Evaluating a Modified Version of the Federal Prison System's Inmate Classification Model

Abstract

This study evaluated the objective and predictive value of the Nebraska Department of Corrections' Inmate Classification Model, a variation of the Federal Prison System's Model. A sample of 458 male offenders was assessed on 11 predictor variables—5 classification variables and 6 demographic variables—and 5 institutional adjustment variables. The results indicated that the Nebraska model was making objective classification decisions based solely on the classification variables. However, the model was not a valid instrument for predicting the offenders' institutional adjustment problems. Age and education level—two variables not included in this model—emerged as the best predictors of adjustment. These findings suggest that the model's predictive value could be improved by incorporating valid predictor variables into the classification process.

Gender Differences in Predictors of Prison Violence: Assessing the Predictive Validity of a Risk Classification System

“…8. Education at admission, research finds, predicts prison misconduct and recidivism (Harer, 1994;Proctor, 1994). In addition, educational attainment is potentially a dynamic predictor, defined by Andrews and Bonta (1998) as an attribute both predicting future misconduct and potentially changeable in a positive way through appropriate prison programs.…”

Inmate Custody Levels and Prison Rule Violations

“…Correctional researchers have for years endeavored to explain inmate misconduct. As maintenance of a safe and orderly prison environment ranks near the top of correctional administrators' priority list (Cullen, Latessa, Burton, & Lombardo, 1993;Gendreau, Goggin, & Law, 1997), this line of research has made a significant mark, such as through the formulation and implementation of objective classification systems (e.g., Clements, 1996;Proctor, 1994). Most of this research has occurred at the individual level of analysis (see Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008, pp.…”

“…Whereas several researchers have examined the ability of objective classifications instruments to predict misconduct (examples include Alexander, 1986;Gottfredson, 1987;Monahan, 1981;Proctor, 1994), few have concerned themselves with the effects of varying custody levels on misconduct (Berecochea & Gibbs, 1991;Berk et al, 2003;Camp & Gaes, 2005;Cao et al, 1997;McCorkle, Miethe, & Kriss, 1995). Of those who have, each of their studies had a limitation that is relevant in the present context.…”

Investigating the Stigma of Prison Classification:An Experimental Design

“…Results indicate that there is no statistical difference between the experimental and control groups for disciplinary activity. These findings suggest that the classification label may be a determinant of behavior rather than a reflection of inmate characteristics.During the past three decades, objective classification systems have been widely touted as the foundation for the operation of the American prison system (Proctor, 1994). Prompted by rising prison populations and litigation that established the need for offenders to be classified into security and custody designations based on fair, objective criteria (Beard v.…”

“…During the past three decades, objective classification systems have been widely touted as the foundation for the operation of the American prison system (Proctor, 1994). Prompted by rising prison populations and litigation that established the need for offenders to be classified into security and custody designations based on fair, objective criteria (Beard v.…”