DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS

U.S. Department of Justice

National Institute of Corrections

A National Assessment 

of Current Practices
U.S. Department of Justice

National Institute of Corrections

320 First Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20534

Morris L. Thigpen, Director

Susan M. Hunter, Chief, Prisons Division

Sammie D. Brown, Project Manager

National Institute of Corrections

World Wide Web Site

http://www.nicic.org
Classification of Women Offenders: 

A National Assessment of Current Practices

Patricia Van Voorhis, Ph.D.

Lois Presser, MBA

University of Cincinnati

Division of Criminal Justice

August 2001
This report was funded by the National Institute of Corrections under cooperative agreement #99P10IGL2

with the University of Cincinnati Division of Criminal Justice. 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.
Executive Summary.............................................................................................v

Approach ....................................................................................................v

Findings ................................................................................................... vi

Classification Practices Currently Under Consideration ........................viii

Discussion .................................................................................................ix

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

Chapter 2. Issues in Classifying Women Offenders: The Literature ............3

Classifying Women for Security and Custody ...........................................3

Internal Classification Systems ..................................................................6

Classification for Case Management and Treatment Purposes..................6

Legal Impediments .....................................................................................8

Chapter 3. Approach ........................................................................................11

Development of Assessment Questions ...................................................11

Identification of and Contact With Respondents......................................11

Telephone Discussion/Assessments .........................................................12

Focus Groups ...........................................................................................12

Chapter 4. Findings...........................................................................................13

Context of Classification ..........................................................................13

Are Women and Men Classified Differently? ..........................................15

Innovative Practices Currently in Use......................................................17

Innovative Practices Currently Under Consideration ..............................19

Chapter 5. Discussion........................................................................................23

Notes ..................................................................................................................25

References ......................................................................................................... 29

iii

Contents

v

This report presents the findings of a national assessment of state and federal practices for classifying women offenders conducted under the National Institute of

Correction’s (NIC) Classification of Women Offenders Initiative. Information was

collected from discussions on classification strategies with correctional administrators and representatives from classification and research offices throughout the 50

states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, focus groups with staff and inmates, and

ongoing work with agencies engaged in reforming the system. A detailed description was sought of current practices in use for women offenders. Respondents’ perceptions of whether their systems “worked” for women and served as a tool for

making custody, programming, and housing decisions were noted, and the extent to

which agencies found the classification needs of women offenders to be different

from men was explored. Finally, inquiries were made about the psychometric quality of current systems: What were the origins of the system? Was it developed with

women offenders in mind, or was it designed for men and applied to women? Had

the systems been validated for women offenders? 

These issues were framed by an emerging body of literature on women offenders.

An overview of this literature revealed uncertainty about the purpose of objective

classification systems for women in prisons. Authorities questioned whether

women are as dangerous as men and whether they can be identified as custody or

security risks by using the same variables as those used for men. Additional concerns faulted the lack of attention to women’s unique needs, criticizing classification models for their inattention to relationship, abuse, mental health, and parenting

issues. Earlier surveys of state and federal classification practices note that most

classification systems for women were designed for men and applied to women,

with no attention to whether the systems were valid for women offenders. This

assessment sought to discuss these concerns with those who work with women

offenders on a daily basis. 

Approach

A number of the issues posed above were addressed through a telephone assessment of representatives from 50 state correctional agencies and the Federal Bureau

of Prisons. The telephone discussions took place between February 29 and May 23,

2000. Thirty-three respondents were state directors of classification; five were

administrators of women’s facilities; four were research analysts; one was a clinical director; and eight were serving in some other administrative capacity.

Consultant or researchers who had worked with the agencies were also interviewed. 

Executive Summary
Findings

Are Women and Men Classified Differently?

Although many respondents discussed differences between men and women

offenders in terms of needs and risk to institutional and public safety, few states have

incorporated these differences into their objective prison classification instruments.

All states consider the risk and custody assessment to be the foundation of their

classification approach. For 21 states, the custody instrument is a variation on a system developed by NIC and contains mostly static (unchangeable) factors. Most

states reclassify offenders using an objective reclassification tool, administered at

intervals ranging from 3 to 6 months, although 14 states only reclassify women on

an annual basis. For the many women serving short sentences, annual reclassification means no reclassification.

Most of the existing classification models were developed for men (4 states) or for

men and women both (39 states). To say that a system was developed for men and

women, however, is not the same as saying that the system contains variables that

are relevant to women, or that it has been validated for women.

Thirty-four states reported using an objective tool to summarize offender needs.

More specific tests and inventories are used to measure single needs (e.g., education, substance abuse, and mental health). Only eight states reported use of a system that identified needs in a gender-responsive manner. 

Although 17 agencies reported using internal classification systems to guide housing assignments, none reported using any gender-responsive systems. Twelve states

have made some change to the way women are classified for purposes of custody

and public safety:

¢ Four states have a separate custody classification system for women (Idaho,

New York, Massachusetts, and Ohio). 

¢ Four states have different cutoff scores for men and women, representing an

attempt to tie each custody level to a group of offenders with similar behavioral

outcomes.

¢ Two states have changed variables to better reflect the nature of women’s disciplinary behavior in prison. For example, New York State reduces points on a

common variable, seriousness of the current offense, for women who murdered

an abuser.

¢ Four states have expanded options on existing variables to accommodate the

nature of women’s offending and infractions. Employment variables have been

expanded in some instances to avoid classifying full-time homemakers or

vi

Executive Summary
parents as unemployed. In addition, escape variables have been modified to

provide lower scores to offenders who walk away from community and other

nonsecure settings.

What Should Be the Purpose of Classifying Women Offenders?

The overwhelming majority of respondents noted security and public safety as the

central purpose to be served by incarcerating and classifying women offenders.

However, respondents in 15 states indicated that some goals are more central to

women offenders than to men. These respondents voiced a desire for classification

models that would better support gender-responsive programming and move less

serious women offenders more quickly through the system.

What Should Govern the Classification of Women Offenders?

Most women offenders are less dangerous then male offenders. A concern for moving women to lower custody and community levels as soon as possible accords with

an underlying sense that women offenders do not pose the same security risks as

men. Fifty-one percent of the respondents reported either that women pose less risk

than men or that a much smaller portion of women offenders than men pose serious risks to institutional and public safety. 

Women have different needs than men. Responses to questions about women’s programming and treatment needs strongly echoed the emerging writings on genderresponsive programming. Forty-nine respondents (92 percent) asserted that women

have unique needs that should be addressed in correctional settings. These issues

included trauma and abuse, self-esteem and assertiveness, vocational skills, medical

care, mental health, parenting and childcare, and relationships.

What Problems Are Encountered in Classifying Women

Offenders?

Many states find that existing systems overclassify women offenders. Too many

women are unnecessarily assigned to high custody levels, which then requires officials to override the classification decisions. Representatives of 10 states indicated

that they overrode more than 15 percent of their classification scores (rates ranged

from 18 to 70 percent of their cases). In effect, these agencies (20 percent of the

total) indicated that their systems were not working for women offenders.

Many states do not use the custody classification systems to separate women

offenders. Given the observation that public safety and security is their primary

concern, it was surprising to learn that in 35 states, women with different custody

scores are housed together in at least one, if not all, of their state’s facilities for

women. Regardless of the assigned custody level, women, unlike men, are often

assigned to an institution where custody does not impact housing, privileges, programming, or movement throughout the facility. Furthermore, this practice occurs

without an increased risk of prison misconduct or breach of security. Custody

vii

Classification of Women Offenders
scores affect whether a woman may work outside of the facility, the types of

restraints required when transporting her outside of the institution, and whether she

may move to a community placement. 

Only 14 states reported validating their custody classification systems for a sample

of women offenders. Another 11 states combined women and men in the same validation sample. Combined samples, however, cannot be considered adequate validation studies of women offenders because they often contain far fewer women

than men. The resulting statistics are driven by the majority of the sample: men. Six

of these 14 validation studies occurred during the past year as part of an NIC cooperative agreement to improve several state external classification systems. 

In spite of the fact that 49 respondents identified needs and problems that were

unique to women offenders, only 8 states have made provisions to assess men and

women differently. Unfortunately, needs assessments greatly impact programming

because when needs are not identified they are likely to be overlooked. 

Classification Practices Currently Under Consideration

States participating in the NIC cooperative agreements are changing to their classification models. These changes are under study and will not be recommended for

implementation until they have been validated and deemed effective. According to

focus groups with prison staff and women offenders, overclassification problems

are the result of a few variables, common to most custody classification systems,

which can produce misleading scores among some women offenders. These problematic variables include—

¢ The seriousness of the current offense for women who killed an abuser: The

majority of women who commit a one-time offense in response to a sustained

period of abuse are not seen as violent by women offenders or prison staff. Yet,

in most current classification models, “seriousness of the current offense” is the

mainstay of the system. It is a heavily weighted variable designed to keep murderers in high-custody settings for extended periods of time. A number of states

are considering lowering the weights of this measure for a first-time violent

offense against an abuser. 

