically compiles and assesses inmates’ social, physical, and economic needs. The committee observed that although the Risk and 

Needs System assesses inmates’ mental health, substance abuse, educational, and 

vocational needs, data on an inmate’s wellness and life skills, financial management 

capabilities, relationships (both within and outside the penal system), and parenting 

skills were not assessed adequately. The committee also suggested expanding the 

current assessment of vocational needs to include vocational aptitudes to facilitate 

placement in an appropriate training program. The bureau agreed that CARS and the 

Risk and Needs System should be updated periodically to reflect the full spectrum 

of inmate needs. 

Although CARS 

tiate among inmates 

as to the level and 

type of custody 

management, the FL 

DOC wanted to 

tinct and accurate 

security and safety of 

the institution. 

appeared to differenrequired for their 

ensure that the custody levels were disreflections of the 

inmates’ threat to the 

49 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

The suggested custody level was modiboth the initial and 

classifications. 

fied for approximately 

20 percent of the 

women offenders at 

the most recent 

Appendix A 

Based on a review of the classification systems and input from the female advisory 

committee, the department undertook a classification initiative to validate both classification systems and conduct a parenting survey. 

Validation Effort and Key Results 

Task 1: Validate the External Classification System. Data were obtained on the 

demographic, criminal history, classification, risk and need, and institutional misconduct for samples of men and women offenders admitted during calendar year 

2000 and the inmate population from the FL DOC’s well-developed automated 

information system. In addition, a parenting survey for a random sample of 382 men 

and 368 women offenders was conducted during January 2001. 

The FL DOC is one of the largest adult criminal justice systems in the country. As 

of June 30, 2000, approximately 71,233 offenders were in its custody (including 

4,019 women [5.6 percent] (Florida Department of Corrections, 2001a). The most 

serious offense for more than half of FL DOC male inmates was a violent offense 

(52 percent).4 In addition, 24 percent had been convicted of a property offense, 18 

percent a drug-related offense, and 6 percent other offenses. Among the women 

offenders, the distribution of offenses was somewhat different: property offenses, 42 

percent; drug-related offenses, 29 percent; violent offenses, 25 percent; and other 

crimes, 4 percent.5 

At initial classification, women offenders represented a lower risk than male 

inmates. About 71 percent of women scored as minimum custody, compared with 

about 62 percent of males. The data indicated that the FL DOC classification 

process is driven primarily by the mandatory custody criteria rather than the scored 

risk factors: at initial classification, the mandatory custody criteria affected the suggested custody level of 46.1 percent of women offenders and 33.5 percent of male 

inmates. The data also indicated that in addition to mandatory policy considerations, 

the rate of discretionary overrides was slightly higher than the standard recommended range of 5 to 15 percent. The discretionary override rate was less than 15 

percent only at initial classification among men. The highest rate of discretionary 

overrides was observed at the most recent classification review for the sample male 

inmates (20.3 percent). The suggested custody level was modified for approximately 20 percent of the women offenders at both the initial and the most recent 

classifications. 

The validation analyses focused on the power of the combination of the classification scale and custody criteria to categorize offenders into distinct custody levels 

according to their threat to the safety and security of the institution, staff, other 

offenders, and themselves. For the purposes of these analyses, inmates’ involvement 

in major and minor institutional infractions was the primary outcome variable. The 

data indicated that the custody levels identified through CARS were statistically 

50 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Descriptions of Seven States’ Women’s Classification Initiatives 

correlated with institutional adjustment and that the system identifies statistically 

distinct custody levels. The analyses, however, identified three concerns: 

 Reliance on mandatory custody criteria. The final custody levels appeared to be 

determined by the mandatory custody criteria rather than the scored risk factors. 

 High rate of discretionary overrides. The rate of discretionary overrides was 

above the national standard range of 15 percent, i.e., it ranged between 12.6 and 

20.3 percent of the cases.

 Overclassification of women offenders designated as medium custody at 

initial classification. The rates of institutional misconduct among medium custody women offenders were similar to those observed among minimum custody 

male inmates. This suggested that at initial classification, female medium custody inmates were overclassified because inmates with similar rates of misconduct were placed in less restrictive settings. 

Task 2: Validate the Internal Classification System. One of the key questions 

raised by the women offenders steering committee was the prevalence and types of 

needs among FL DOC women offenders and the relationship of these needs to their 

institutional adjustment. The department also was interested in the validity of the 

Risk and Needs System. These questions were considered through analyses of the 

risk and needs data compiled for the initial and most recent reclassification assessments. Data were analyzed for— 

 All females admitted to the FL DOC during 2000. 

 A random sample of the female inmate population on December 31, 2000. 

 A random sample of men admitted during 2000. 

 A random sample of the male inmate population on December 31, 2000. 

Overall, the data provided some support for the assumption that risk and need factors are correlated with institutional adjustment. The factors with the strongest correlation were outside work assignment, internal management, internal housing, and 

restructuring potential. The data also supported the assumption that some factors 

affect men and women differently. Surprisingly, some risk factors that were expected to be correlated with institutional adjustment among women offenders (e.g., family relationships and friends and peers) were not associated with institutional 

adjustment at admission. On the other hand, child welfare and intimate relationships 

were related to institutional adjustment for both men and women offenders. 

Only about half of the Risk and Needs System factors were statistically correlated with 

institutional adjustment for inmates at admission. Among women, academic education, 

substance abuse, Prison Industries Enterprise/Pride (PIE/Pride), outside influences, 

tutional adjustment 

for both men and 

The factors with the 

with institutional 

side work assignment, 

potential. 

Child welfare and 

intimate relationships 

were related to instiwomen offenders. 

strongest correlation 

adjustment were outinternal management, 

internal housing, 

and restructuring 

51 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

they had lost their 

A large proportion of 

women reported that 

parenting rights— 

31 percent. 

Appendix A 

transition assistance, and attitudes and motivations were not correlated with institutional adjustment. Among men, academic education, work competency, PIE/Pride, and 

the transition program were not correlated with institutional adjustment. 

The relationship between risk factors and institutional adjustment appeared to be 

less stable for women offenders. Certain factors (e.g., work competency and internal management) appeared to have relatively strong relationships with institutional 

adjustment at admission but were not correlated with adjustment at the most recent 

assessment. As expected, the factors that include prior institutional adjustment and 

escape history in their operational definition (internal management, internal housing, work release, and outside work assignment) had relatively strong correlations 

with institutional adjustment, particularly for male inmates. 

The best overall indicator of the validity of the internal classification is its ability to 

identify an appropriate housing assignment. In other words, did it identify inmates 

who require additional structure and supervision as indicated by higher rates of disciplinary infractions (particularly major infractions) and who should be recommended for more restrictive housing? The data suggest a strong correlation between 

housing recommendation and institutional adjustment for both men and women 

offenders at initial and last assessments. Therefore, the Risk and Needs System 

appeared to be a valid indicator of the risks and needs posed by the inmates. Unfortunately, particularly among male inmates, it appeared that the power of the system 

was diminished by the failure to house inmates according to the recommendations 

it generated. The most interesting finding regarding the Risk and Needs System was 

the similarity of the impact of the risk factors on institutional adjustment for both 

men and women offenders. 

