U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Inmate Classification Process, 1 - Initial Classification and Placement

NCJ Number
82667
Date Published
1981
Length
57 pages
Annotation
The initial inmate classification and placement process of the Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services (Canada) is assessed, and recommendations for improvement are offered.
Abstract
Inmates are assigned to correctional centers according to security requirements and treatment needs. The focus of this assessment is on the classification of inmates receiving sentences of 90 to 729 days, since these inmates are classified by the Main Office. The classification decision is based on field staff's assessment and the information in the inmate's Ministry file. The assessment involved the use of a study sample of 500 inmates classified in the Eastern Region between October 1980 and February 1981. Reasons supporting the classification decision were found not to be systematically recorded by the Inmate Classification and Transfer Branch, and a record of the initial classification decision was not retained after the inmate's warrant expiration date. Further, essential information for classification decisions was not consistently included in the assessment. Findings showed a 19.4 percent discrepancy rate between the classification officers' recommendations and the Main Office classification decision. Eastern Region inmates officially do not have access to Maplehurst Complex; yet, both the classification officers and the provincial coordinator of classification believed that Maplehurst was a more appropriate setting than Guelph for many of the medium security inmates in the study. The inmates' programming needs were not always stated, and when stated, they were usually tailored to programs already in place. Many institutions were not completing the Case Summary and Recommendations form in the proper manner, and inmates' institutional behavior and program involvement were often not recorded. Recommendations for remedying these problems are presented. Appended are a summary of information in the classification reports and security designation of institutions in the study. Tabular and graphic data and nine references are provided.