¢ Variables without options pertinent to women: Overclassification sometimes

occurs because such key variables as employment and escape history do not

proffer attributes that speak to women’s lives. Women who have been engaged

in full-time parenting are scored as unemployed, thereby inflating their custody

score when parenting often suggests stability. Another example involves

women’s escapes. Fewer women than men escape a secure perimeter. However,

women are perceived to be more likely than men to walk away from a community residential setting to visit children, family, or friends. In some states, many

of the higher custody female offenders are women who walked away, returned,

and then received additional points on the heavily weighted escape variables. In

viii

Executive Summary
many cases, walkaways can be counted again as disciplinary infractions.

Differentiating according to type of escape should solve this problem.

¢ Timeframes on reclassification variables: Prison misconduct drives up reclassification scores in most states. In many cases, the misconduct drops from the

reclassification score after 2 or 3 years. For the many women serving short sentences, misconduct inflates reclassification scores and there is no time to reduce

them. In effect, misconduct acts as a static variable for most women and a

dynamic variable for most men in prison. Altering these timeframes can help

correct this discrepancy.

¢ Staff training: Staff often observe women to be more difficult to supervise than

men. Women in prison ask more questions, question authority, want to talk

things over, and challenge decisions. Staff inexperienced with these differences

seem more likely to “write up” women inmates. Both staff and inmates reported situations where custody scores are driven up by rather minor misconduct

reports. Staff training and changes to disciplinary variables and policies could

help alleviate this problem.

¢ Gender-responsive needs: The literature and focus groups concur that women

offenders represent a more troubled group than male offenders. Rates of mental illness, relationship issues, physical abuse, and sexual abuse far surpass

those for men (e.g., see Belknap, Dunn, and Holsinger, 1997; Dembo et al.,

1992; Holsinger, 1999; Miller et al., 1995; Morash et al., 1998). It is essential

that women’s needs assessments adequately capture needs that are unique to

women. Procedures to identify problems that cannot always be identified

through central files or intake interviews are key to this effort. In some cases,

agencies could also consider incorporating these items into the custody classification model if doing so improves the validity of the custody classification

and if high custody on the classification system translates into assignment to

a facility that provides intensive mental health, substance abuse, and other

services. 

¢ Use of community risk assessment instruments rather than custody classification instruments: What is to be made of states that employ custody classification systems but do not use them to make institutional assignments? If a

custody classification is only used to inform movement, such as work assignments outside of the prison, rather than institutional assignments, perhaps a

community risk assessment would be preferable to the custody score, especially for offenders serving short terms.

Discussion

This assessment, work on the cooperative agreements, and focus groups paint a picture of little change since Burke and Adams (1991) conducted a similar survey 9

years ago. Most states continue to use identical systems for men and women, and

ix

Classification of Women Offenders
most states have no empirical basis for knowing whether the system is offering

accurate classifications. Almost all the respondents claim that women’s needs are

different than men’s, but only eight agencies have incorporated these differences

into needs assessments. The number of states making improvements has not

changed significantly since the earlier survey. In fact, two states that had genderunique classification systems for women have reverted to a system that is uniform

for men and women.

It is noteworthy that few states have designed systems that started with women in

mind. Most map existing male-based assumptions regarding the goals and purposes of corrections onto women and the systems that classify them. The gaps are

apparent. Most states do not use the notion of custody in the same way for women

and men. Many states do not base housing decisions on custody. Many respondents do not consider women as dangerous as men, and a common observation of

focus group participants is that women with high custody scores are not necessarily more dangerous than women with low custody scores. It is hard to avoid the

observation that in practices involving women offenders, custody and risk is a very

confused concept.

x

Executive Summary
Existing classification

models for women—

many of them

designed for male

prisoners—are not

relevant to the needs

of women offenders. 

Nor are these models

informed by emerging research on 

gender-specific programming or managerial considerations

unique to women

offenders.

Accelerating growth in the number of incarcerated women offenders (Beck and

Mumola, 1999)1 underscores the need for sound strategies of classification and

assessment. Two recent nationwide surveys of correctional administrators and practitioners independently observed that existing classification models for women—

many of them designed for male prisoners—are not relevant to the needs of women

offenders (Burke and Adams, 1991; Morash, Bynum, and Koons, 1998). Nor are

these models informed by emerging research on gender-specific programming or

managerial considerations unique to women offenders (Burke and Adams, 1991;

LIS, Inc., 1998; Morash, Bynum, and Koons, 1998; Ryan, 1994). 

The call for improving classification and programming for women predates the

recent surge in numbers of women in prison. Women offenders, especially those

who are incarcerated, have long been overlooked in practice and research due to

economies of scale (there are fewer of them) and gender-based assumptions

about the causes of their criminal behavior (Belknap, 1996; Dobash, Dobash,

and Gutteridge, 1986; Pollock-Byrne, 1990; Rafter, 1990; Weisheit and Mahan,

1988). There is a need to be concerned about both the adequacy of programs for

women offenders (Belknap, Dunn, and Holsinger, 1997; Covington and Bloom,

1999; Dembo, et al., 1992; Morash, Bynum, and Koons, 1998; Owen, 1998) and

about whether women are being classified in valid and relevant ways.

The Prisons Division of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has assumed the

task of addressing issues pertinent to women offenders through two initiatives:

¢ Classification of Women Offenders—two cooperative agreements2 designed to

research and develop improved strategies for classifying women offenders.

¢ Gender Responsive Principles—a series of cooperative agreements with selected state and local jurisdictions endeavoring to improve programming and services to women offenders.

This report presents findings from a national assessment of state and federal practices for classifying women offenders conducted under the auspices of NIC’s

Classification of Women Offenders initiative. Classification models and strategies

were discussed with correctional administrators and representatives from classification and research offices throughout the 50 states and the Federal Bureau of

Prisons. A detailed description was elicited of current practices in use for classifyIntroduction

Chapter one

1
ing women offenders. Respondents provided a nationwide picture of the systemic

and operational contexts of classification and how these differ for men and women.

Respondents’ perceptions of whether their systems “worked” for women in directing appropriate custody, programming, and housing decisions were noted, and the

extent to which agencies found the classification needs of women offenders to be

different from men was explored. Finally, inquiries were made about the psychometric quality of current systems: What were the origins of the system? Was it

developed with women offenders in mind, or was it designed for men and subsequently applied to women? Were the systems validated for women offenders? 

As the following discussion illustrates, these issues were initially framed by a growing body of literature on women offenders. Exposed to the viewpoints of those who

work with women offenders on a daily basis, an additional perspective is offered on

that literature.

2

Chapter 1
3

This assessment took place in the context of uncertainty regarding the role and status of objective classification3 systems for women in correctional settings, especially in prisons. Two issues underlie this observation. First, the literature is not

entirely clear about the proper purpose of a classification system for women offenders. Should women offenders be classified to ensure the security of women’s prisons or to inform treatment decisions; or should classification serve both purposes? 4

Should classification systems inform housing assignments? Agencies can be

expected to have different answers to these questions, or they might identify additional purposes, but the answer is crucial to their approach to classification. Second,

on the basis of available literature, the current generation of classification systems

for women may not adequately serve any of these purposes.

Classifying Women for Security and Custody

Renewed concern about the security of women’s prisons seems reasonable in light

of contemporary increases in the number of incarcerated females (Chesney-Lind,

1997; Gilliard and Beck, 1998; Kline, 1992). Adding to this concern is the fear that

changes in the composition of prison populations (e.g., gangs, substance abusers,

and younger offenders) might promote increases in prison violence. At the outset of

this project, it was assumed that most existing prison classification systems for

women would address women’s risk of committing aggressive and other disciplinary infractions while incarcerated. In doing so, most systems would be identical to

current systems for male offenders. In support of this assertion, a somewhat dated

survey of state correctional agencies found that 40 of the 48 states surveyed used

the same objective classification system for women as for men. In most instances

this involved variations on an NIC prison classification model used for predicting

disciplinary problems (Burke and Adams, 1991).5 A subsequent survey found few

changes in this situation (Morash, Bynum, and Koons, 1998).6

Yet, in focusing on prison security, it must be recognized that correctional officials

disagree about the level of violence found among female prison inmates, many suggesting that women’s aggression is not prevalent or serious enough to be a primary

concern (Burke and Adams, 1991; Morash, Bynum, and Koons, 1998). Empirical

support for these staff perceptions is suggested by some validation studies of securitybased classification systems for women (e.g., Alexander and Humphrey, 19887

;

Issues in Classifying Women

Offenders: The Literature

Chapter two
Applying any type of

prediction instrument

to a population other

than the one used for

its construction and

validation is scientifically improper and

professionally unethical and can result in

inappropriate decisions for the group

being (mis)diagnosed.

Hardyman,8 1999) and several studies conducted prior to the 1980s and reviewed by

Bowker (1981). On the other hand, some researchers argue that women offenders

are becoming more aggressive and problematic (Kruttschnitt and Krmpotich, 1990;

Tischler and Marquart, 1989; Williams, 1981).9

Apart from the question of whether there are dysfunctional behaviors to predict is

the question of which inmate attributes might predict such behaviors. Commonly

used instruments (such as the NIC models) tap mostly static factors: history of violence, severity of current offense, history of escapes, type of prior commitments,

type of outstanding detainers, and such stability factors as age, education, and

employment. A number of sources question the relevance of these factors to

women’s behavior while in prison or to goals that administrators and policymakers

set for women in prison (Burke and Adams, 1991). 

