Cross-disciplinary and external research should be undertaken to assist its development, to expand knowledge of women's pathways into, and out of, offending, and to take account of the knowledge and experience of staff and inmates in women's facilities, as well as external stakeholders. Its purpose was to assess critically the underlying assumptions and current practice of classification and assessment in federal women's prisons, and their implications for gender and diversity, and to contribute to the development of more gender-specific and culturally sensitive approaches. This has often resulted in systemic discrimination against minorities both within and on release from prison. They claim to be more objective, efficient and effective than earlier methods relying on clinical judgment and subjective assessment. No viable gender-specific and culturally sensitive method of security classification or risk assessment was found in practice.
None appear to consider ethno-cultural diversity adequately.
The rapidly growing body of literature on gender and diversity underlines the considerable differences among correctional populations, which have not been taken into account in classification and assessment. The federal female population is much smaller than the male population, less criminally involved, and more heterogeneous. Aboriginal women and those with mental health concerns are particularly likely to be classified maximum security. Subsequently, CSC attempted to validate the male-based tools on women but without much success and, in general, this work ignores the literature on gender and diversity differences. Visits and on-site interviews found that the classification process in women's institutions has been subject to constant changes, including personnel responsible for security classification and assessment, and the tools used.