Managing Inmate Populations

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections (NIC) released results of its seven-year study of internal inmate classification programs, a study undertaken to find ways in which inmate populations can be better managed within a facility. The results were surprising. Surprising because they showed that after working seven years with eight different states, researchers could not reach conclusive results or create a “best model.” But researchers say those are the results the survey should have reached because each management system needs to be tailored to the specific inmate population it serves. Unlike external management programs, there is no one program that works for all correctional departments.

Corrections officials hoping the study would yield results that they could use in the creation of or improvement to an internal inmate classification system will not be disappointed, however. Several key components necessary for implementing and tailoring an inmate classification system were identified and should be reviewed before developing and implementing a classification system.

The need for internal classification systems increased dramatically in recent years as inmate populations continued to swell and practices governing housing and programs, especially for inmates with extremely long sentences, became increasingly difficult. Internal classification systems are used to determine appropriate custody, housing, and programming within a facility-it influences intra-institutional placement. External classification is an objective system and is used to determine an inmates’ custody level-it influences inter-institutional placement.

As stated in the report, “For correctional officials to make informed decisions, a second layer of prison classification-internal classification-is now required. The widespread use of double-celling in high-security units and the expanded use of dormitories for low- to medium-security inmates have triggered the need for a systematic process for assigning inmates to beds or cells.”

The Study

The study was funded by the NIC, which recognized a need to develop and refine internal classification systems to promote better inmate management. Working with the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) and The Institute on Crime, Justice, and Corrections (ICJC), the organizations spent seven years pilot-testing different programs at facilities in eight states: Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Missouri, New Jersey, Oregon, South Dakota, and Washington.

In addition to looking for correctional systems of varying inmate population sizes, types, and geographic locations, researchers selected the eight states based on “the sophistication of their external prison classification systems, the operation of automated inmate tracking systems, a strong commitment from system and facility administrators, the appointment of a working steering committee to move the project forward, and the clarity with which states could identify problems to be targeted by the internal classification systems.”

Standards and Guidelines: The primary objective of the internal prison classification system is to match inmates with institutional level housing, program, and work assignments; these provisions should be consistent with the inmate’s external classification designation. The internal prison classification system should encourage the classification of inmates in the least restrictive housing and custody levels within a facility. Internal classification systems should complement existing external classification systems. Consequently, they should not be developed until the department has a properly functioning external prison classification system. The internal classification system must have a clearly defined set of measurable goals and objectives prior to implementation. There must be a formal set of written procedures and policies governing the internal classification process. In particular, these policies should include a very structured administrative process and clear operational definitions on how the system will be used to make housing and program/work assignments. The classification process must provide for the collection, automation, and distribution of complete, high-quality, verified data to ensure inmates are housed and programmed according to the internal system. Instruments used in the internal classification system must be objective, reliable, and valid. They should also be designed to be fully automated and easy for staff to use. Internal classification systems must allow for the use of overrides (both discretionary and non-discretionary). As a rule, the discretionary override rate should be in the five to 15 percentage range among internal classification decisions occurring in a given year. Internal classification systems must include policies and procedures for screening and evaluating prisoners who are management problems and those who have special needs. In particular, criteria and procedures for assigning inmates to administrative segregation, disciplinary segregation, protective custody, mental health, and medical health care units must be part of the system. There must be provisions to involve the inmate in the internal classification process; the inmate should have input into the classification process (without compromising security) and should receive a copy of his/her internal and external classification assessments. There must be provisions for a systematic review of the internal classification decisions by supervisory staff. The internal classification system should be reviewed annually and formally evaluated every three years. Internal classification procedures must be consistent with constitutional requisites. Administration and line staff must be involved in the design and implementation of a classification system and a pilot test of the preliminary system must be conducted prior to implementation.

While some internal classification systems have been around for years, prison systems have only recently experienced increased pressure to improve their methods of classifying inmates based on custody, work, and programming needs. As the report states, “Fueled by litigation and overcrowding, classification systems are viewed as the principal management tool for allocating scarce prison resources efficiently and minimizing the potential for violence or escape. In other words, a properly functioning classification system is seen as the ‘brain’ of prison management, which governs many important decisions, including those that heavily influence such fiscal matters as staffing, bed space, and programming.”

One of the older internal classification programs is the Adult Internal Management System (AIMS), which was developed more than 20 years ago and based on personality typology. It is designed to reduce predatory behavior by identifying predators and separating them from vulnerable inmates.

Another system frequently used is the Prisoner Management Classification System (PMC). This system, also called Client Management Classification (CMC), helps identify potential predators and victims, as well as inmates who require special programs or supervision. The system has shown to be useful, but requires significant staff training for inmate assessment, supervision, and interaction, according to the report.

A third type of classification is Adult Internal Classification System (AICS), a behavior-based program that evaluates inmates according to past actions, as reflected by disciplinary records and work performance. Historical assessments are used to determine an inmate’s likelihood of aggression and classification is largely determined by the severity and frequency of disciplinary conduct and gang-related activities. The ability to reevaluate the change in risk level over time is one of a behavior-based system’s key strengths.

Step-By-Step Process: Obtain a formal commitment from the central office Designate a strong project manager and establish a working steering committee Identify stakeholders and include them in the process Define problems to be addressed and set realistic and measurable objectives Select the type of internal classification system to be adopted Select the pilot site Analyze current housing, work, and program assignment procedures Conduct a facility program and work assignment inventory Conduct a facility housing and bed inventory Develop a prototype instrument and policy manual Pilot-test policies and instruments Develop a full implementation plan Monitor and evaluate the system

Each state involved in the study implemented a variation of one of the three methods. Each encountered its share of obstacles and successes in creating and operating their programs, but as stated in the beginning, there was no model or variation that clearly showed it would work for each of the correctional departments and institutions.

Results

While no definitive conclusions were reached by the end of the study, researchers did identify several components necessary for creating, implementing, and managing inmate classification systems. That information is shown in the two lists above.

The first list includes broad standards and guidelines identified by researchers as applicable to the creation and implementation of all internal classification systems.

The second list is based on the experience of the eight states and shows a step-by-step process to be followed before, during, and after implementing a classification program. The items on this second list were identified by reviewing obstacles the states encountered over the course of the seven-year study.

Additionally, the study revealed that, when in the process of following the above mentioned standards and steps, it is important to keep in mind the following:

• Be prepared to devote more time and money than you think will be required. When undertaking this project, have a specific set of goals and have money lined up.
• Have adequate resources and be proactive. Work when conditions are best; overcrowding and understaffed conditions can delay/offset any initiative.
• Keep it simple. Few facilities have the computer acumen and equipment necessary to implement and operate an overly sophisticated management system. If it’s too complicated, it won’t be used.

Click here for a copy of the complete report: Internal Prison Classification Systems, Case Studies in Their Development and Implementation.