Additional or alternative classification factors for women offenders might consider

marital status and suicide attempts (Forcier, 1995); family structure of childhood

home (Balthazar and Cook, 1984; Kruttschnitt and Krmpotich, 1990); childhood

abuse, depression, and substance abuse (McClellan, Farabee, and Crouch, 1997);10

single parenting and reliance upon public assistance (Bonta, Pang, WallaceCapretta, 1995); and relationships (Covington, 1998). More controversial is the

inclusion of homosexual relationships in prison, which is based on the view that

such relationships generate many acts of aggression.11 At the outset of the present

assessment, it appeared that none of these variables had been incorporated into correctional classification systems for women offenders.

More fundamental than the use of gender-responsive variables is the issue of

whether existing classification models, even those constructed for men, had been

validated and normed for women. Because few such validation studies were on

record at the NIC Information Center, the question was raised in this assessment.

Many correctional researchers and consultants have observed that agencies fail to

validate correctional assessments to specific populations (Van Voorhis and Brown,

1996). Without such studies, questions regarding predictive validity and relevance

of assessments to women offenders are difficult to answer. Moreover, applying any

type of prediction instrument to a population other than the one used for its construction and validation is scientifically improper and professionally unethical

(AACP, 2000; APA, 1992) and can result in inappropriate decisions for the group

being (mis)diagnosed. 

Far from being unique to corrections, failure to adequately study predictors that differentially affect the performance of men and women is found in education, mental

health, and medicine. In many cases, women have been adversely affected. Effects

have included less accurate college admission criteria for women than for men

(Sternberg and Williams, 1997); inaccurate mental health assessments (Gilligan,

1993); less accurate information regarding women’s heart attacks and strokes

(Arnstein, Buselli, and Rankin, 1996); and inaccurate understandings of drug

4

Chapter 2
Objective classification of women

offenders is far from

an exact science.

dosages and side effects for women (Martin et al., 1998). These effects stem from

the error of conducting most studies on men and prematurely generalizing the findings to women. 

Another issue concerns whether security and custody classification systems are

overclassifying female offenders, recommending unwarranted assignment to higher security levels. Overclassification can occur in three ways. First, prediction

instruments developed for populations that are known to evince low base rates12 on

the criterion variable tend to produce more false-positive classification actions than

those where variation on the criterion variable is more evenly distributed (Brennan,

1998; Clear, 1988). This is perhaps the most important cause of overclassification,

because nothing can be done about it except to avoid predicting behaviors that characterize a very small proportion of a group. Predicting behaviors committed by an

extreme minority creates a situation where excessive numbers of individuals must

be held for the few who will commit the problem behaviors.

Second, even in cases where high risk is indicative of a greater likelihood of problematic behavior than low risk, the meaning of seriousness is relative to the population (Van Voorhis and Brown, 1996). For example, high risk in a group with a low

base rate could translate into 30 percent of the high-risk group committing a new

offense, whereas high risk in a group with higher base rates (e.g., male prison

inmates) could translate into 60 percent of the high-risk group committing a new

offense. Simply put, high-risk females may be quite different from high-risk males,

and the difference has clear implications for policy and practice. 

Third, if the dependent or criterion variable captures different behaviors for men

and women within the same disciplinary or offense criteria, one group or the other

could have inflated reclassification levels. For example, if women tend to receive

escape charges because of walking away from a nonsecure facility or returning late,

while men receive them for escaping the perimeter of a secure facility, women’s

scores will be inflated by less serious offenses. Similar results could be incurred in

any situation where women get “the book thrown at them” and men do not. 

In sum, objective classification of women offenders is far from an exact science.

In contrast to parole, probation, and other community-based risk assessments,

prison-based risk assessments only emerged and received wide use in the 1980s

(Alexander and Austin, 1992). This generation of security and custody instruments, though designed to predict prison disciplinary infractions, is largely composed of static factors.13 Those factors that might render an instrument more useful

for classifying women offenders have been discouraged for lack of research on

women-specific predictors of institutional infractions; legal reasons, such as equal

protection concerns (see Brennan, 1998; Burke and Adams, 1991);14 ongoing disagreements concerning whether there are enough dangerous behaviors to predict;

and arguments concerning whether women should be classified according to risk

(Stanko, 1997).

5

Issues in Classifying Women Offenders: The Literature
In a growing number

of community correctional agencies,

classification systems

simultaneously assess

risks and needs by

tapping the dynamic

individual characteristics that predispose

one to criminal

behavior.

Internal Classification Systems

Even after inmates have been classified into institutional settings on the basis of

risk, a second level of internal classification often occurs (Levinson, 1988). Such

assessments are viewed as secondary to risk and custody systems and recognize that

even when groups are separated according to risk, they remain highly heterogeneous (Levinson, 1988). Choice of an appropriate internal classification instrument

depends upon the type of institution, its goals, and the types of programs into which

clients are screened. Some internal classification systems are used to inform housing decisions within the institution and others to assign inmates to appropriate treatment interventions. Some systems serve both functions, as when a substance abuse

assessment determines who will be placed in a therapeutic community. The most

common types of classification systems for making housing decisions use criminal personality typologies, primarily to separate predatory inmates from the population (e.g. Jesness, 1996; Megargee and Bohn, 1979; Quay, 1983; Van Voorhis,

1994; Warren et al., 1966). Personality-based systems for internal classification or

for assigning inmates to housing units have been found to reduce prison infractions

committed by males (e.g., Bohn, 1980). Few studies of this nature have been conducted on women offenders. However, one in South Carolina found a modified

Quay Adult Internal Management System (AIMS) to be applicable to women

offenders (Quay and Love, 1989). Extensive testing of the Megargee Minnesota

Multiphasic Personality Inventor (MMPI)-based system has found the system,

with modifications, to be applicable to women offenders (Megargee, 1997). It is

noteworthy that attempts to validate the personality systems with women, particularly the Megargee MMPI-based typology and the Quay AIMS, resulted in modifications to the original systems (see Megargee, Mercer, and Carbonell, 1999;

Megargee, 1997; Quay and Love, 1989). 

Classification for Case Management and 

Treatment Purposes

Needs assessment systems are the most common internal classification systems.

Needs assessments consist of either an objective system for classifying offenders

according to major problem areas (e.g., education, mental health, employment, substance abuse) or separate tests for key need areas, or both. Static custody classification systems have had some success predicting offending behaviors in institutions

(Buchanan, Whitlow, and Austin, 1986; Alexander and Austin, 1992) and in community settings (Hoffman, 1994; Baird, Prestine and Klockziem, 1989), but they

cannot help case managers and other institutional officials make treatment-related

decisions (Andrews and Bonta, 1998; Van Voorhis, 2000). Agencies that place a

high priority on meaningful programming for correctional clients require additional needs-based classification tools. 

6

Chapter 2
Though problematic

for both males and

females, abuse and

neglect seem to be

more predictive of

the future offending

of females than males.

In a growing number of community correctional agencies, classification systems

simultaneously assess risks and needs by tapping the dynamic individual characteristics that predispose one to criminal behavior 15 (Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge,

1990; Andrews and Bonta, 1998). Prison needs assessments separate the needs

assessment function from the risk assessment function. Some argue that it is more

important to keep the custody classification and the needs classification process

separate in prison classification models than in community correctional models

(Adams and Henning, 1982), lest agencies find themselves advancing custody

according to one’s problems rather than one’s behavior. This debate is unresolved.

Indeed, if those with mental health and substance abuse issues actually pose a

greater threat to public safety, it is not clear that risk and needs assessment should

be distinct.

Recognition of the importance of needs assessment has increased in recent years.

Publications and conference programs of professional organizations—such as the

American Correctional Association, the International Community Correctional

Association, and the American Probation and Parole Association—as well as NIC

activities, suggest an identifiable trend toward increased treatment programming in

correctional agencies. In addition, recent surveys have found correctional officials

and practitioners stressing the importance of programs responsive to the specific

needs of women offenders, such as victimization counseling, nursery programs to

enable mothers to keep babies near them while incarcerated, mentoring and selfesteem programs, gender-specific health education programs, gender-responsive

substance abuse and mental health programs, and gender-specific cognitive skills

programs (LIS, Inc., 1998; Morash, Bynum, and Koons, 1998).

We may be a long way from incorporating these gender-responsive needs into institutional needs assessment models. Some would argue that the most important

sources of prospective criminal behavior are the same for men and women.

Research on this question is equivocal. Results of a meta-analysis of delinquency

causation studies by Simourd and Andrews (1994) report that the most important

risk factors are antisocial peers, a history of criminal behavior, antisocial attitudes,

antisocial personality, family relationships, and school or employment problems.

These were seen as gender-neutral. However, the authors concede that victimization

and self-esteem require further research before they can be ruled out as predictors

of female offending. 

