Advertisement

Prison Classification

The Management and Psychological Perspectives
  • Doris Layton MacKenzie
Part of the Law, Society and Policy book series (LSPO, volume 4)

Abstract

The recent change in correctional theory and practice has been argued to represent a revolutionary-type paradigm shift (Kuhn, 1962; MacKenzie, Posey, and Rapaport, 1988). As has happened in all areas of corrections, this philosophical change has had an impact on correctional classification. Historically, prison classification has moved from merely separating types of offenders to complex, empirically derived systems focusing on a variety of issues.1 Risk predictions, needs assessments, etiologies of criminal behavior, and optimizing treatment are just some of the goals of recently developed classification systems. This diversity in the goals of prison classification may be indicative of the paradigm shift.

Keywords

Classification System Criminal Behavior Objective System Psychological Perspective Prison System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander, J. Classification objectives and practices. Crime and Delinquency, 1986, 32, 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Correctional Association. Female classification: An examination of the issues. College Park, MD: American Correctional Association.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, J. Assessing the new generation of prison classification models. Crune and Delinquency, 1983, 29, 561–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin, J. Evaluating how well your classification system is operating: A practical approach. Crime and Delinquency, 1986, 32, 302–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baird, C. S., and Austin, J. Current state-of-the-art in prison classification models: A literature review for the California Department of Corrections. San Francisco, CA: NCCD, 1985.Google Scholar
  6. Bohn, M. J., Jr. Management classification for young adult inmates. Federal Probation, 1979, 43, 53–59.Google Scholar
  7. Brennan, T. Classification for control in jails and prisons. In D. M. Gottfredson and M. Tonry (Eds.), Prediction and classification: Criminal justice decision making. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987a.Google Scholar
  8. Brennan, T. Classification: An overview of selected methodological issues. In D. M. Gottfredson and M. Tonry (Eds.), Prediction and classification: Criminal justice decision making. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987b.Google Scholar
  9. Buchanan, R. Evaluation of model prison classifications. Kansas City, MO: Correctional Service Group, 1986.Google Scholar
  10. Buchanan, R. A., and Irion, J. G. The correctional classification profile. Paper presented at the 113th Annual Congress of Correction of the American Correctional Association, 1983.Google Scholar
  11. Buchanan, R., and MacKenzie, D. L. An evaluation of classification in the Louisiana Department of Corrections. Report to the Louisiana Department of Corrections, 1987.Google Scholar
  12. Buchanan, R. A., Whitlow, K. L., and Austin, J. National evaluation of objective prison classification systems: The current state-of-the-art. Crime and Delinquency, 1986, 32, 272–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carey, R. J., and Garske, J. P., and Ginsberg, J. The prediction of adjustment to prison by means of an MMPI-based classification. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1986, 13, 347–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chapman, W., and Alexander, J. Adjustment to prison: A review of inmate characteristics associated with misconduct, victimization and self-injury in confinement. Albany: New York State Department of Correctional Services, 1981.Google Scholar
  15. Clear, T. R., and Cole, G. F. American corrections. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1986.Google Scholar
  16. Clements, C. B. The future of offender classification: Some cautions and prospects. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1981, 8, 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clements, C. B. The relationship of offender classification to the problems of prison overcrowding. Crime and Delinquency, 1982, 28 72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clements, C. B. Towards an objective approach to offender classification. Law and Psychology Review, 1985, 9, 45–55.Google Scholar
  19. Clements, C. B. Offender needs assessment. College Park, MD: American Correctional Association, 1986.Google Scholar
  20. Cullen, F. T., and Gilbert, K. E. Reaffirming rehabilitation. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co, 1985.Google Scholar
  21. Flynn, E. E. Classification systems: Community and institutional. In L. J. Hippchen (Ed.), Holistic approaches to offender rehabilitation, Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1982.Google Scholar
  22. Fox, V. B. Introduction to corrections. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972.Google Scholar
  23. Fox, V. B. History of offender classification. In L. J. Hippchen (Ed.), Holistic approaches to offender rehabilitation. Springfield, 1L: Charles C Thomas, 1982.Google Scholar
  24. Gendreau, P., and Ross, R. Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s. Justice Quarterly, 1987, 4, 349–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gibbons, D. C. Some critical observations on criminal types and criminal careers. Criminal Justice Behavior, 1988, 15, 8–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glaser, D. Classification for risk. In D. J. Gottfredson and M. Tonry (Eds.), Prediction and classification: Criminal justice decision making. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  27. Gottfredson, S. D., and Gottfredson, D. M. The accuracy of prediction models. In A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, J. A. Roth, and C. A. Visher (eds.), Research in criminal careers and “career criminals.” Vol. 2. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  28. Hanson, R. W., Moss, C. S., Hosford, R. E., and Johnson, M. E. Predicting inmate penitentiary adjustment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1983, 10, 293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harris, P. W. The interpersonal maturity of delinquents and nondelinquents. In W. S. Laufer and J. M. Day (Eds.), Personality, moral development and criminal behavior. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1983.Google Scholar
  30. Harvey, O. J., Hunt, D. E., and Schroder, H. M. Conceptual systems and personality organization, New York: Wiley Sons, Inc., 1961.Google Scholar
  31. Hippchen, L. J. Holistic approaches to offender rehabilitation. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1982.Google Scholar
  32. Hippchen, L. J., Flynn, E. E., Owens, C. D., and Schnur, A. C. Handbook on correctional classification. Washington, DC: American Correctional Association, 1978.Google Scholar
  33. Hunt, D. E., Butter, L. F., Nov, J. E., and Rosser, M. E. Assessing conceptual level by the paragraph completion method. Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1978.Google Scholar