Task 3: FL DOC Parenting Survey. One of the key concerns among steering committee members was the absence of information on the children of women offenders. The literature on women offenders has frequently cited the welfare of their 

children as one of the most critical and traumatic issues with which women offenders struggle. Unfortunately, these data were not collected consistently nor were they 

stored in the FL DOC computer system in a way that provided for easy access or 

retrieval. Therefore, to learn about the impact of this issue on FL DOC inmates, a brief 

survey of a random sample of inmates was conducted during the spring of 2000. 

The parenting survey data suggested that women offenders have employed a variety 

of means to provide for the care of their children while they are incarcerated, such 

as grandparents, relatives, friends, and state foster care. A large proportion of 

women reported that they had lost their parenting rights—31 percent. Responsibility for most of the children had been transferred to a family member rather than to 

the state or an adoptive parent. The average age of the children was 9.7 years, 

although nearly 20 percent of the women had preschool-aged children. On average, 

the women had 3.2 children under the age of 18. 

Although the data offered few surprises, one finding was most troubling: it appeared 

that children of women offenders were at greater risk than children of male inmates. 

52 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classificaDescriptions of Seven States’ Women’s Classification Initiatives 

For example, women offenders’ children were more likely to have been placed out 

of the home by the court, arrested, or supported by welfare, foster parents, or the 

juvenile justice system. Children of women offenders also were less likely to visit 

their incarcerated parent (57.1 percent of women offenders reported that their children would not visit them in prison, compared with 34.6 percent of male inmates). 

Parenting data could not be merged with classification or disciplinary data; therefore, the relationship between institutional adjustment and such factors as the number of children, their visitation, location, and the inmate’s relationship with the 

children could not be determined. Modification of the data collection system to 

allow for future analyses of child-related issues and institutional adjustment was 

recommended. 

Hawaii Department of Public Safety 

Classification Issues and Validation Tasks 

As of March 2000, when the Hawaii Department of Public Safety (HI DPS) 

women’s classification initiative began, 236 women were housed at the Women’s 

Community Correctional Center on Oahu. An additional 79 women had been sent 

to Oklahoma to relieve prison overcrowding. This total population of 315 represented a 92-percent increase in the HI DPS women prisoner population within 8 

years. Thus, although the initial request included a jail risk and needs assessment 

system, the goal of reducing overclassification in the women’s prison through a 

valid institutional classification system became the top priority in order to help 

move women to minimum and community custody and transfer women from Oklahoma to Oahu. Returning the women from Oklahoma was important, not just to save 

costs, but to reunite the women with their families. 

HI DPS’s current classification system was implemented in 1991. A validation 

study, completed in 1996, did not disaggregate the female population (Bench, 

1996). Overall, the 1996 study found that classification scores suffered from “extensive missing values, coding omissions, and coding irregularities.” Thus, the validity 

and reliability of the classification system were compromised (Bench, 1996). 

The initial classification factors included severity of prior institutional violence, current and prior offenses, escape history, history of assaultive behaviors, involvement 

in substance abuse, prior felony convictions, and stability factors (e.g., education, 

age, and employment). The reclassification instrument added time-to-serve, frequency and severity of prison misconduct, and involvement in alcohol or drugs 

while incarcerated. Nondiscretionary overrides to medium custody were required 

for inmates who were violent within the past year, on detainers, within 7 years of an 

escape or attempted escape, or sentenced to maximum terms greater than 60 months 

(at initial classification) or 48 months (at reclassification). 

likely to visit their 

Children of women 

offenders were less 

incarcerated parent. 

53 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classificaThe data supported 

HI DPS’s concerns regarding 

overclassification. 

Appendix A 

A qualitative assessment of the classification system by the steering committee and 

focus groups (composed of women offenders and key staff at the Women’s Community Corrections Center (WCCC)) identified the classification risk factors and 

policies that appeared to be contributing to overclassification. Most issues involved 

the scores and timeframes assigned to prior acts of violence, institutional misconduct, and escapes. Validation of the existing and modified instruments required 

manual data collection on systematic, random samples of 112 initial custody assessments and 99 reclassifications. Sampling difficulties and case attrition due to parole 

hearings, discharges, and missing data reduced the sample size.6 

The data supported HI DPS’s concerns regarding overclassification. For example, at 

initial classification 56 percent of the inmates were classified at medium or above; 

at reclassification, 30 percent were classified at medium or above. A comparison 

with other validation studies found medium custody inmates made up 16 to 18 percent of incarcerated women offenders (Hardyman and Pearson, 2001; Hardyman 

and Tulloch, 2000). Aggression rates among HI DPS women were slightly higher 

than those observed in other studies involving women offenders but lower than rates 

for men offenders (Hardyman, 2001a; Harer and Langan, 2001; Austin, Chan, and 

Elms, 1993; Brennan, 1998). 

Validation Effort and Key Results 

The current classification system was correlated with overall and serious institutional misconduct during the first 9 months of incarceration. For the initial classification 

sample, statistically significant relationships were observed between custody levels 

and overall misconduct (r = .22, p ≤ .05) and serious misconduct (r = .27, p ≤ .01). 

At reclassification, the relationship between custody level and serious misconduct 

was significant (r = .29, p ≤ .10) but not for overall misconduct. Even so, only three 

of nine initial classification factors and five of nine reclassification factors contributed to the validity of the system. 

The initial classification assignment was heavily influenced by mandatory and discretionary overrides. On initial classification, although only 22 percent of the 

women scored as medium custody based on their total points, 76 percent were 

assigned to medium custody. Most of these overrides were based on a mandatory 

restriction that required inmates with a maximum sentence greater than 60 months 

to be assigned to medium custody or above. 

A similar pattern was observed at reclassification: 24 of 27 inmates (89 percent) 

were assigned to medium custody by virtue of a mandatory override. Again, the 

most common override reason was time-to-serve (48 months or more remaining 

until parole eligibility date). Time-to-serve also influenced the community custody 

decisions because inmates were ineligible for community custody until they were 

within 24 months of their parole eligibility or discharge date. 

Modifications proposed by the steering committee and supported by statistical 

analysis improved the predictive validity of the classification system and reduced 

54 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

Descriptions of Seven States’ Women’s Classification Initiatives 

overclassification. The modified initial custody levels were more strongly related to 

overall misconduct (r = .33, p ≤ .01) and serious misconduct (r = .27, p ≤ .01). For 

the modified reclassification instrument, the findings were not as strong but better 

than those for the existing system. The proportion of women offenders classified at 

intake as medium custody or above decreased from 55 percent on the existing system to 47 percent on the modified system. At reclassification, these proportions 

decreased from 30 percent on the existing system to 20 percent on the modified system. Most of the improvements were attributable to eliminating time-to-serve as a 

mandatory override. 

Somewhat unexpected was the finding that time-to-serve was significantly correlated with prison misconduct (Van Voorhis and Pealer, 2001). Therefore, it was recommended as a scored classification variable at intake. This reduced its impact on 

the overall custody level, unless other risk factors were present. Because the reclassification data indicated that community custody offenders incurred a substantial 

number of misconduct reports, it appeared that the current time and custody variables were not adequate predictors of community adjustment. Thus, the use of a 

community risk assessment instrument to guide the supervision of communitybased offenders was recommended for the reclassification process. Except for 

detainers, all of the current mandatory overrides were redefined as discretionary 

overrides because they contributed to overclassification and/or duplicated one or 

more of the scored custody variables. The recommended initial and reclassification 

instruments are provided in appendix B. In summary, the recommended changes to 

the classification items were as follows: 

 Reduce the timeframes and scores associated with less serious acts of institutional violence. 