Though problematic for both males and females, abuse and neglect seem to be more

predictive of the future offending of females than males (McClellan, Farabee, and

Crouch, 1997; Rivera and Widom, 1990). This may be partly attributable to the fact

that girls are more likely to be physically abused than boys.16 Furthermore, abuse

itself introduces many girls to systems (e.g., school failure, unemployment, and

juvenile court) that have their own effects on future offending (Belknap and

Holsinger, 1998; Chesney-Lind and Shelden, 1992). In correctional settings for

both girls and women, the proportion of inmates reporting past physical and sexual

7

Issues in Classifying Women Offenders: The Literature
Systems that are

valid for men but not

for women are not

equal, even though

the classification 

factors are identical.

abuse is much higher than it is for males (Dembo et al., 1992; Holsinger, 1999;

McClellan, Farabee, and Crouch, 1997; Morash, Bynum, and Koons, 1998; Snell,

1994). Finally, the causal paths between abuse and neglect and offending for females

may be intertwined with anxiety, depression, emotional problems, self-esteem, and

substance abuse (Miller et al., 1995; McClellan, Farabee, and Crouch, 1997). 

From focus groups with both staff and inmates (e.g., see Belknap, Dunn, and

Holsinger, 1997; Dembo et al., 1992; Holsinger, 1999; Miller et al., 1995; Morash,

Bynum, and Koons, 1998) comes a clear call for interventions targeting physical

and sexual abuse, self-esteem, relationships, and mental health. Women and girls

appear to have different paths to substance abuse (Wanberg and Milkman, 1998).

Their offending behavior is likely to involve relationship issues (Taylor, Gilligan,

and Sullivan, 1995; Covington, 1998), and they are less likely than males to adhere

to antisocial rationalizations for their behavior (Erez, 1988). Women offenders are

far more likely to receive mental health diagnoses than men offenders. 

Whether systems conduct separate needs assessments or incorporate criminogenic

needs into risk and custody assessment, it makes sense to add variables pertinent to

women’s needs. Assessments for specific or special needs provide more detailed

pictures of offender needs and could assess substance abuse, mental health, intelligence, and educational background. The assessment tools should also be normed

and validated on women. 

If corrections is headed toward a gender-responsive approach to programming for

women offenders, it may not have the optimal classification technology for doing

so. An overview of items contained in the current generation of institutional classification systems shows an absence of gender-specific, criminogenic needs probably

because these systems were designed to facilitate custody rather than programming

assignments. Given that risk and custody issues may be of less concern for women

than men, it is not surprising to find widespread dissatisfaction with current systems

for classifying women offenders.

Legal Impediments

Following years of litigation, case law, and legislation, male and female prison

inmates now are mandated to be afforded equality in housing, access to legal

services, programming, employee wages, and medical facilities. Classification has

been interpreted as falling under this rubric. Systems may be viewed as genderdiscriminatory if they contain different variables, assign offenders to different types

of programs, and send people with similar characteristics to qualitatively different

types of housing (Brennan, 1998). These concerns have prompted many administrators to staunchly defend parity as exemplified by identical systems.

8

Chapter 2
Use of identical systems may offer a false sense of assurance. Indeed, systems that

are valid for men but not for women are not equal, even though the classification

factors are identical. Moreover, a system that recognizes men’s needs better than

it does women’s is inherently unequal. Finally, if proportionally more maximumcustody men commit predatory acts than maximum-custody women, the classification system already lacks parity. In that instance, although the classification

instruments look identical and procedures of administration are similar, they are

disparate in terms of outcome. With this in mind, some agencies voice concern that

not having separate systems may lead to litigation (Austin, Chah, and Elms, 1993).

This was seen in the recent case Cain v. Michigan Department of Corrections which

resulted in Michigan’s adoption of different classification cutoff scores for women.

This discussion has endeavored to frame a number of issues that may need to be

addressed through development of systems for classifying women offenders. The

literature identifies three crucial issues: validity, overclassification, and lack of

gender-responsiveness. This assessment sought to understand the extent to which

these issues typified current correctional practices and whether agencies had formulated approaches for resolving them. The remainder of this report details the

national assessment of correctional officials and its results.

9

Issues in Classifying Women Offenders: The Literature

11

The issues and questions posed above were addressed through a telephone assessment of representatives from 50 state correctional agencies and the Federal Bureau

of Prisons. The assessment proceeded with the following steps:

¢ Construction of a telephone inventory.

¢ Identification of respondents most knowledgeable about their state’s classification procedures.

¢ Review of the results of the telephone discussions.

¢ Review of classification documents, where warranted.

¢ Collateral contacts, where warranted, with other state officials or consultants

providing classification-related services to the agency.

Development of Assessment Questions

The assessment consisted of both open-ended and closed-ended questions.

Although the final version contained 73 questions, only sections applicable to the

state were administered.17 Before any questions were written, University of

Cincinnati project staff reviewed the most recent academic articles, books, and

other literature on female offending and correctional classification. The survey was

grounded on this review. NIC personnel also contributed to the instrument.

Identification of and Contact With Respondents

Identification of respondents with expert knowledge of agency classification procedures was of utmost concern. The following steps were followed:

¢ Letters were mailed to agency heads to announce the purpose and nature of the

assessment, provide a copy of the survey questions, request designation of a

staff member to serve as a respondent, and invite them to discuss any concerns

about the assessment.

¢ Followup telephone calls were placed within 2 weeks to the office of the agency

head requesting the name of a respondent.

Approach

Chapter three
¢ Telephone calls were made to the designated respondent to schedule an interview.

¢ The telephone interview was conducted.

¢ Followup calls were placed to commissioners or directors if no response to the

initial letter was received.

¢ Additional calls were placed to other state officials to address questions that

could not be answered by the initial respondents.

Telephone Discussion/Assessments

The telephone discussions were conducted between February 29 and May 23, 2000.

Generally, the telephone contacts afforded an economical way to secure the data

while assuring a greater response rate and accuracy than a mail-in questionnaire

(Maxfield and Babbie, 2000). 

Respondents showed considerable expertise in the classification systems used by

their states. Thirty-three of the respondents were state directors of classification,

five were either wardens or administrators of women’s facilities, four were research

analysts familiar with the system’s development or modification, one was a clinical

director, and eight were serving in some other administrative capacity. Many of

these other administrators had once served as a warden or had extensive experience

working with classification systems for women offenders. When respondents

lacked the expertise to answer questions, they referred us to other officials, or we

contacted another respondent with greater expertise. Even so, questions were occasionally left unanswered. Some respondents, for example, had no knowledge of

whether their classification methods had been validated for women offenders, especially in instances where the validation study may have been conducted as many as

15 years ago. It was not unusual for respondents to identify as classification problems issues that were not necessarily attributable to classification, such as needing

more bed space, getting women closer to families, and providing more services. 

Focus Groups

As noted earlier, the NIC cooperative agreement included technical assistance to

three states. The technical assistance portion of the initiative was underway while

this assessment was being conducted. Technical assistance visits involved separate

focus groups with women offenders, staff, and administrators. Twelve focus groups

were conducted, and findings from these meetings are included in this report where

they lend additional understanding to the results of the assessment.

12

Chapter 3
13

Context of Classification

Correctional classification exists in an organizational and operational context.

Classification practice is tied inextricably to the purpose of classification (Brennan,

1998; Van Voorhis, 1994, 2000), agency goals and philosophy, the behaviors and

needs of the women being classified, and any organizational constraints that affect

agency operations. As already indicated, a classification system designed to attend

to custody concerns may look considerably different from one endeavoring to inform

treatment and programming tasks (Van Voorhis, 2000) or to facilitate housing

assignments (Levinson, 1988). For these reasons, a good portion of this assessment

sought to understand the correctional goals and philosophies that classification

models are intended to support, the nature of correctional environments, and the

women being classified.

Goals and Philosophies

The correctional goals of deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution,

restoration, and public safety are familiar to practitioners of correctional practice.

Such terms are repeated in most textbooks of correctional practice, correctional

mission statements, and agency reports. This assessment, however, sought to determine the extent to which these goals might differ for male and female offenders.

The overwhelming majority of respondents noted security and public safety as the

central purpose to be served by incarcerating women offenders. However, respondents in 15 states indicated that some goals are more central to women offenders,

including—

¢ Habilitation and rehabilitation, particularly programs targeted to needs that are

unique to women.

¢ Transitional programming pertinent to parenting and family issues.

¢ Moving women who have committed minor offenses to lower custody levels

and out of the system as soon as possible, to serve more women in community

facilities rather than in institutions.

Not surprisingly, these respondents tended to want classification models that would

better support gender-responsive programming and that would move women more

quickly through the system. 

Findings

Chapter four
Several respondents

faulted current 

custody-centered

classification models

for overclassifying

women by assigning

too many women to

unnecessarily high

custody levels. One

response to the

problem of overclassification is to

override selected

classification scores.

Several respondents faulted current custody-centered classification models for

overclassifying women by assigning too many women to unnecessarily high custody levels. One response to the problem of overclassification is to override selected classification scores. Representatives of 10 states indicated that it was necessary

to routinely override more than 15 percent of their classification scores. Override

rates ranged from 18 to 70 percent of these agencies’ classification scores.18 These

agencies (20 percent of the total), in effect, indicated that their systems were not

working for women offenders.

