Inmate classification is a procedure in which incarcerated offenders are placed into varying custody levels based on a professional assessment. Each custody level is designed to match an individual offender’s needs with available correctional resources. Classification based on custody level assigns offenders to specific facilities and dictates the level of supervision and treatment they will receive. This article focuses on types of classification methods, the implementation of classification decisions, and potential barriers to classification.
Historically, inmates were segregated to prevent harm to themselves and others and to ensure the safety of facility staff. It was thought that full segregation of offenders would increase security and management and decrease the likelihood of recidivism. As the incarcerated population grew over time, segregation was no longer feasible. Inmates were housed together, often multiple offenders to a cell. The need for correctional facilities grew, and prison officials sought to find an effective solution to prison overcrowding. Prior to the 1870s, inmates were classified based on the offense they committed, keeping those who committed violent offenses from those who committed nonviolent offenses. This approach allowed correctional professionals to best determine the appropriate form of punishment for a given crime type. As the field of corrections evolved over time, so did inmate classification methods. Instead of classifying individuals based on offense type, offenders were classified based on their personal characteristics, then founded in clinical or treatment approaches.
Methods of classification are often based in fact: What is known about a given offender. For example, three variables often used to classify offenders are age, length of sentence, and job performance or employment. Age is often utilized in classification decisions as, empirically, younger inmates tend to have higher rates of disciplinary infractions than older inmates. Research has consistently shown a link between age and one’s involvement in criminal activity. In the 1980s, the length of one’s sentence was a leading consideration in the classification of offenders. It was believed, the longer one’s sentence, the greater the risk posed. One’s history of employment and current employment status are also considered. Empirically, inmates who are employed are less likely to incur a disciplinary infraction.
Still, other facilities have tried a quasi-token economy to classify inmates. In this setting, offenders are able to progress through a correctional system by achieving certain tasks. Tasks can range from education programs (i.e., obtaining one’s GED) or gaining a vocational certification (i.e., carpentry certificate). Token economies may not be ideal for serious or violent offenders as interactive programming may allow for additional opportunities to commit crime.
Classification comes from the idea that inmates are a heterogeneous subgroup. It is, thus, realistic to categorize them into meaningful subdivisions. Although criteria for classification varies by agency, inmate classification is one of the most significant post-sentencing decisions made, as it involves the consideration of safety, economics, and quality of life. It allows facilities to aggregate individuals into subgroups that share common attributes, characteristics, symptoms, or behaviors.
Initial classification occurs upon facility admission. When an inmate arrives at a correctional facility for intake and processing, the inmate is assessed as to the risk he or she poses to himself or herself, the other inmates, and facility staff. The risk to recidivate and one’s escape risk are also considered. Based on a battery of assessment tools, inmates are classified into a category, security level, or transferred to a different facility better able to suit their needs. Each assessment tool is conducted by a trained professional who works for the correctional facility. This individual uses standardized measures (discussed later in this article) to make an informed decision as to the classification of each individual offender.
Subjective and Objective Classification
James Austin provides two categories of inmate classification: subjective and objective. Subjective classification is based on the experience and judgment of an administrative professional. As the use of inmate classification grew in the 1980s, states utilized a subjective classification approach. Subjective classification involves the use of broadly defined criteria, analyzing inmate characteristics and the physical design of the facility. Because correctional officials made classification decisions across large populations, consistent classification was difficult and led to high rates of error. The use of subjective classification methods in large correctional facilities proved to be especially difficult as situational factors and staffing issues significantly contributed to variations in risk. Subjective classification can be overridden, however, occurring 5–15% of the time, as often, recommendations from one correctional professional vary to another.
Objective classification is a more formalized approach to categorizing offenders, and most correctional agencies have moved toward adopting this method. Originally intended for those under community supervision, objective classification stresses equity in decision-making and is conducted using a standardized form to assess the risk and need of the individual offender. Objective assessments provide recommendations for custody decisions and programming and are empirically shown to better facilitate treatment assignments. Austin recommends objective classification to include three principles. First, objective classification should be based upon a reliable and valid criterion. The utility of this criterion should be founded in empirical evidence and extensive research. Second, each classification evaluation should be conducted by a professional who has completed a specialized training program. Because this individual makes classification recommendations, he or she should maintain competency with annual refresher training. Finally, each classification decision should be documented and periodically reevaluated. Consistency can be achieved through the use of interrater reliability assessments. Having an individual or team of individuals serve as interraters whose purpose is to randomly select and review previous assessments will increase the reliability of the classification method. Furthermore, such a process allows for continuity and consistency across departments.