 Reduce the score for the severity of the current offense if the crime was a onetime act of violence against an abuser committed in self-defense.7 

 Reduce the score for time-to-serve at reclassification for women whose minimum sentence was 21 years or more. 

 Add time-to-serve as an initial classification custody factor. 

 Change sentence length from a mandatory to a discretionary override. 

 Differentiate a walk-away from a community facility and an escape from a 

secure facility for the escape variable and reduce the timeframe for considering 

a walk-away. 

 Delete involvement in substance abuse from the initial classification form. 

 Exclude escapes from consideration as a prior felony conviction on the initial 

classification form. 

Somewhat unexpected was the finding 

was significantly cormisconduct. 

that time-to-serve 

related with prison 

55 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

The poor quality of 

the classification manual contributed to 

validity of the 

women’s classification system. 

concerns regarding 

the reliability and 

Appendix A 

 Redefine employed to include women engaged in full-time child rearing. 

 Modify the operational definitions for the frequency and severity of misconduct 

to exclude escapes and to only count misconduct during the past 12 months. 

 Add performance in work and programs as a reclassification factor. 

 Modify age groups for the initial classification form. 

A final contribution to the validity of the modified system was attributable to the correction of errors. As with the earlier validation study, an extremely high rate of scoring errors and discrepancies was observed among the classification variables (Bench, 

1996). Although corrected for this project, they illustrate that not all classification 

problems are attributable to classification instruments. Given systemic problems, even 

a valid system becomes invalid very quickly. Quality control is an important aspect of 

any classification system. Thus, the final report recommended attention to staff training, quality control procedures, a community risk assessment, and needs assessments 

in addition to the modifications to the classification instruments. 

Idaho Department of Correction 

Classification Issues and Validation Tasks 

The Idaho Department of Correction (ID DOC) requested technical assistance to 

assess the external classification system used for its female inmate population 

because the system appeared to overclassify women, placing them in more restrictive housing units than required given their level of threat to the safety and security 

of the facility and community (Hardyman and Pearson, 2001). The classification 

system had not been validated for the female inmate population since its design and 

implementation in the early 1990s. Because the female inmate population had 

grown substantially since the design and initial testing of the system, the ID DOC 

suspected that the system was not appropriate for the current inmate population. Initial onsite meetings with staff and a review of the classification instruments and 

manual suggested that the poor quality of the classification manual contributed to 

concerns regarding the reliability and validity of the women’s classification system. 

The staff at the women’s facilities reported they had been dissatisfied with the classification system for some time. Based on a review of the classification instruments, 

system admission trends, and a preliminary onsite assessment, it was recommended 

that the department undertake a classification initiative to— 

 Validate the classification system for the current female inmate population. 

 Revise the classification manual to clarify the operational definitions of the 

classification risk factors. 

 Provide training for all classification staff. 

56 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Descriptions of Seven States’ Women’s Classification Initiatives 

ID DOC’s initial classification score sheet includes numerically weighted criminal 

history information to determine the appropriate custody level. The risk factors 

include severity of current offense, time-to-serve, severity and type of prior criminal record, and escape history. In addition to these criminal history factors, the 

reclassification score sheet considers inmates’ institutional work record and recent 

disciplinary record. Inmates are classified into one of four custody levels: close, 

medium, minimum, or community. The fourth custody level, community, also is 

contingent on the offender’s criminal history and legal status. Inmates with more 

than 24 months to serve, a history of escape, a predatory sex offense, and/or a current detainer are not eligible for placement in a community corrections center. 

The system also provides for discretionary overrides to a higher security level in 

response to evidence of homicidal, violent, suicidal, self-mutilating, and psychotic 

behavior not adequately addressed by the numerical classification. In addition, if no 

presentence investigation report is available at initial classification, intake staff have 

the option of placing an inmate in medium custody for up to 60 days until the record 

is reviewed. Discretionary overrides to a lower custody level based on the time left 

to serve are also permitted to provide the inmate an opportunity to participate in prerelease programming. 

When recommending a custody level, the case manager also considers the inmate’s 

program needs, including physical health, emotional stability, reintegration, academic skills, substance abuse, and vocational and other needs. The classification 

committee reviews the completed classification score sheet with the inmate.8 The 

committee is responsible for custody level recommendations, subject to review and 

modification by the facility head or designee. 

Validation Effort and Key Results 

Using a consensus-building process, the women’s classification committee, consisting of representatives from the two ID DOC women’s facilities and administrative 

divisions, reviewed the initial and reclassification score sheets to identify the 

strengths and weaknesses of each item and the classification process as a whole. 

Factors associated with institutional misconduct and security concerns were identified. As a result of this discussion, the committee developed operational definitions 

for assessing program participation and institutional adjustment. It also considered 

the appropriate categories for age, offense severity ratings, institutional misconduct, 

and prior criminal history. The classification instruments and manual were revised 

based on the committee’s decisions. ID DOC staff pretested the revised instruments, 

using a sample of approximately 30 women offenders, and based on their findings, 

further modified the instruments and manual. Because data were not available within the ID DOC information system, data were manually collected on all women 

offenders admitted to an ID DOC facility between July 1, 1999, and June 30, 2000, 

and also on the inmate population on December 31, 2000, if admitted to the ID DOC 

prior to July 1, 1999. Data were collected on 216 inmates. 

In addition to crimiinmates’ institutional 

nal history factors, 

the reclassification 

score sheet considers 

work record and 

recent disciplinary 

record. 

57 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Data suggest that 

tions, especially the 

inmates. 

Analyses of the discithat the majority of 

6 months of the curthe majority of infracserious Class A reports, were committed by a relatively 

small group of 

plinary data indicated 

women (80 percent) 

did not receive a disciplinary infraction 

report during the first 

rent incarceration. 

Appendix A 

Demographic and offense profiles of the two samples indicated that only about 12 

percent of the women were incarcerated for a felony person-related offense; the 

majority were incarcerated for a property or drug-related offense (55 and 36 percent, 

respectively). Analyses of the women’s criminal history suggested that 23 percent 

of the population was incarcerated for a parole or probation violation. At admission, 

the women’s ages ranged from 17 to 54 years; the mean age was 32.7 years. At initial classification, the custody distribution was community custody, 52 percent; minimum custody, 33 percent; medium custody, 11 percent; and close custody, 4 

percent. Among those in the reclassification sample, the custody distribution was 

community custody, 38 percent; minimum custody, 25 percent; medium custody, 34 

percent; and close custody, 3 percent. The greater number of community custody 

inmates at initial classification than at reclassification was due primarily to the 

“rider” population.9 The majority of riders are placed in community custody to facilitate their participation in special programming. Most are released within 6 months 

of their admission and thus are never reclassified. 

Analyses of the disciplinary data indicated that the majority of women (80 percent) 

did not receive a disciplinary infraction report during the first 6 months of the current incarceration. The mean number of infractions was 0.41 reports. To better 

understand the rate of institutional predatory behaviors among women offenders, 

the sanctions imposed for the most serious (Class A) infractions were examined. 