Are Women as Dangerous as Men?

A concern for moving women to lower custody and community levels as soon as

possible accords with an underlying sense that women offenders do not pose the

same security risks as men. When asked this question, 51 percent of the respondents

reported either that women pose less risk than men or that a much smaller portion

of women offenders than of men offenders pose a serious risk to institutional and

public safety.19

Do Women Have Different Needs Than Men?

Responses to questions about women’s programming and treatment needs strongly

echoed the emerging writings on gender-responsive programming. Almost all

respondents (92 percent) asserted that women have unique needs that should be

addressed in correctional settings. These needs included help in dealing with issues

of trauma and abuse, self-esteem and assertiveness, vocational and job skills, medical care, mental health, parenting and child care, and relationships.

Organizational Context

Notwithstanding recent increases in the number of women housed in correctional

facilities, their numbers relative to men remain small.20 Eighteen states house fewer

than 500 women offenders in correctional institutions, while 13 states house more

than 1,500 women. In Texas and California, this figure is close to 10,000 women

offenders. Throughout the United States, the median number of women incarcerated in each state is 851. 

Given the observation that public safety and security is the primary concern of correctional officials, it was somewhat surprising to learn that in 35 states women

with different custody scores are housed together in at least one, if not all, of the

state’s facilities for women. When women offenders and staff were asked if

women were treated differently on the bases of their custody scores, the response

was often, “No.”

Classification unfolds roughly as follows. On sentencing, women are assigned to

a diagnostic and reception center (N = 40 states), not unlike male offenders.

Remarkably, however, on receiving a custody score that may range from community or minimum custody, to close or maximum custody, women are often

assigned to an institution where custody scores do not affect housing, privileges,

14

Chapter 4
To say that a system

was developed for

men and women,

however, is not the

same as saying that

the system contains

variables that are relevant to women or

that it has been validated for women.

programming, or movement throughout the facility. Custody scores in these cases

do affect whether a woman may work outside of the facility, the types of restraints

required when transporting her outside of the institution, and whether she may

move to a community placement. 

Just the same, the era of all states operating just one facility for women appears to

be coming to an end. Only 19 states house women in a single facility. Most states

now maintain at least 2 institutions for women, and 21 states and the Federal

Bureau of Prisons operate 3 or more facilities, not including community correctional facilities, prerelease centers, or hospitals.

Are Women and Men Classified Differently?

Although many respondents discussed clear differences between men and women

offenders in terms of needs and risk to institutional and public safety, few states have

incorporated these differences into their objective prison classification instruments. 

Risk/Custody Assessment

All states consider the risk/custody assessment to be the foundation of their classification approach. For 21 states, the custody instrument is a variation on a system

developed by NIC that contains mostly static factors. Although 30 states report having some dynamic variables that could be viewed as relevant to offender needs, the

custody tool typically is not viewed as relevant to programming and treatment

issues.21 Most states reclassify offenders using an objective reclassification tool

administered at intervals ranging from 3 to 6 months, although 14 states reclassify

women only on an annual basis. Of course, for the many women who serve short

sentences, annual reclassification means no reclassification.

Thirty-four states report using an objective tool to summarize offender needs. More

specific tests and inventories are used to measure such single needs as education (34

states), substance abuse (36 states), and mental health (44 states). Internal classification specific to housing needs that assign offenders to housing units on the basis

of personality, dangerousness, or other considerations were in used in 12 states.

Not surprisingly, most of the existing classification models were developed for men

(4 states) or for men and women both (39 states). To say that a system was developed for men and women, however, is not the same as saying that the system contains variables that are relevant to women or that it has been validated for women. 

Twelve states have made some change to the way women are classified for purposes of custody and public safety. Four states (Idaho, New York, Massachusetts, and

Ohio) have a separate custody classification system for women. Ohio’s classification model is different because a new system was developed for male offenders and

had not been found to be valid for women. Consequently, Ohio continues to use its

old system for women but is currently designing a new system for women. 

15

Findings
Regardless of whether

a state’s custody classification system was

changed or adjusted,

only 14 states reported validating their

custody classification

systems on a sample

of women offenders.

Four states have different cutoff scores for men and women. Changing the criteria

for cutoff scores is an attempt to tie each custody level to a similar type of offender, whether male or female. If, for example, infraction rates for men in maximum

custody are greater than that for women, raising the cutoff score for women may

result in greater similarity between the groups.22 Two of the four states have

changed variables to better reflect the nature of women’s disciplinary behavior in

prison. For example, age is noted to be a predictor of prison disciplinary problems.

However, in Delaware, women are seen as more likely than men to continue to act

out with advancing years. As such, the state has increased the age cutoff for women.

New York State reduces points on a common variable, seriousness of the current

offense, for women who murdered an abuser. 

The remaining four states (probably more)23 have expanded options on existing

variables to accommodate the nature of women’s offending and infractions.

Employment variables, for example, have been expanded in some instances to avoid

classifying full-time homemakers or stay-at-home parents as unemployed. In addition, escape variables have been modified to provide lower scores to offenders who

walk away from community and other nonsecure settings, thus obviating the need

to give scores similar to those who escape a secure perimeter. 

Regardless of whether a state’s custody classification system was changed or

adjusted, only 14 states reported validating their custody classification systems on

a sample of women offenders. Another 11 states combined women and men in the

same validation sample.24 Combined samples cannot be considered adequate validation studies of women offenders because they often contain far fewer women

than men. The resulting statistics are driven by men, the majority of the sample.

Furthermore, if results for men and women are different, a combined sample is

unlikely to identify those differences. This situation is changing rapidly. Indeed, 6

of these 14 validation studies occurred during the past year as part of NIC’s cooperative agreement to validate and improve several state external classification systems. Some of the recent validation studies found existing custody systems to be

valid for women offenders. The valid systems contained a notable pattern. Key variables had been expanded to include options that were more reflective of women’s

lives, thereby reducing some problems with overclassification. This issue is discussed in later sections of this report.

Needs Assessments

Another way to accommodate women offenders in correctional classification

processes is to construct gender-responsive needs assessments. In spite of the fact

that 49 respondents identified needs/problems that were unique to women offenders, only 8 states have made some provisions to assess the needs of men and women

differently. These include four states with separate objective needs assessment

instruments for women; one state that has altered the interview format for women

to secure more accurate information; one state that conducts a psychosocial assessment for women and not for men; one state with a separate needs assessment

for some men; one state that conducts a separate vocational battery at its largest

16

Chapter 4
Only eight states

have made some provisions to assess the

needs of men and

women differently.

facility for women; and one state that has expanded the needs assessment to

include gender-responsive needs for both men and women.

In none of the states were gender-responsive needs tapped through a test or

inventory of a specific need, such as trauma. Although 17 agencies report using

classification systems to guide housing assignments, none reported using genderresponsive systems. 

Innovative Practices Currently in Use

The assessment revealed that 14 correctional agencies assess men and women differently. The nature of these differences is unique to each agency and there is no

standardized classification model that is perceived to fit the unique needs of

women offenders. Some states, in fact, have made changes that do not address the

issues and problems encountered in classifying and managing women offenders.

Only 11 states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) have actively sought to

address problems of overclassification, poor validity, and failure to consider genderresponsive needs.

Arizona. The Arizona Department of Corrections uses a Correctional Classification

Profile (CCP) to determine inmate risk and custody level and summarize needs.

Risk and need factors are distinct parts of the instrument and the two sets of factors

are integrated only to the extent that risk factors constrain programming indicated

by needs. The CCP was purchased from Correctional Services Group, Inc., a private firm based in Kansas City, Missouri. Factors are scored somewhat differently

for men and women. For example, escape history is positively related to determined

custody level for both men and women. But escape from a secure facility during the

past 3 years is coded the same for men (with 5 points) as escape during the past 2

years is for women. That is, the agency examines a greater expanse of time for men

offenders. While this is a relatively minor change, it acknowledges women’s shorter sentences and perhaps the lesser severity of most escapes committed by women.

Idaho. The Idaho Department of Correction is one of only four state correctional

agencies that assesses women’s custody levels using an instrument uniquely

designed for women. This instrument was developed in 1993 with NIC consultants.

Before 1993, men and women had been classified using the same assessment form.

The men’s system, however, was believed to be overclassifying women. Idaho has

also developed a gender-responsive needs assessment tool. The systems have

recently been revalidated.

Illinois. For the Illinois Department of Corrections, scored security point values are

slightly different for men and women because more minimum security beds are

available to women. Minimum security is achieved by a wider score interval for

women (zero to three), than for men (zero to two). Medium security is achieved by

four to five points for women and three to five points for men. Maximum security

scoring is the same for both sexes.

17

Findings
Massachusetts. Before 1994, the Massachusetts Department of Correction used a

narrative-type classification summary to determine appropriate inmate security

levels. The same summary was used for men and women. The Objective PointBased Classification Form for men was developed in 1994 and implemented in

1997. A form developed and validated for women offenders was implemented in

1998. A recent revalidation study of the classification form for women suggested

that its validity may be compromised by staff reaction to the variables contained

on the form. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of faith in the variables, which

can result in the form being inaccurately or unreliably completed, and the criticism

that too few dynamic variables relative to static variables are on the form, resulting in little opportunity for one’s custody level to change. 