Classification Methods
Most correctional agencies have classification processes for inmates, and all 50 U.S. states have at least one form of a classification approach. Classification allows for treatment and programming recommendations, but it also allows facilities to house inmates based on security or safety risk. Sorting inmates by level of risk can benefit the entire facility, both operations and personnel. Classification methods are, ideally, constructed in a way that allows for the assessment of changes in dynamic factors: attitudes, behaviors, or status. Former classification methods were based on categories (e.g., military status, marital status, level of education) that proved to have very little use in predicting prison misconduct. Over time, these ideas were abandoned. Now, successful classification tools are extensive, allowing for the classification of offenders across attitudes, offense type, race, and gender.
Successful tools are written objectively, providing clear operational definitions to avoid ambiguity. Widely accepted assessment tools (leading to classification) have been tested to ensure reliability and generalizability across offense type. Such tools include both static and dynamic factors. Consider, for example, the Level of Service Inventory– Revised (LSI-R). The LSI-R is an actuarial risk assessment tool used for the classification of offenders in over 200 countries worldwide. The LSI-R is not offense-specific; thus, it can be used to assess risk for offenders who commit multiple crimes across offense types. The tool assesses risk via a structured interview between a trained correctional professional and the inmate. Based on the inmate’s responses, the correctional professional calculates a risk assessment score. The score is based on a 54-item survey answered by the professional corresponding to the interview responses of the offender. Both static (e.g., criminal history, number of times arrested) and dynamic factors (e.g., substance abuse, unemployment) are considered. The score, ranging from 0 to 54, places the offender in either minimum, medium, or maximum risk-level categories. This level of risk translates to the type of housing, treatment, (un)restricted access, earnable good time credit, and programming the offender will receive while incarcerated. Periodically, throughout the inmate’s incarceration, the inmate will be reassessed via the LSI-R. Based on subsequent reassessments, the classification level may increase, decrease, or stay the same.
Risk assessment tools, like the LSI-R, aiding in the classification of offenders are useful as they have the ability to assess multiple factors related to recidivism. Because no one risk factor is sufficiently related to recidivism that it can explain reoffending entirely on its own, these assessments allow for professionals to classify inmates to best ensure safety, the meeting of treatment needs, and appropriate referrals for programming and educational courses. Some risk assessment tools are offense-specific in that they were developed strictly for offenders who committed a particular crime (e.g., Static-99 for male sex offenders).
Risk assessment tools and classification methods are utilized in release decisions (i.e., probation and parole). Such data allow the parole board to make informed decisions based on the risk posed to the community as relative to the nature of the time one spent incarcerated. Classification while incarcerated can carry over into the community, further dictating the level of treatment, surveillance, and programming to be received. Although risk assessment tools that contribute to classification methodology have been validated on a wide range of populations, it is important to note that classification categories vary from state to state and at the federal level. States may adopt levels or categories to suit their specific offender population.
U.S. Federal Classification
While classification varies from state to state in the United States, it also varies from the state agencies to the U.S. federal system. The federal prison system (122 facilities) classifies offenders by security levels: minimum, low, medium, high, and administrative. Minimum federal facilities are dormitory-style buildings, allow access to work and program privileges, and have limited or no perimeter fences. These facilities are referred to as federal prison camps. Low federal facilities are dormitory style with doubled fences and a higher ratio of staff to inmates. Medium facilities have an even greater ratio of staff to inmates and are protected by doubled fences, internal control systems, and electronic detection. High security facilities, known as U.S. penitentiaries, have perimeter walls or reinforced fences, the highest ratio of staff to inmates, and exercise control over all inmate movement. Finally, administrative facilities serve a special purpose. These facilities house pretrial detainees, inmates with serious medical conditions, or inmates who pose an escape or violent risk. All but one federal administrative facility is capable of holding inmates of all security levels.
Overclassification
Classification of offenders is an important process to ensure the safety of offenders and staff and the routine operations of a correctional facility. However, given the large number of inmates in the United States, classification is difficult. Furthermore, continued classification efforts and reclassification create the potential for errors. Errors in classification tend to be false positives or overclassification. Overclassification is not only inefficient but also costly. It further contributes to overcrowding and increases in inmate-related issues, violence, and disturbances. Objective classification based on actuarial risk assessment tools can decrease these false positives.
References:
- Austin, J. (1998). Objective jail classification systems: A guide for jail administrators. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/014373.pdf
- Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L. L. (1992). Inmate classification. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 343–353.
- Clements, C. B. (1996). Offender classification: Two decades of progress. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23(1), 121–143. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.1177/0093854896023001009