  34. Jesness, C. F. Classifying juvenile offenders: Sequential I-level classification manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  35. Jesness, C. F. The Jesness Behavior Checklist. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  36. Jesness, C. F. The Jesness Inventory (rev. ed.). Patto Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  37. Jesness, C. F., and Wedge, R. F. Validity of a revised Jesness inventory I-classification with delinquents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1984, 52, 997–1010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jesness, C. F., and Wedge, R. F. Jesness Inventory Classification System: supplementary manual. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  39. Johnson, D. L., Simmons, J. G., and Gordon, B. C. Temporal consistency of the Meyer-Megargee inmate typology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1983, 10, 263–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kohlberg, L. Moral development in the schools: A developmental view. School Review, 1966, 74, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kohlberg, L. State and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969.Google Scholar
  42. Kohlberg, L., Colby, C. A., Gibbs, J., Speicher-Dubin, B., and Candee, D. Standard form scoring manual. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1979.Google Scholar
  43. Kuhn T. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  44. Levinson, R. Research proposal: Internal management classification system. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons, July 1980.Google Scholar
  45. Levinson, R. Developments in the classification process. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1988, 15, 24–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Levinson, R. B., and Gerard, R. E. Classifying institutions. Crime and Delinquency, 1986, 32, 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Levinson, R. B., and Williams, J. D. Inmate classification: Security/custody considerations. Federal Probation Quarterly, 1979, 43, 37–43.Google Scholar
  48. MacKenzie, D. L., Posey, D., and Rapaport, K. R. A theoretical revolution in corrections: Varied purposes for classification. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1988, 15, 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Megargee, E., and Bohn, M., Jr., with Meyer, J., Jr., and Sink, F. Classifying criminal offenders: A new system based on the MMPI. BeverlyGoogle Scholar
  50. Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1979. National Institute of Corrections. Prison classification: A model systems approach. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1982.Google Scholar
  51. Palmer, T. B. The youth authority’s community treatment project. Federal Probation, 1974, 38, 3–14.Google Scholar
  52. Palmer, T. Correctional intervention and research: Current issues and future prospects. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, 1978.Google Scholar
  53. Palmer, T. Treatment and the role of classification: A review of basics. Crime and Delinquency, 1984, 30, 195–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Quay, H. C. Technical manual for the behavioral classification system for adult offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 1983.Google Scholar
  55. Quay, H. C., and Parsons, L. B. The differential behavioral classification of the juvenile offender. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1971.Google Scholar
  56. Rans, L. Inmate classification design and validations study. Springfield, IL: Illinois Department of Corrections, 1982.Google Scholar
  57. Reitsma-Street, M. Differential treatment of young offenders: A review of the conceptual level matching model, Canadian Journal of Criminology, 1984, 26 (2), 199–212.Google Scholar
  58. Sechrest, L. Classification for treatment. In D. M. Gottfredson and M. Tonry (Eds.), Prediction and classification: Criminal justice decision making. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  59. Sechrest, L., and Redner, R. Strength and integrity of treatments in evaluation studies. In How well does it work? Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1979.Google Scholar
  60. Sullivan, C. E., Grant, J. D., and Grant, M. Q. The development of interpersonal maturity: Applications to delinquency. Psychiatry, 1957, 20, 373–385.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Tetters, N. The cradle of the Penitentiary, Philadelphia: The Pennsylvania Prison Society, 1955.Google Scholar
  62. Toch, H. Living in prison: The ecology of survival. New York:Free Press, 1979. Toch, H. Inmate classification as a transaction. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1981, 8, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Voorhis, P. Psychological classification of the adult, male, maximum security inmate: Applications of the MMPI, I-level, conceptual level and moral judgement. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Cincinnati, November 11, 1984.Google Scholar
  64. Van Voorhis, P. A cross classification of five offender typologies: Results of the pilot study. The Differential View (Proceedings)., 1986, 15, 126–127.Google Scholar
  65. Warren, M. Q. Classification of offenders as an aid to efficient management and treatment. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Policy Science, 1971, 62, 239–258.Google Scholar
  66. Warren, M. Q. Intervention with juvenile delinquents. In M. Rosenheim (Ed.), Pursuing justice for the child. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  67. Warren, M. Q. Applications of interpersonal maturity theory to offender populations. In W. S. Laufer and J. M. Day (Eds.). Personality theory, moral development, and criminal behavior. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1983.Google Scholar
  68. Wright, K. N. An exploratory study of transactional classification. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1986, 23, 326–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zager, L. D. Response to Simmons and associates: Conclusions about the MMPI-based classification system’s stability are premature. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1983, 10, 310–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zager, L. D. The MMPI-based criminal classification system: Do proposed subgroups of type “How” differ in their behavior? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1988, 15, 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zager, L. D., and Megargee, E. I. The MMPI-based criminal classification system: A review, current status, and future directions. Criminal Justice and Behavior (in press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Doris Layton MacKenzie
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Louisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA
  2. 2.National Institute of JusticeU.S. Department of JusticeUSA

Personalised recommendations