Michigan. Faced with a lawsuit (Cain v. Michigan Department of Corrections)

alleging overclassification of women, the Michigan Department of Corrections

revised its security classification screen as of March 31, 2000. It made changes

relating to custody cutoff scores and weights on specific variables. Women, for

example, receive more points for positive conduct than men. Women’s security

levels are downgraded due to the revision.

New York. The security classification guidelines for women are similar to those for

men, except for the inclusion of an “isolated personal violence factor.” That factor

is a single violent act—either the instant offense or a past offense—that arose from

an abusive personal relationship. If a woman’s criminal history includes this sort of

isolated violence, a point is subtracted from the risk score. It is believed that, on that

basis, the individual poses less risk to the public. No such factor is included on the

men’s instrument, although classification administrators are not opposed to adding

one in the future. In addition to the isolated personal violence factor, the men’s and

women’s security classification guideline forms (both initial and reclassification)

are scored differently. The cutoff scores were developed in such a way that women’s

custody levels are reduced relative to those of men. 

Pennsylvania. As in Arizona, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections uses an

aggregated tool, the Pennsylvania Additive Classification Tool (PACT), which

encompasses risk/initial classification and needs assessment. These assessments are

not integrated. Reclassification (of risk) is included in PACT as well. All three PACT

assessments are identical for men and women. Interestingly, criteria used to score

risk/classification and reclassification were gender-differentiated until 1996. A validation study conducted in that year suggested that women were being overclassified.

In response, the scoring criteria were made consistent for men and women. 

Virginia. Different security levels are available to men and women under the jurisdiction of the Virginia Department of Corrections. Men are classified across six

security levels; women are classified across three. As a result, the same risk assessment forms are scored differently for men and women. Women who score 14 points

or higher—which would distinguish men as levels 3, 4, 5, or 6—are classified as

level 3 only. 

18

Chapter 4
West Virginia. The West Virginia Division of Corrections assesses men and women

identically. Two consecutive assessments take place for all inmates, using the same

forms. These classifications, which influence custody level and risk assessment,

determine whether an inmate may transfer to a less secure facility within the same

custody level. What distinguishes women from men is that the custody level (hence

classification) does not generally influence placement at one of two facilities for

women. The exception is level 5 (maximum security) women, who are placed at the

more secure Ohio County Correctional Complex. Women classified at levels 1

through 4 may be placed at either facility. 

Wyoming. The Wyoming Department of Corrections is unique in that needs assessment, but not custody assessment, is gender specific. A recent study revealed that

Wyoming’s custody classification instrument is valid for both men and women. By

contrast, an Assessment of Inmate Needs was developed solely for women offenders. It scores levels of needs in health, intellectual ability, behavioral/emotional

problems, substance abuse, education, work experience, motivation to change, sexual abuse history, domestic life, and life skills. The data for this assessment are

culled from a psychosocial interview.

Federal Bureau of Prisons. BOP uses the Inmate Load and Security Designation

Form to assess inmates’ initial custody level and the Custody Classification Form

to conduct its periodic (at 6 or 12 months, depending on release date) reclassification. The form is identical for men and women but the scoring criteria differ, with

the overall effect being to downgrade women’s custody levels relative to men’s. In

this way, women in the highest custody category evidence infraction rates that are

more similar to the rate for men.

Innovative Practices Currently Under Consideration

Some states participating in the NIC cooperative agreements are evaluating

changes to their classification models. These changes are being studied and will

not be recommended for implementation until they have been validated and found

to be effective.

Change to Specific Variables

Focus group discussions with staff and women offenders have named specific variables included in current custody classification systems as having contributed to the

overclassification of women offenders. There is a pattern and a consensus to these

discussions. The same variables (discussed below) are held to be problematic across

focus groups.

Seriousness of the current offense and women who killed an abuser. The

majority of women who commit a one-time offense in response to a sustained period of abuse are not seen as violent by women offenders or staff. Yet, in most current classification models, “seriousness of the current offense” is the mainstay of

19

Findings
On many systems,

women who have

been engaged in 

full-time parenting

are scored as unemployed, thereby inflating their custody

score when parenting

may suggest stability.

the system. It is a heavily weighted variable that can keep offenders convicted of

homicide in high-custody settings for extended periods. Support is growing for

adoption of a policy similar to New York’s, where points are subtracted from the

variable if the offender committed a violent offense against an abuser. 

Variables expanded to include options pertinent to women. Overclassification

sometimes occurs because such key variables as employment and escape history do

not proffer attributes that speak to women’s lives. On many systems, women who

have been engaged in full-time parenting are scored as unemployed, thereby inflating their custody score when parenting may suggest stability. Another example

involves women’s escapes. Fewer women than men escape a secure perimeter.

However, women are perceived to be more likely than men to walk away from a

community residential setting to visit children, family, or friends. In some states,

many higher custody offenders are women who walked away, returned, and

received additional points on the heavily weighted escape variables. Walking away

was counted again on another variable pertaining to disciplinary infractions.

Differentiating according to type of escape should correct this problem.

Timeframes on reclassification variables. Prison misconduct drives up reclassification scores in most states. In many cases, the misconduct drops from the reclassification score after 2 or 3 years. For the many women who serve short sentences,

misconduct inflates reclassification scores and there is no time to reduce them. In

effect, misconduct is a static variable for most women and a dynamic variable for

most men in prison. Altering timeframes for assessment of misconduct can help

correct this discrepancy.

Staff training. Staff often view women as more difficult to supervise than men,

reacting to women’s different ways of problem solving, relating to staff, and doing

time. Women in prison ask more questions, question authority, want to discuss

things, and challenge decisions. Staff who are inexperienced with these differences

become irritated and more likely to write up the inmates in an effort to better control their behavior. At the same time, smaller facilities can create a situation in

which behavior is more easily noticed and more likely to result in a write up. Both

staff and inmates reported situations in which custody scores were driven up by

rather minor misconduct reports. Staff training and changes to disciplinary variables and policies could help to reduce this problem.

Gender-responsive needs. The literature and focus groups concur that women

offenders represent a more troubled group than male offenders. Rates of mental illness, relationship issues, physical abuse, and sexual abuse far surpass those for men

(e.g., see Belknap, Dunn, and Holsinger, 1997; Dembo et. al, 1992; Holsinger,

1999; Miller et al., 1995; Morash, Bynum, and Koons, 1998). It is essential that

women’s needs assessments adequately capture needs that are unique to them. Key

to this effort is the inclusion of items that identify problems that cannot always be

identified through central files or intake interviews. Nonetheless, agencies could

also consider incorporating these items into the custody classification model if

20

Chapter 4
doing so improves the validity of the custody classification and if high custody on

the classification system translates into a medium security facility or one in which

intensive mental health, substance abuse, and other services are provided. 

Use of Community Risk Assessment Instruments Rather Than

Custody Classification Instruments

What sense is to be made of those states that administer and score custody classification systems and then do not use the systems? One such state reported that,

although it did not use custody scores to facilitate housing assignments, it differentiated between inmates who would not be allowed to leave the perimeter and those

who could safely be placed in community settings. Such decisions are related to

public safety and community risk, rather than to institutional risk. Additionally,

actual time served by most women in this state was less than one year, in which case

an agency might be better served by a community correctional risk assessment

instrument. A community risk instrument would be more relevant to concerns surrounding an offender’s risk while in the community. Some have also been shown to

predict institutional infractions (Bonta, 1989; Bonta and Motiuk, 1992).

21

Findings

Most states continue

to use identical systems for men and

women, and most

states have no empirical basis for knowing

whether the system

is offering accurate

classifications of

women offenders.

At the outset of this report, three areas of concern regarding the classification of

women offenders were outlined. First, many systems appear to overclassify

women by housing them in unjustifiably high security-level facilities. Second, few

current classification systems were developed with women in mind and many may

not fit the primary goals set for women offenders. It is not at all unusual to hear,

for example, that the current generation of classification systems for women does

very little to facilitate meaningful programming. Third, systems may be invalid or

inaccurate for women. Unfortunately, most have not been validated on samples of

women offenders.

In sum, our survey and our focus groups paint a picture of little change since Burke

and Adams (1991) conducted a similar survey 9 years ago. Most states continue to

use identical systems for men and women, and most states have no empirical basis

for knowing whether the system is offering accurate classifications of women

offenders. Almost all of the respondents claim that women’s needs are different

from men’s needs, but only eight agencies have incorporated these differences into

needs assessments. The number of states making improvements has not changed

significantly since the earlier survey. In fact, two states that had unique classification systems for women have changed back to a system that is uniform for men and

women. Validation studies did direct a few states to make changes that improved

classification of women offenders. Some established different cutoff scores, which

help to ensure that men and women at the same custody levels are more similar than

not.25 Other states have broadened attributes of key classification variables, thus

increasing the validity of the system for women offenders.

Just the same, few states have designed systems that started with women in mind.

Most map existing male-based assumptions regarding the goals and purposes of

corrections onto women and the systems that classify them. The gaps are apparent.