Only two women were placed in administrative segregation and three were placed 

in detention. These placements suggested that the majority of the women were not 

serious threats to the safety and security of the facility because they were not isolated in administrative segregation or detention. 

The rates of disciplinary infractions observed among women in the reclassification 

sample were quite different than those observed in the initial sample. The majority 

of women (64 percent) had at least one disciplinary infraction. Among the women 

who received a Class A disciplinary report, only about 18 percent were placed in 

administrative segregation. However, about 30 percent were sent to detention four 

or more times. It was clear that the women involved in Class A infractions also had 

higher overall rates of misconduct. For example, among women with one or more 

Class A infractions, the mean overall number of infractions was 7.3 reports. In contrast, among women whose most serious infraction was a Class B report, the mean 

overall rate of infractions was 2.7 reports. And finally, among women whose most 

serious infraction was a Class C report, the overall mean number of infractions was 

1.4. These data suggest that the majority of infractions, especially the serious Class 

A reports, were committed by a relatively small group of inmates. 

The statistical analyses of the risk factors and custody scale clearly indicated that 

the modified classification forms identified custody levels for ID DOC women 

offenders at initial and reclassification assessments that were statistically related to 

institutional adjustment. Several modifications to the classification instruments 

were suggested by the analyses. The severity of the current offense, for example, 

was a statistically significant factor only after the offense severity scale was revised. 

58 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Descriptions of Seven States’ Women’s Classification Initiatives 

Person-related offenses were rated as high severity; property crimes such as burglary, forgery, bad checks, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter were 

rated as moderate severity; and drug-related offenses, driving under the influence, 

and the like were rated as low severity. 

Similar to the pattern observed in other jurisdictions, time-to-serve was not correlated with institutional adjustment among ID DOC women offenders because of the 

short time served by the women and the erratic behavior of the rider population. To 

optimize the predictive power of the instruments, it was recommended that the time 

remaining to serve be considered a discretionary override factor for community or 

work-release placements. 

The original ID DOC female classification instruments did not include age as a risk 

factor. The analyses indicated that current age was a strong predictor of institutional adjustment and that the categories should be defined as age 20 or younger, 21 

through 29, 30 through 43, and 44 years or older. 

In an attempt to hold inmates accountable for their behavior, a risk factor was developed to reflect women’s participation in recommended programs since their last 

classification. As with many state correctional systems, participation in institutional work and treatment programming was a strong predictor of institutional adjustment among Idaho women offenders (Hardyman, Austin, and Tulloch, 2000). 

Women who complied with recommended work and treatment assignments had significantly lower rates of disciplinary reports than women who refused to participate 

or were recently fired because of their performance. 

The classification manual was revised to reflect the modifications to the instruments 

approved by the ID DOC. A comprehensive training to introduce the modifications 

to the classification system was provided to all ID DOC intake, case management, 

and supervisory staff within its female correctional facilities. To ensure consistency 

among raters when they apply the classification operational definitions and procedures, the training included reliability testing using actual ID DOC case files. 

Nebraska Department of Correctional Services 

Classification Issues and Validation Tasks 

The Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (NE DCS) requested technical 

assistance to address overclassification of its women offenders. Staff also were concerned that the current system did not adequately reflect important differences 

between men and women offenders. The initial site visit revealed a number of 

important features of the NE DCS system: 

 More than 90 percent of the women offenders housed at the Nebraska Correctional Center for Women (NCCW) were released within 12 months of intake 

due to the state’s indeterminate sentencing laws and the minor nature of the 

women’s offenses. 

cent of the women 

tional Center for 

within 12 months of 

intake. 

As with many state 

tutional work and 

tional adjustment 

among Idaho women 

More than 90 peroffenders housed at 

the Nebraska CorrecWomen were released 

correctional systems, 

participation in institreatment programming was a strong 

predictor of instituoffenders. 

59 
Appendix A 

 Except for the assignment to community custody and prisoner movements outside the perimeter, the current custody system did not inform housing assignments or institutional placements because the women of all custody levels were 

housed in the same unit and interacted with each other during recreation, meals, 

programs, and other activities. 

 Women offenders were overclassified: 57 percent of prison releases were from 

minimum, medium, or maximum custody rather than community custody.10 

Even with short sentences for women, overrides of the classification scores 

were required to move them into community custody. Clearly, community correctional resources were underused. 

 Movement to community custody was not restricted solely by the classification 

system. A personalized plan outlined the programming requirements to be completed prior to movement to community custody. For example, the 8-week cognitive program, Generic Out-Patient Levels Format, was mandatory for all 

women. In addition, many women were assigned to education, work, mental 

health, substance abuse, self-help, and/or other court-ordered requirements. 

With waiting lists for most programs, many inmates had insufficient time to complete their personalized plan and progress to community custody before release. 

NE DCS uses the same classification system (Factor Rating Score) for both male 

and female inmates. Factors on the initial classification instrument include severity 

of the current offense, prior commitments, escapes or attempted escapes, past violence, projected length of incarceration, and active detainers. Reclassification Factor Rating Scores include active detainers, escapes, past violence, involvement in 

drugs or alcohol while incarcerated, and frequency and severity of disciplinary 

infractions during the previous 12 months. In contrast to other objective classification systems, factors pertaining to the current offense, prior commitments, and 

length of sentence are not included on the reclassification instrument. In addition, 

misconducts are counted for only one classification period. Inmates with no misconducts progress to lower classification levels relatively quickly. The NE DCS 

Division of Classification and Programming developed both the initial and reclassification instruments. Neither instrument had been validated formally. 

A preliminary test, conducted as part of this initiative, indicated that the system was 

invalid for women offenders and was only modestly related to serious misconduct 

among male offenders. Given that more than 90 percent of the women were released 

within 12 months and the classification system does not impact housing, programming, or work assignments and given the invalidity of the classification system for 

the women, implementation of a community risk assessment instrument was recommended for the following reasons: 

 The classification issues were pertinent to community rather than institutional 

risk because the main classification consideration involved movement to community. Most women offenders lived in a single housing unit in which their custody level did not influence their room assignment. 

60 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Descriptions of Seven States’ Women’s Classification Initiatives 

 Use of a custody instrument to inform community-related decisions provided a 

false sense of security because, in general, custody instruments are not predictive of new offenses in the community. 

 Some community risk assessment instruments, however, are predictive of prison 

misconduct. A community risk assessment system, in other words, could inform 

institutional as well as community safety. 

The steering committee examined two types of community risk assessment instruments: the Wisconsin Risk Assessment and the Level of Service Inventory–Revised 

(Andrews and Bonta, 1995).11 The LSI–R was chosen because its focus on needs 

could help prioritize the assignment of women to programs and thus reduce program 

waiting lists. For a time, the steering committee considered using two classification 

instruments: the LSI–R for informing program placements and community risk and 

an institutional classification instrument to inform custody assignments based on 

institutional adjustment and criminal history. This process would have ensured that 

assignment to medium and close custody was based on prior offenses and poor prison 

adjustment rather than the inmate’s needs or problems. 

