Development and Field Test of a Gender-Informed Security Reclassification Scale for Female Offenders

Two samples of Canadian federal female offender case files are used to develop and test a gender-informed security reclassification scale. Study 1 uses 285 consecutive offender security level (OSL) reviews for federally sentenced women to empirically construct the Security Reclassification Scale for Women (SRSW). Study 2 uses all federal female OSL reviews that occurred between July 2000 and June 2003 (n = 580) to test the validity and reliability of the SRSW. Results suggest that the SRSW is a reliable and valid tool for the security classification of federally sentenced women in Canada. Relative to the current classification method, the SRSW places fewer cases at maximum security and more cases at minimum security. Within a fixed 3-month follow-up, the SRSW is significantly more predictive of minor institutional misconduct than the structured clinical method currently in use. Results are discussed in terms of both theoretical and operational implications.

[1]  Eric Silver,et al.  A Cautionary Note on the Use of Actuarial Risk Assessment Tools for Social Control , 2002 .

[2]  P. Gendreau,et al.  A META‐ANALYSIS OF THE PREDICTORS OF ADULT OFFENDER RECIDIVISM: WHAT WORKS!* , 1996 .

[3]  E. L. Kelly.  Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and review of the evidence. , 1955 .

[4]  Lewis R. Goldberg,et al.  Methodological critiques. Seer over sign: The first "good" example? , 1968 .

[5]  D. A. Andrews,et al.  The level of service inventory – revised , 1995 .

[6]  K. Farr,et al.  Classification for Female Inmates: Moving Forward , 2000 .

[7]  Margaret Shaw,et al.  Taking risks: Incorporating gender and culture into the classification and assessment of federally sentenced women in Canada , 2001 .

[8]  Morris L. Thigpen.  Developing Gender-Specific Classification Systems for Women Offenders , 2004 .

[9]  J. L. Proctor.  Evaluating a Modified Version of the Federal Prison System's Inmate Classification Model , 1994 .

[10]  I. Zinger.  Actuarial Risk Assessment and Human Rights: A Commentary , 2004 .

[11]  James Austin.  Assessing the New Generation of Prison Classification Models , 1983 .

[12]  D. Polaschek,et al.  Sorting Women's Risk: New Zealand Women Prisoners' Misconducts and Internal Security Risk , 2003 .

[13]  M. Mount,et al.  Mmpi and Demographic Correlates and Predictors of Female Prison Escape , 1977 .

[14]  James Bonta,et al.  CLASSIFICATION TO HALFWAY HOUSES: A QUASI‐EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION * , 1990 .

[15]  J A Swets,et al.  Psychological Science Can Improve Diagnostic Decisions , 2000, Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society.

[16]  P. V. Voorhis,et al.  Classification of Women Offenders: A National Assessment of Current Practices , 2001 .

[17]  D. Herrmann.  Choosing Correctional Options That Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply. , 1997 .

[18]  James Bonta,et al.  Risk-needs assessment and treatment. , 1996 .

[19]  Antonio Andrés Pueyo,et al.  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT , 2008 .

[20]  Kelly Hannah-Moffat,et al.  Gender, Diversity And Risk Assessment In Canadian Corrections , 2000 .

[21]  James Bonta,et al.  The Diversion of Incarcerated Offenders to Correctional Halfway Houses , 1987 .

[22]  James Austin,et al.  Evaluating How Well Your Classification System is Operating: A Practical Approach , 1986 .

[23]  Mark E. Johnson,et al.  Predicting Inmate Penitentiary Adjustment , 1983 .

[24]  Neal P. Langan,et al.  Gender Differences in Predictors of Prison Violence: Assessing the Predictive Validity of a Risk Classification System , 2001 .

[25]  D. A. Andrews,et al.  Classification for Effective Rehabilitation , 1990 .

[26]  R. Dawes,et al.  Heuristics and Biases: Clinical versus Actuarial Judgment , 2002 .

[27]  L. Motiuk,et al.  Taking Down the Straw Man: A Reply to Webster and Doob , 2004 .

[28]  Alan T. Harland.  Choosing correctional options that work. Defining the demand and evaluation the supply. (Weber) , 1999 .

[29]  P. Meehl,et al.  Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical–statistical controversy. , 1996 .

[30]  Don A. Andrews,et al.  What Works for Female Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Review , 1999 .

[31]  Jack Alexander.  Classification Objectives and Practices , 1986 .

[32]  M. Marchese,et al.  Clinical versus actuarial prediction: a review of the literature. , 1992, Perceptual and motor skills.

[33]  Kelly Hannah-Moffat.  V. Gendering Risk at What Cost: Negotiations of Gender and Risk in Canadian Women’s Prisons , 2004 .

[34]  James Austin,et al.  National Evaluation of Objective Prison Classification Systems: The Current State of the Art , 1986 .

[35]  J. Hanley,et al.  A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. , 1983, Radiology.

[36]  Kenneth Fernandez,et al.  California's Inmate Classification System: Predicting Inmate Misconduct , 1998 .

[37]  W. Grove,et al.  Clinical versus mechanical prediction: a meta-analysis. , 2000, Psychological assessment.