For example, what sense is to be made of the fact that most states do not use the

notion of custody in the same way with women as they do with men? Many states

do not base housing decisions on custody. Many respondents do not consider

women to be as dangerous as men, and a common observation of focus groups participants is that women with high custody scores are not more dangerous than

women with low custody scores. The notion of custody often does not carry over to

prison architecture. Many women’s maximum security facilities do not look like

maximum security facilities for men. It is hard to avoid the observation that in practices involving women offenders, custody and risk seems a very confused concept.

Discussion

Chapter five

23
If we started with women, we might expect to see classification systems that

focused more attention on factors that seem key to women’s reintegration: their

children, relationships, abuse, earlier trauma, mental illness, and job skills. We

found only a few isolated attempts to move in this direction.

24

Chapter 5
25

Notes

1. The number of women incarcerated in America has increased at a faster rate than

for men for the past several years. Since 1990, the annual rate of growth for incarcerated women has averaged 8.5 percent, as opposed to 6.6 percent for men. Even

so, the proportion of women incarcerated (57 per 100,000) remains much lower than

the proportion of men incarcerated (885 per 100,000) (Mumola and Beck, 1997).

2. These cooperative agreements are administered by Patricia Van Voorhis at the

University of Cincinnati and Patricia Hardyman at the Institute on Crime, Justice,

and Corrections at The George Washington University.

3. We differentiate objective, actuarial classification systems from subjective

approaches involving clinical judgment of correctional practitioners. As with other

areas of human assessment, objective approaches have been found to be more valid and

reliable measures of human behavior (e.g., see Gottfredson, 1987; Meehl, 1954).

4. The most recent generation of correctional classification systems perform both

functions (Bonta, 1996).

5. The earlier 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, assaultive

behavior, and age). Later NIC versions added more dynamic variables (e.g., education, employment, and performance in treatment programs). 

6. This survey found 39 states using the same classification system for both men

and women.

7. This was a memo submitted to the authors on December 5, 1995. The study

found that 60 percent of Ohio’s female inmates had no reports for any kind of disciplinary infractions.

8. This study found that 60 percent of women incarcerated in New York State had

no disciplinary reports; only 33 percent of the incarcerated men had no reports.

Moreover, the offenses committed by women were less serious than those committed by men (Alexander and Humphrey, 1988).

9. This discrepancy across studies may also be attributable to the use of official

prison data (e.g., disciplinary infractions, tickets, etc.) as a measure of the types

of behaviors we wish to prevent. Such measures are known to be affected by official policies regarding disciplinary infractions, the visibility of such infractions,

staff initiative, and other organizational considerations (Light, 1990; Tischler and

Marquart, 1989; Hewitt, Poole, and Regoli, 1984; Van Voorhis, 1994). In a sample

of female prison inmates in England, for example, Dobash, and Gutteridge (1986)

found that women were more readily cited for infractions than men. In addition,

Van Voorhis’s study of 390 federal prison inmates reports that the choice of criterion measure (e.g., self-report, official disciplinary reports, and staff observational
measures) greatly altered estimates of the level of disciplinary involvement (Van

Voorhis, 1994). In addition, the importance of the predictors of disciplinary infractions (the classification variables themselves) vary somewhat according to the type

of behavioral outcome measure used.

10. A study by Bonta, Pang, and Wallace-Capretta (1995) questions the role of

abuse as a predictor of future offending.

11. As noted by Tischler and Marquart (1989), women’s aggression in prison settings often involves acts committed against other inmates, whereas male inmates

are more likely to attack prison staff. Historically, research on violence among

incarcerated women emphasized homosexuality and pseudofamilies (e.g., see Ward

and Kasselbaum, 1965; Giallombardo, 1966; Bowker, 1981). More recent research

suggests that violence associated with relationship-based jealousy varies tremendously across institutional environments (Propper, 1981).

12. Low base rate refers to a rate of occurrence that is typically below 10 percent.

13. The preference for such instruments may reflect the desire for data more easily

obtained from prison records and management information systems, rather than

less accessible data obtained from interviews or paper-and-pencil tests.

14. Burke and Adams (1991) attach a legal analysis conducted by Nicholas and

Loeb (1991) that effectively dispels these concerns.

15. In other words, criminogenic needs are offender characteristics that should be

targeted for interventions, are predictors of criminal behavior, and are likely to

reduce future offending behavior if they are successfully addressed (Andrews

and Bonta, 1998). Of course, there may be noncriminogenic needs that should be

addressed for a variety of additional reasons (e.g., housing and health), but addressing the latter does not reduce future offending (Van Voorhis, Cullen, and Applegate,

1995).

16. See Miller, et al. (1995). Such abuse and neglect also appears to start at an earlier age and to last longer for girls.

17. If the state had not instituted procedures to accommodate women offenders, for

example, many assessment questions would be inapplicable. Also, sections on classification for responsiveness or housing assignments were unnecessary unless the

state actually reported using such systems.

18. A classification system loses predictive validity once the proportion of overrides

surpasses 15 percent. The higher the proportion of overrides, the closer classification comes to being subjective and discretionary, the override is essentially a discretionary decision.

26

Notes
19. This question was added after beginning the assessments; we had already conducted 14 interviews. The question was added because respondents in the earlier

interviews and focus groups had raised the issue spontaneously. Although it seemed

like a relevant question to add to subsequent interviews, we did not wish to further

inconvenience earlier respondents by recontacting them.

20. This too is growing. In 1990, women composed 5.7 percent of all incarcerated

adults. By 1998, they constituted 6.5 percent of all incarcerates (Beck and Mumola,

1999).

21. In contrast, many community correctional classification agencies are moving to

a dynamic risk instrument that combines dynamic criminogenic needs (as predictors) with static risk factors (Van Voorhis, 2000).

22. This option does not solve all problems of this nature. If, for example, a validation study results in reducing the maximum security category to an extremely

small number of women offenders who have the same misconduct rates as a larger

group of maximum security males, the resulting women’s system would be far less

stable than the system for men. Predictive accuracy is likely to decrease in subsequent efforts to revalidate the women’s system. In practice, the women’s system is

likely to result in high numbers of false-positive classification.

23. Respondents may not have identified modifications to their classification systems as beneficial to women.

24. Respondents for two additional states did not know whether their systems had

been validated for either men or women. 

25. With low base rates, changing cutoff scores often does not solve the problems.

Reflecting the inadequacy of statistical methods to predict small numbers, or outliers, a revalidation of the new cutoffs is likely to show the original problem. Very

few individuals in the high-risk group commit a predatory offense relative to those

who are held in anticipation of such an offense.

27

Classification of Women Offenders

29

Adams, L. and J. Henning. 1982. “Illinois Adult Classification System Design.” In

ACA (ed.) Classification As A Management Tool: Theories and Models for

Decision-Makers. College Park, MD: American Correctional Association.

Alexander, J. and J. Austin. 1992. Handbook for Evaluating Objective Prison

Classification Systems. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

Alexander, J. and E. Humphrey. 1988. Initial Security Classification Guidelines for

Females: Working Paper XVI. Albany, NY: New York State Department of

Correctional Services.

American Association of Correctional Psychologists (Standards Committee). 2000.

“Standards for Psychology Services in Jails, Prisons, 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, December.

Andrews, D. and J. Bonta. 1995. The Level of Supervision Inventory-Revised (LSI–R).

North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.

Andrews, D. and J. Bonta. 1998. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (2d ed.).

Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company.

Andrews, D., J. Bonta, and R. Hoge. 1990. “Classification for Effective Rehabilitation: Rediscovering Psychology.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17: 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., L. Chan, and W. Elms. 1993. Indiana Department of Corrections:

Women Classification Study. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and

Delinquency.

Baird, C., R. Prestine, and B. Klockziem. 1989. Revalidation of the Wisconsin

Probation/Parole Classification System. Madison, WI: National Council on Crime

and Delinquency.

Balthazar, M. and S. Cook. 1984. “An Analysis of the Factors Related to the Rate

of Violent Crimes Committed by Incarcerated Female Delinquents.” In S. Chaneles

(ed.), Gender Issues, Sex Offenses, and Criminal Justice: Current Trends. New

York, NY: Hayworth Press.

Beck, A. and C. Mumola. 1999. Prisoners in 1998. Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bulletin. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

References
Belknap, J. 1996. The Invisible Woman: Gender, Crime and Justice. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

Belknap, J., and K. Holsinger. 1998. “An Overview of Delinquent Girls: How

Theory and Practice Have Failed and the Need for Innovative Changes.” In R.

Zaplin (ed.), Female Crime and Delinquency: Critical Perspectives and Effective

Interventions. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishing, Inc.

Belknap, J., M. Dunn, and K. Holsinger. 1997. Moving Forward Juvenile Justice

and Youth-Serving Systems That Address the Distinct Experience of the Adolescent

Female: Gender-Spesific Services Work Group to the Governor. Columbus, OH:

Office of Criminal Justice Services.

Bohn, M. 1980. “Inmate Classification and the Reduction of Institution Violence.”

Corrections Today, 44(4): 8ff.

Bonta, J. 1989. “Native Inmates: Institutional Response, Risk, and Needs.”