Validation Effort and Key Results 

Because the preliminary analyses of the existing NE DCS custody system indicated 

it was problematic for both men and women, the steering committee decided to 

redesign the custody classification system as a separate initiative. The immediate 

goal was to validate and implement the LSI–R for women offenders. Therefore, in 

July 2001, NE DCS classification, administrative, and case management staff were 

trained to administer and score the LSI–R. The plan was to complete a validation 

study on a sample of 150 women offenders by February 2002. For several reasons, 

the project timeline was revised. By January 2002, 100 LSI–R assessments had been 

completed. However, this was not a representative sample of NCCW inmates 

because the validation design required that women remain in the custody of the NE 

DCS for at least 6 months following the interview. As a result, this sample was 

skewed toward serious offenders with longer sentences. As such, the sample permitted an assessment of predictive validity but may have inflated the number of 

medium- and high-risk offenders and the proportion of offenders with specific needs. 

The LSI–R scores ranged from 6 to 47 (mean = 23, standard deviation = 7.7). When 

these scores were collapsed into standardized risk levels, 52 percent of the sample 

was classified as minimum or medium risk. Contrary to a concern for sample irregularities, the LSI–R scores were not higher than those observed in other studies of 

women (Lowenkamp, Holsinger, and Latessa, 2001; Rettinger, 1998). As expected, 

the women classified as high-medium or maximum risk presented the greatest need 

for programming and further assessments. Put in terms of the agency’s goals for 

reducing assessments and programming options, the data suggested that— 

 Educational testing could be reduced by 42 percent. 

Use of a custody 

false sense of security 

because, in general, 

instrument to inform 

community-related 

decisions provided a 

custody instruments 

are not predictive of 

new offenses in the 

community. 

61 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

The data helped to 

the women’s needs. 

Thus, personalized 

plans could be better 

vidual needs. 

differentiate among 

tailored to their indiAppendix A 

 Substance abuse assessments could be reduced by 26 percent. 

 Mental health assessments could be reduced by 48 percent (although this was 

not recommended). 

Further, the data helped to differentiate among the women’s needs. Thus, personalized plans could be better tailored to their individual needs, i.e.— 

 Life skills: 87 percent. 

 Job development: 75 percent. 

 Criminal thinking: 69 percent (rather than 100 percent). 

 Academic: 58 percent. 

Because the sample was skewed, these estimates of both assessment and programming needs will be adjusted as more exact data representative of all newly admitted 

inmates become available. In addition to using the LSI–R as a tool for prioritizing 

assessment and programming services, clear implications exist for community 

placement and programming decisions. Approximately 7 percent of the sample 

scored as minimum risk on the LSI–R. On meeting statutorily prescribed criteria for 

release, these offenders are better candidates for work release, furloughs, and early 

releases than those classified as medium-high risk or above. 

In terms of its predictive validity, the LSI–R was significantly, but modestly, related to serious prison misconduct and to the number of days in segregation. The interviews and resultant scores, however, contained a number of errors. These may be 

attributed to the fact that staff were not able to begin interviews until several months 

after their training. 

West Virginia Division of Corrections 

Classification Issues and Validation 

Classification of women offenders has been a concern for several years in West Virginia. In the mid-1980s, the West Virginia Division of Corrections (WV DOC) implemented a classification system based on the model developed by Robert Buchanan 

and associates (Hardyman and Davies, 2001). Shortly after its implementation, the 

WV DOC explored the idea of developing gender-specific criteria for work release 

(i.e., community custody). This effort was halted when male inmates brought forth a 

grievance asserting that the proposed work-release criteria for women discriminated 

against them because they included criteria that were less rigorous than those used 

for men. To avoid expensive, time-consuming litigation, the WV DOC abandoned the 

idea of separate work-release criteria for men and women offenders. Although this 

decision halted the further development and implementation of a gender-responsive 

classification system, it did not resolve staff concerns about overclassification and 

62 high rates of overrides among women offenders. 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

Descriptions of Seven States’ Women’s Classification Initiatives 

The external classification system used by the WV DOC relies on two scales. The 

Public Risk Scale assesses an inmate’s threat to public safety. It asks these questions: What is the likelihood that the offender will escape? If she escapes, what harm 

does she pose to the community? This scale considers the extent of violence in the 

current offense, use of a weapon during the current offense, escape history, prior 

institutional commitments, violence associated with prior convictions, presence of 

holds and/or detainers, and time to possible release. The risk factors are rated on a 

scale of 0 to 5, with 5 representing the greatest threat to public safety. An offender’s 

public safety score is based on the highest score across the seven public risk factors. 

For example, if an offender scores 5 on the first factor, extent of violence during the 

current offense, and 0 on the remaining six factors, her Public Risk Score will be 5. 

The Institutional Risk Scale assesses an inmate’s potential adjustment to an institutional setting. This scale considers the inmate’s community stability, prior institutional adjustment, need for special management, psychological stability, adjustment 

while on probation or parole, and alcohol or drug use. Four of the six institutional 

risk factors are scored from 0 to 4, with 4 representing the greatest threat to the safety and security of the institution, staff, other inmates, and self. The remaining two 

institutional risk factors (community stability and alcohol or drug use) are scored 

from 0 to 3, with 3 representing the highest risk. An inmate’s institutional risk score 

is based on the highest score across the six institutional risk factors. 

An inmate’s overall custody level is the higher of two scores. For example, if an 

inmate has a public risk score of 5 and an institutional risk score of 1, her scored 

custody level will be 5. The system provides for overrides of the scored custody 

level based on such factors as notoriety of crime or criminal, sophistication of crime 

or criminal, security threat group affiliation, enemies, and suicidal, assaultive, or 

predatory behaviors. Inmates are classified into one of five custody levels: V (maximum), IV (close), III (medium), II (minimum), or I (community). 

Prior to undertaking this validation effort, WV DOC staff participated in NIC’s 

Objective Classification System training program in June 2000 to learn more about 

classification issues and to develop a classification work plan. The two objectives 

identified were to assess the validity of the existing classification system and update 

the classification policies and instruments based on the results. 

Validation Effort and Key Results 

The validity of the existing classification system for WV DOC women offenders 

was the primary issue this initiative addressed. To improve the predictive power of 

the instruments for women offenders, the steering committee also identified alternative criteria to consider for the public and institutional risk factors. The predictive 

power of the existing public and institutional risk factors and custody scale, as well 

as the alternative criteria identified by the steering committee, was assessed. 

Multiple samples were used to validate the classification system and determine the 

need for a gender-specific classification system. Because of the relatively small size 

The validity of the 

existing classification 

system for WV DOC 

women offenders was 

the primary issue this 

initiative addressed. 

63 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women and their 

adjustment to the 

Institutional stress 

factors affected 39.5 

percent of the 

facility. 

Appendix A 

of the WV DOC female population (the average daily population during 2000 was 

149 inmates), a list of women offenders admitted during calendar year 2000 was 

generated. Initial classification data were collected from the prison case files for 162 

women. Similarly, to assess the reclassification risk factors, data were collected on 

women offenders admitted during 2000 and/or who were incarcerated as of December 31, 2000. Reclassification data were collected from the prison case files on 181 

women. In addition, to demonstrate the relative validity of the classification system 

for the male inmates, electronic data on the criminal history, institutional adjustment, and custody level of all men incarcerated as of December 31, 2000, were 

obtained. 

Demographic and offense profiles of the women offenders offered few surprises. 

