NCJ Number
124574
Date Published
1986
Length
131 pages
Annotation
In 1985, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) received funding from the San Francisco Foundation to conduct a study of the California Department of Corrections (CDC) prisoner classification system.
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to determine how well the current system was operating statewide and at San Quentin in particular. The system was implemented to provide greater equity by minimizing the extent of arbitrary and capricious classification practices as well as reducing institutional violence and escapes. Critics of the current objective-based classification system argue that the assignment of inmates to security levels is aggravating the problems of an already troubled prison system. Proponents of the present system assert that it represents a step forward and that modest improvements will further the State's capacity to manage a dangerously overcrowded prison system until additional bedspace can be constructed. The NCCD study identifies other positive and negative attributes of the present classification system. On the positive side, the system is objective, and consequently more consistent and fair. Further, the system provides some behavior modification in its method of scoring both positive and negative behaviors, and the overall system is well managed and monitored by CDC. On the negative side, there is a tendency to "overclassify" inmates, assigning them to a higher level of security than their potential for violence or escape would warrant. This phenomenon contributes to the inmates' perception that the system is unfair and too negatively oriented. Staff was concerned about the lack of flexibility in the system and would like their professional assessment to also be considered. Finally, staff felt that the categories used to determine points for major disciplinary problems were too vague and open for varied and inconsistent interpretation across institutions and counseling personnel. The report ends with a series of general and specific recommendations for policy consideration. 12 references, 9 charts, 5 tables.