Canadian Journal of Criminology, 31: 49–62.

Bonta, J. 1996. “Risk-needs Assessment and Treatment.” In A.T. Harland (ed.),

Choosing Correctional Options that Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating

the Supply. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bonta, J., and L. Motiuk. 1992. “Inmate Classification.” Journal of Criminal

Justice, 20: 343–353.

Bonta, J., B. Pang, and S. Wallace-Capretta. 1995. “Predictors of Recidivism

Among Incarcerated Female Offenders.” The Prison Journal, 75: 277–294.

Bowker, L. 1981. “Gender Differences in Prison Subcultures.” In L. Bowker (ed.)

Women and Crime in America. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Brennan, T. 1998. “Institutional Classification of Females: Problems and Some

Proposals for Reform.” In R. Zaplin (ed.), Female Crime and Delinquency: Critical

Perspectives and Effective Interventions. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishing, Inc.

Buchanan, R., K. Whitlow, and J. Austin. 1986. “National Evaluation of Objective

Prison Classification Systems: The Current State of the Art.” Crime and

Delinquency, 32: 272–290.

Burke, P. and L. Adams. 1991. Classification of Women Offenders In State

Correctional Facilities: A Handbook for Practitioners. Washington, DC: National

Institute of Corrections.

Chesney-Lind, M. 1997. The Female Offender: Girls, Women, and Crime.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

30

References
Chesney-Lind, M. and R. Shelden. 1992. Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice.

Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Clear, S. 1988. “Statistical Prediction in Corrections.” Research in Corrections, 1:

1–39.

Covington, S. 1998. “The Relational Theory of Women’s Psychological

Development: Implications for the Criminal Justice System.” In R. Zaplin (ed.),

Female Crime and Delinquency: Critical Perspectives and Effective Interventions.

Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishing, Inc.

Covington, S., and B. Bloom. 1999. “Gender-Responsive Programming and

Evaluation for Females in the Criminal Justice System: A Shift from What Works?

to What is the Work?” Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the American

Society of Criminology. November 17–20. Toronto, Canada.

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., R. 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: National Institute of Corrections.

Giallombardo, R. 1966. Society of Women: A Study of a Women’s Prison. New York,

NY: Wiley.

Gilliard, D. and A. Beck. 1998. Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 1997.

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Gilligan, C. 1993. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s

Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gottfredson, D. 1987. “Prediction: An Overview of Selected Methodological

Issues.” In Gottfredson, D. and M. Tonry (eds.) Prediction and Classification:

Criminal Justice Decision Making. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Hardyman, P. 1999. Wyoming Department of Corrections Prison Objective

Classification System: Final Report on 1999 Revalidation Effort. Washington, DC:

Institute on Crime, Justice, and Corrections.

31

Classification of Women Offenders
Hewitt, J., E. Poole, and R. Regoli. 1984. “Self-reported and Observed Rule

Breaking in Prison: A Look at Disciplinary Response.” Justice Quarterly, 1:

437–447.

Hoffman, P. 1994. “Twenty Years of Operational Use of a Risk Prediction

Instrument: The United States Parole Commission’s Salient Factor Score.” Journal

of Criminal Justice, 22: 477–494.

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.

Jesness, C. 1996. The Jesness Inventory Manual. North Tonawanda, NY: MultiHealth Systems.

Kline, S. 1992. “Profile of Female Offenders in the Federal Bureau of Prisons.”

Federal Prisons Journal, 3(1): 33–36.

Kruttschnitt, C. and S. Krmpotich. 1990. “Aggressive Behavior Among Female

Inmates: An Exploratory Study.” Justice Quarterly, 7(2): 371–389.

Levinson, R. 1988. “Development in the Classification Process.” Criminal Justice

and Behavior, 15: 24–38.

Light, S. 1990. “Measurement Error in Official Statistics: Prison Rule Infraction

Data.” Federal Probation, 54(4): 63–68.

LIS, Inc. 1998. Current Issues in the Operation of Women’s Prisons. Boulder, CO:

National Institute of Corrections.

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.

Maxfield, M. and E. Babbie. 2000. Research Methods for Criminal Justice and

Criminology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

McClellan, D., D. Farabee, and B. Crouch. 1997. “Early Victimization, Drug Use,

and Criminality.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24: 455–476.

Meehl, P. 1954. Clinical v. Statistical Prediction. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc.

Megargee, E. 1997. “Using the Megargee MMPI-Based Classification System with

the MMPI-2s of Female Prison Inmates.” Psychological Assessments, 9(2): 75–82.

32

References
Megargee, E. and M. Bohn. 1979. Classifying Criminal Offenders: A New System

Based on the MMPI. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Megargee, E., S. Mercer, and J. Carbonell. 1999. “MMPI-2 with Male and Female

State and Federal Prison Inmates.” Psychological Assessments, 11(2): 177–185.

Miller, D., D. Trapani, K. Fejes-Mendoza, C. Eggleston, and R. Dwiggins. 1995.

“Adolescent Female Offenders: Unique Considerations.” Adolescence, 30:

429–435.

Morash, M., T. Bynum, and B. Koons. 1998. Women Offenders: Programming

Needs and Promising Approaches. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Mumola, C. and A. Beck. 1997. Prisoners in 1996: Bulletin. Washington, DC:

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Nicholas, S. and A. Loeb. 1991. Legal Analysis. In Burke, P. and I. Adams (eds.).

Classification of Women Offenders in State Correctional Facilities: A Handbook for

Practitioners. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

Owen, B. 1998. In the Mix: Struggle and Survival in a Women’s Prison. Albany,

NY: SUNY Press.

Pollock-Byrne, J. 1990. Women, Prisons, and Crime. Pacific Grove, CA:

Brooks/Cole.

Propper, A. 1981. Prison Homosexuality—Myth and Reality. Lexington, MA: DC

Heath.

Quay, H. and C. Love. 1989. Behavioral Classification for Female Offenders.

Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

Quay, H. 1983. Technical Manual for the Behavioral Classification System for

Adult Offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Rafter, N. 1990. Partial Justice: Women, Prison, and Social Control. New

Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Rivera, B. and C. Widom. 1990. “Childhood Victimization and Violent Offending.”

Violence and Victims 5(1): 19–35.

Ryan, T. 1994. Adult Female Offenders and the Institutional Programs: A State of

the Art Analysis. Washington, DC: Department of Corrections.

Simourd, D. and D. Andrews. 1994. “Correlates of Delinquency: A Look at Gender

Differences.” Forum on Corrections Research, 6: 26–31.

33

Classification of Women Offenders
Snell, T. 1994. Women in Prison. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

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: SUNY Press.

Van Voorhis, P. 2000. “An Overview of Offender Classification Systems.” In Van

Voorhis, P., M. Braswell, and D. Lester (eds.), Correctional Counseling and Rehabilitation, 2d edition. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Press.

Van Voorhis, P. and K. Brown. 1996. Risk Classification in the 1990s. Washington,

DC: National Institute of Corrections.

Van Voorhis, P., F. Cullen, and B. Applegate. 1995. “Evaluating Interventions With

Violent Offenders: A Guide for Practitioners and Policymakers.” Federal

Probation, 59: 17–28.

Wanberg, K. and H. Milkman. 1998. Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment: Strategies for Self-Improvement and Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ward, D. and G. Kasselbaum. 1965. Women’s Prisons: Sex and Social Structure,

Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Warren, M. and the Staff of the Community Treatment Project. 1966. Interpersonal

Maturity Level Classification: Diagnosis and Treatment of Low, Middle, and High

Maturity Delinquents. Sacramento, CA: California Youth Authority.

Weisheit, R. and S. Mahan. 1988. Women, Crime, and Criminal Justice. Cincinnati,

OH: Anderson.

Williams, T. 1981. “Sentencing Time in Corrections and Parole.” In FigueiraMcDonough, J., A. Inglehart, R. Sarri, and T. Williams (eds.), Women in Prison:

Michigan 1968-1978. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan School of Social

Work and the Institute for Social Research.

34

References
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 extend do you see the document as being useful in term of:

3. Do you believe that more should be done in this subject area? If so, please specify the types of 

assistance needed.____________________________________________________________________

4. In what ways could this document be improved? ________________________________________________

5. How did this document come to your attention? ____________________________________________

6. How are you planning to use the information contained in this document?__________________________

7. Please check one item that best describes your affiliation with corrections or criminal justice.

If a governmental program, please also indicate the level of government.

_____ Citizen group _____ Legislative body

_____ College/University _____ Parole

_____ Community corrections _____ Police

_____ Court _____ Probation

_____ Department of corrections or prison _____ Professional organization

_____ Jail _____ Other government agency

_____ Juvenile justice _____ Other (please specify)

8. Optional:

Name: ____________________________________________________________________________

Agency: ____________________________________________________________________________

Address: __________________________________________________________________________

Telephone:__________________________________________________________________________

Useful Of some use Not useful

Providing new or important information

Developing or implementing new programs

Modifying existing programs

Administering ongoing programs

Providing appropriate liaisons

Classification of Women Offenders:

A National Assessment of Current Practices
U.S. Department of Justice

National Institute of Corrections

Washington, DC 20534