More than 40 percent of women were incarcerated for a felony person-related 

offense (41.4 percent), and about one-third of the sample was incarcerated for a drug 

offense (32.1 percent). (A felony person-related offense is a felony crime in which 

there was direct contact or interaction with the victim.) The data suggested that 

women spent relatively short periods of time within the WV DOC.12 On average, 

women offenders had less than 2 years remaining until the expiration of their sentence or the parole eligibility date. It appeared that illicit drugs or alcohol was 

involved in the current offense for approximately 40 percent of the women. 

Institutional stress factors affected 39.5 percent of the women and their adjustment 

to the facility. Although such issues as family, children, and health are important for 

all prisoners, they were considered stress factors if they affected women’s institutional adjustment or required professional attention. The data indicated that family 

and institutional relationships were stress factors for nearly 10 percent of women, 

as were mental health (7.4 percent) and children (6.8 percent). 

More than half of the WV DOC sample (53.7 percent) were held at medium custody 

level. Less than one-third were in minimum custody (29.6 percent), 16 percent close 

custody, and 0.6 percent maximum custody. These data suggest that the system may 

be overclassifying the women offenders, given national estimates that 40 to 50 percent of women offenders are classified as minimum custody. 

To better understand the dynamic factors that have an impact on women offenders’ 

institutional adjustment, detailed analyses of community stability were conducted. 

This institutional risk factor included several of the issues frequently cited as critical to women’s adjustment to a correctional setting. In the WV DOC classification 

system, community stability is a function of 10 subfactors: age, marital status, education, employment history, military record, special situations, institutional work 

record, unit manager’s evaluation/housing reports, program participation, and institutional stress factors. Each subfactor is rated on a scale of 1 to 3; an average of the 

10 scores determines the overall rating for the risk factor. 

Analysis of age as a risk factor indicated that it is a statistically significant predictor of minor disciplinary infractions for the women offenders at initial and reclassification points. However, age was not correlated with the serious or predatory 

64 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Descriptions of Seven States’ Women’s Classification Initiatives 

(assaultive) infractions. This finding was expected given the low rate of predatory 

behaviors among women offenders. The appropriate age categories for the WV 

DOC women offenders were 28 years or less, 29 to 36 years, 37 to 47 years, and 48 

or more years. 

An issue frequently cited when considering gender-responsive classification and 

needs assessment instruments is that factors may be gender-biased because they do 

not reflect the life experiences of women offenders. The operational definition of the 

stability factor employment, for example, usually considers only full-time, salaried 

positions at arrest or conviction. The inmate’s childcare and homemaker roles in the 

community are ignored. To determine whether childcare and homemaker roles 

should be included in the operational definition of employment history, data were 

collected on women offenders’ employment status on arrest for the current offense. 

Women whose primary role was homemaker or childcare had rates of institutional 

infractions comparable to those with full-time employment. This supported the 

inclusion of childcare and homemaker roles in the operational definition of employment as an indicator of community stability. 

Dynamic needs (such as family, children, mental health, and medical needs) are additional factors frequently suggested by correctional staff to be linked with women 

offenders’ institutional adjustment. Analyses of these dynamic factors indicated that 

family, mental health, and institutional relationships were statistically correlated with 

institutional misconduct among WV DOC women offenders. Women for whom institutional relationships were a stress factor, for example, had higher rates of institutional infractions than women for whom institutional relationships were not a stress 

factor. On the other hand, children, health, legal issues, and other stress factors, individually, were not correlated with institutional adjustment. 

While institutional relationships had the strongest direct correlation with institutional adjustment, the presence of multiple stress factors was also highly correlated 

with institutional adjustment. In other words, although concerns about one’s children are not statistically correlated with institutional adjustment, this factor in combination with one or more other stress factors was related to poor institutional 

adjustment. Therefore, the creation of a risk factor that considers the number of 

stress factors experienced by women appeared to be a potentially strong predictor 

of institutional adjustment. 

Data also were collected on the relationship between program participation and 

institutional adjustment. Program participation is a dynamic factor that may indicate 

the inmate’s willingness to comply with treatment recommendations, involvement 

in positive institutional activities, and constructive use of time. Among WV DOC 

women offenders, program participation was highly correlated with institutional 

adjustment at reclassification. 

These analyses suggested that dynamic risk factors were consistently better predictors of women offenders’ institutional adjustment than traditional criminal history 

factors. Although the analyses suggested some potential modifications to the risk 

factor that considers 

factors experienced 

to be a potentially 

adjustment. 

had rates of institutional infractions 

comparable to those 

with full-time 

employment. 

The creation of a risk 

the number of stress 

by women appeared 

strong predictor 

of institutional 

Women whose primary role was homemaker or childcare 

65 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Analyses suggested 

that dynamic risk facinstitutional adjustment than traditional 

factors. 

tors were consistently 

better predictors of 

women offenders’ 

criminal history 

Appendix A 

factors, simply tinkering with the criminal history factors would not address the 

problems associated with the Public Risk Scale or the overall classification system. 

One of the most problematic findings was that the Public Risk Scale was the primary determinant of the custody level for most of the women offenders, yet it was 

not a valid or reliable predictor of institutional adjustment. 

On consideration of these findings, a full redesign of the classification system for 

WV DOC populations—both males and females—was recommended. It appeared 

that a system that combined dynamic risk factors with traditional static risk factors 

(such as current offense and escape history) dramatically improved the validity of 

the classification system. 

Wisconsin Department of Corrections 

Classification Issues and Validation Tasks 

The Wisconsin Department of Corrections (WI DOC) requested technical assistance 

to assess its classification processes for women offenders and to obtain feedback 

and recommendations regarding its plans to develop a gender-specific classification 

system (Hardyman, 2001b). Development of a gender-specific classification system 

was one of eight recommendations outlined by a cross-divisional team that examined issues critical to managing women offenders. The Wisconsin Female Offender 

Agency Plan13 documented the history, existing resources, and critical issues faced 

by the WI DOC and proposed a strategy for viewing the women offender population as a unique correctional population that requires specialized interventions, programs, and services. As part of the planning process, the Bureau of Classification 

and Movement sought feedback to ensure that the system had been fully assessed 

and that the most recent research and perspectives concerning the classification of 

women offenders were included in the agency’s plan. 

The WI DOC classification system uses objective assessment instruments to identify inmates’ level of risk (high, moderate, or low). Similar instruments are used for 

initial classification and reclassification, the primary differences being that inmates’ 

current and prior offense histories are not considered at reclassification. The reclassification instrument also considers institutional program participation. Both instruments include these common custody risk factors: current offense, prior criminal 

history, sentence structure, institutional adjustment, escape history, emotional and 

mental health, behavior and attitude, program performance, and temporary factors 

such as detainer or hold.14 WI DOC’s scoring process is unique compared with most 

state classification systems. If an inmate receives a high score on any one of the risk 

items, the inmate is considered a high risk. Similarly, if the inmate receives a moderate score on any of the eight items (and no high ratings), she is considered a moderate risk. Thus, to be designated a low risk, the inmate cannot rate moderate or high 

on any of the risk factors. 

The system provides for discretionary decisions and overrides of the custody level 

indicated by the risk rating. For example, staff have the discretion to recommend 66 
“Although it has long

been considered

problematic, many

states used classification systems that had

not been validated for

women offenders.”

Descriptions of Seven States’ Women’s Classification Initiatives 

low custody if the inmate rates moderate on only one risk factor. However, if the 

inmate scores moderate on two or more risk factors and the staff recommends low 

custody, the decision is considered an override. Unfortunately, the rates and reasons 

for the discretionary and override decisions are not systematically documented. 

The WI DOC classification system strongly emphasizes assessment of inmates’ 

needs and participation in programming. During an era when many state correctional agencies have adopted a “get tough” policy and reduced opportunities for programming and treatment, the WI DOC is an exception. Treatment and programming 

are clearly priorities, although adequate services and program slots are not available 

for women offenders. All staff emphasized that custody, housing, programming, and 

facility assignment are functions of inmates’ risk and needs. During the reclassification process, it appeared that programming and treatment needs often outweighed 

the risk assessment rating. For example, staff sometimes modified or overrode the 

risk ratings to provide offenders access to recommended programming with little 

discussion of the security implications. 

The WI DOC intake process uses the same needs assessment instruments for men 

and women offenders. A series of screening instruments is used to identify medical, 

mental health, dental, sex offender, substance abuse, and educational needs. If a 

need is identified on the screening instrument, the offender is referred to the appropriate medical or clinical staff for further assessment. Vocational testing is available 

to inmates based on their age (25 years and younger) and county of commitment. 

Anger management, domestic relations, and parenting needs are not assessed systematically but rather identified from the social history report, description of the 

offense, observation, and self-report by the inmate. Rating the need for substance 

abuse treatment is derived from a six-question screening instrument, the UNCOPE. 

As a part of the initial interview or meeting with inmates, caseworkers review the 

risk assessment and program recommendations. 

On transfer of inmates to a general population facility, the program review committee (PRC) meets with them to discuss programming needs, assign an institutional job, 

review the medical and mental health treatment plan, and enroll them in school, if 

appropriate. WI DOC policy requires a reassessment every 6 months. However, most 

inmates are reviewed much more frequently because all job assignments, programming, housing assignments, and medical and mental health status changes prompt a 

PRC hearing. In addition, either the inmate or the classification specialist can request 

an early recall to consider a custody reduction or transfer to another facility. 

In September 2001, a comprehensive onsite assessment was conducted that included interviews with central office and facility-based staff, review of case files, tours 

of the facilities housing women offenders, observation of initial classification 

staffing meetings and PRC hearings, and review of the agency’s plan, written policies, classification instruments, and needs assessment instruments. In preparation 

for the onsite activities, the agency plan, briefing papers, and a previous formal 

assessment of the classification system were reviewed (Austin and Naro, 2000). 

onsite assessment 

and facility-based 

files, tours of the 

facilities housing 

meetings and PRC 

of the agency’s plan, 

written policies, clasand needs assessment 

A comprehensive 

was conducted that 

included interviews 

with central office 

staff, review of case 

women offenders, 

observation of initial 

classification staffing 

hearings, and review 

sification instruments, 

instruments. 

67 
Appendix A 

Validation Effort and Key Results 

The WI DOC documents and onsite activities clearly indicated that the assessment 

of the classification process for women offenders completed as part of the agency 

plan was a realistic examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the process. 

Overall, the objectives and recommendations outlined in the agency plan were on 

target and, if fulfilled, would result in a classification process that provides highquality management of the risks and needs presented by the WI DOC women 

offender population. Based on current research, the following observations and suggestions were provided to strengthen the agency plan: 

 Update and validate the risk assessment instruments to ensure that they reflect 

such current risk assessment standards as objectivity and reliability. 

 Develop a systematic, gender-specific needs assessment and reassessment 

process that provides a complete profile of the women offenders. 

 Develop a clear and concise classification manual to clarify the purpose of the 

classification process, standardize the timing and reasons for reassessing the 

inmate or conducting a PRC hearing, and document the operational definitions 

of all risk and need factors. 

 Provide comprehensive and ongoing classification training to all intake and 

PRC participants. 

 Develop ongoing auditing and monitoring procedures to track the custody distribution of the population at initial classification and reclassification, monitor 

the rates of discretionary decisions and overrides, assess the reliability and 

accuracy of the risk scores and needs assessments, and compare program recommendations with participation rates. 

 Clarify the role of classification within the department to ensure full integration 

with the operational and treatment practices of the Divisions of Adult Institutions and Community Corrections. 

 Automate the classification process to document the initial assessment and 

reassessment of risk and needs, the PRC recommendations and approval 

process, rates and reasons for discretionary decisions and overrides, timing and 

reasons for reclassifications, and key outcome indicators, such as institutional 

misconduct, program performance, escapes, and work experiences. 

Notes 

1. Some of these measures were developed at the University of Cincinnati; others 

were more established scales. 

68 
Descriptions of Seven States’ Women’s Classification Initiatives 

2. A literature review identified scales pertaining to relationships and parenting. 

However, these contained items more appropriate to middle-class lifestyles than 

those lived by most women offenders. The relationship scale was influenced by the 

Spann-Fischer Codependency Scale (Fischer, Spann, and Crawford, 1991); the 

Codependent Questionnaire (Roehling and Gaumond, 1996); and the Silencing the 

Self Scale (Jack and Dill, 1992). The parenting scale involved slight modifications 

to a 20-item scale developed by Avison, Turner, and Noh (1986). 

3. For a full description of the definition and scoring for each of the 16 risk and 

needs factors, see Florida Department of Corrections, 1998. 

4. Violent offenses included murder and manslaughter, 14.6 percent; sexual offenses, 11 percent; robbery, 14.2 percent; and other violent offenses, 11.9 percent. 

5. These data reflect the female inmate population as of June 30, 1999. Violent 

offenses included murder and manslaughter, 16 percent; sexual offenses, 1 percent; 

robbery, 8 percent; and other violent offenses, 16 percent (Florida Department of 

Corrections, 2001b). 

6. The analyses suggested, however, that the smaller samples were representative of 

Hawaii’s incarcerated women offenders. 

7. The samples included only three offenders who met this criterion. Although none 

of these women had received a prison misconduct report, our samples were inadequate to test this change. 

8. The classification committee includes a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist and 

a representative from security. Generally, the committee consults with the medical, 

mental health, and education staff and job coordinators. 

9. The Idaho law provides for the court to sentence an individual to prison, yet retain 

jurisdiction of the case. After 180 days, the case is returned to court for review of the 

individual’s adjustment to prison. At this point, the court has the option of placing the 

individual on probation or committing her to the custody of the ID DOC. Individuals sentenced under this statute are referred to as “riders.” 

10. These included 4 percent who were released from maximum custody, 17 percent 

from medium custody, and 35 percent from minimum custody. 

11. The LSI–R is a published assessment available through Multi-Health Systems. It 

yields community and institutional risk scores as well as scores pertaining to the following needs: education, employment, financial, family/marital, prosocial/antisocial 

living conditions, use of leisure time, alcohol/drugs, emotional heath, and prosocial 

and antisocial attitudes. 

12. Recent population projections indicate that the average length of stay among 

West Virginia DOC women offenders is 11.2 months and their average sentence is 

39.4 months. See Federspiel et al., 2001. 

69 
Appendix A 

13. The agency plan was formally presented to the WI DOC executive staff in September 2001 and given preliminary endorsement. See Wisconsin Department of 

Corrections, 2001. 

14. A detainer is a legal request by a jurisdiction indicating the offender should be 

detained because of unresolved cases or sentences; a hold is a request by a criminal 

justice agency not to release an individual without first notifying it. 

References 

Andrews, D., and J. Bonta. 1995. The Level of Supervision Inventory–Revised 

(LSI–R). North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems. 

Austin, J., J. Alexander, S. Anuskiewicz, and L. Chin. 1995. Evaluation of the Colorado Objective Prison Classification System. San Francisco: National Council on 

Crime and Delinquency. 

Austin, J., L. Chan, and W. Elms. 1993. Indiana Department of Corrections: 

Women Classification Study. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and 

Delinquency. 

Austin, J., and W. Naro. 2000. Assessment of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections Inmate Classification System. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections. 

Avison, W., R. Turner, and S. Noh. 1986. “Screening for Problem Parenting: Preliminary Evidence on a Promising Instrument.” Child Abuse and Neglect 10: 157–170. 

Bench, L. 1996. A Validation of the Hawaii Department of Public Safety Inmate 

Classification System. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 

Brennan, T. 1998. “Institutional Classification of Females: Problems and Some Proposals for Reform.” In Female Crime and Delinquency: Critical Perspectives and 

Effective Interventions. Ed. R. Zaplin. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishing, Inc.: 

179–204. 

Briere, J., and M. Runtz. 1989. “The Trauma Symptom Checklist (TSC-33): Early 

Data on a New Scale.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 4 (2): 151–163. 

Campbell, D.W., J. Campbell, C. King, B. Parker, and J. Ryan. 1994. “The Reliability and Factor Structure of the Index of Spouse Abuse With African-American 

Women.” Violence and Victims 9 (3): 259–274. 

Coleman, F.L. 1997. “Stalking Behavior and the Cycle of Domestic Violence.” 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 12 (3): 420–432. 

70 
Descriptions of Seven States’ Women’s Classification Initiatives 

Federspiel, J.N., D.M. Huck, L.N. Hutzel, and W. Naro. 2001. “Correctional Population Forecast 2000–2010: A Study of the State’s Prison Population.” Charleston, 

WV: Division of Criminal Justice Services, and The George Washington University, Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections. 

Fischer, J., L. Spann, and D. Crawford. 1991. “Measuring Codependency.” Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 8: 87–99. 

Florida Department of Corrections. 1998. Risk and Needs System Guide. Tallahassee: 

Florida Department of Corrections, Office of Security and Management. 

———. 2001a. On the World Wide Web: http://www.dc.state.fl.us. Accessed in 

October 2001. 

———. 2001b. “Florida’s Women Offenders Plan,” www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/ 

Females/status/femaleoff.html. Accessed in 2001. 

Hardyman, P.L. 2000. Assessment of the Florida Department of Corrections Risk 

and Needs System: An Ambitious Internal Classification Design and Implementation Effort. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Institute on 

Crime, Justice and Corrections. 

Hardyman, P.L., 2001a. Validation and Refinement of Objective Prison Classification Systems for Women: The Experience of Four States and Common Themes. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 

———. 2001b. Wisconsin Department of Corrections Objective Classification System: Observations and Recommendations for Identifying and Addressing the 

Gender-Specific Needs of Women Offenders, Final Report. Washington, DC: The 

George Washington University, Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections. 

Hardyman, P.L., J. Austin, and O.C. Tulloch. 2000. Revalidating External Classification Systems: The Experience of Seven States and a Model for Classification Reform. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 

Hardyman, P.L., and G. Davies. 2001. Validation of the West Virginia Division of 

Correction Objective Classification System for the Female Inmate Population: Final 

Report. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Institute on Crime, 

Justice and Corrections. 

Hardyman, P.L., and L. Pearson. 2001. Revalidation of the Idaho Department of 

Correction Objective Classification System for the Female Inmate Population: Final 

Report. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Institute on Crime, 

Justice and Corrections. 

71 
Appendix A 

Hardyman, P.L., and O.C. Tulloch. 2000. Validation of the Oklahoma Department 

of Correction Objective Classification System for the Female Inmate Population: 

Final Report. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Institute on 

Crime, Justice and Corrections. 

Harer, M., and N. Langan. 2001. “Gender Differences in Predictors of Prison Violence: Assessing the Predictive Validity of a Risk Classification System.” Crime & 

Delinquency 47 (4): 513–536. 

Holsinger, K., J. Belknap, and J. Sutherland. 1999. “Assessing the Gender Specific Program and Service Needs for Adolescent Females in the Juvenile Justice System.” Presented to the State of Ohio’s Office of Criminal Justice Services, 

November. 

Jack, D.C., and D. Dill. 1992. “Silencing the Self: Schemas of Intimacy Associated 

With Depression in Women.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 16: 97–106. 

Lowenkamp, C., A. Holsinger, and E. Latessa. 2001. “Risk/Needs Assessment, 

Offender Classification, and the Role of Childhood Abuse.” Criminal Justice and 

Behavior 28: 543–563. 

Murphy, C.M., and S.A. Hoover. 1999. “Measuring Emotional Abuse in Dating 

Relationships as a Multifactorial Construct.” Violence and Victims 14 (1): 39–53. 

Rettinger, L. 1998. “A Recidivism Follow-up Study Investigating Risk and Need 

Within a Sample of Provincially Sentenced Women.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ottawa, Ontario: Carleton University. 

Rodenburg, F.A., and J.W. Fantuzzo. 1993. “The Measure of Wife Abuse: Steps 

Toward the Development of a Comprehensive Assessment Technique.” Journal of 

Family Violence 8 (3): 203–228. 

Roehling, P., and E. Gaumond. 1996. “Reliability and Validity of the Codependent 

Questionnaire.” Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 14 (1): 85–95. 

Rosenberg, M. 1979. The Concept of Self. New York: Basic Books. 

Shephard, M.F., and J.A. Campbell. 1992. “The Abusive Behavior Inventory: A 

Measure of Psychological and Physical Abuse.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 7 

(3): 291–305. 

Sherer, M., J. Maddux, B. Mercandante, S. Prentice-Dunn, B. Jacobs, and R. 

Rogers. 1982. “The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and Validation.” Psychological Reports 51 (2): 663–671. 

Van Voorhis, P., and J. Pealer. 2001. Validation of the Hawaii Department of Public 

Safety Objective Classification System for Incarcerated Women Offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 

72 
Descriptions of Seven States’ Women’s Classification Initiatives 

Van Voorhis, P., J. Pealer, G. Spiropoulis, and J. Sutherland. 2001. Validation of 

Offender Custody Classification and Needs Assessment Systems for Women Offenders in the Colorado Department of Corrections. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 

Wisconsin Department of Corrections. 2001. Wisconsin Women Offenders Agency 

Plan. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Corrections. 

73 
Appendix B: Sample Initial and 

Reclassification Instruments 

Developed by Colorado and Idaho 

75 
76

77

78 
1. The steering committee considered the option of subtracting points if the offense “was a one time only result of sustained victimization 

of the offender.” However, committee members noted that Colorado statute mandates initial placement to medium or above custody for 

violent offenders. Therefore the correction appears on the reclassification instrument but not on the initial classification instrument. 

79 
80

81 
____________________________________________________________________________ 

✂

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: 

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 

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:__________________________________________________________________________ 

Developing Gender-Specific Classification 

Systems for Women Offenders