WIXLIB

J. r.!'HiijiAj"! ,'ti ,l I;W,jh,!§t . , '-\.?,ij,).h.,L"?V'."i(j!i·.·".· R·dj'·c"-"',.,L."0\""'.,,""",,-:,-,,'"'",, 117 l'."W X"",4,.!'!!'!,!ll'IJ, '1!!!!!g;; l·, 'Y'll!l!k1INTRODUOTIONJail Classificationand Disciplinetionists . murderers to check bouncers-persons withvastly differing criminal backgrounds, emotional makeup,needs, skills, and educational levels are forced into thesame jail population, requiring equally differing security,custody, and treatment approaches.Classification, or the evaluative process by which housing decisions are made, is the primary management toolto aid in providing appropriate responses to this widelydiverse inmate population. Classification determines thedegree of supervision required to control each inmateto maintain the safety and security of the institution andthe community. It also provides a diagnostic process bywhich newly admitted inmates' educational, social, medical, and psychological needs can be identified:Overall, a properly functioning classification systemhas been found to provide the basis for the effectivemanagement of inmates in a safe, secure correctionalenvironment, while also ensuring their equitable, humane treatment.Classification Shotild be an ongoing process that reoccurs on a regularly scheduled or an as needed basis during the inmates' incarceration. Since an inmate's classification affects every facet of the normal routine, he or sheis entitled to certain procedural safeguards prior to bothinitial and reclassification actions. It is essential that deci·sions not be made capriciously or arbitrarily; and manyjails have been reprimanded by the courts for failing toprovide an adequate or equitable classification system.As the chief officer of the local detention facility or jail,today's jail administrator performs a critical, difficult rolein American society. Not only are administrators andtheir jails under seemingly constant attack from critics,but also, with increasing frequency, inmates in ournation's correctional facilities are questioning the con·ditions of their confinement, particularly in the areas ofhousing, programs, and disciplinary procedures.In many instances, especially during the past twodecades, courts have found it necessary to intervene onthese issues and render decisions that impact significantlyupon jail operations. Successful challenges against jailconditions or policies have resulted in substantial finan·cial hardships, with many state and local corrections officials and jurisdictions now facing judgments in the thousands of dollars} Liability insurance is costly and difficultto obtain, and administrators must take a proactive stanceto avoid unnecessary litigation.In the past, jail administrators were free to conducttheir operations with little or no regard for developmentsin correctional law. Today, these officials must take stepsto gain insight into judicial developments in all areas ofcorrections. It is essential that they stay abreast of existing as well as changing laws and that they follow the fed·eral cases pertaining to corrections.VALID CLASSIFICATION, DISCIPLINEPROCEDURES NEEDEDTwo goals of any jail administration should be to: 1)protect inmates' rights; and 2) reduce the potentialliability of the administrator. Progress toward the first ofthese objectives promotes the success of the second. Inattempting to reach the first objective, and as an aid topreventing, rather than defending lawsuits,jail administrators in recent years have begun to focus on developingand implementing valid, equitable classification systemsand establishing appropriate, consistent disciplinaryprocedures based on equitable standards.Early Court Rulings. As far back as 1970, in Morris v.Tmvisono, a Rhode Island district court initiated rules forcorrections officials to follow in making classificationdecisions. Among the rules it suggested were: A review of certain inmates' classifications every 90days; Automatic review of those in the lowest classificationevery 30 days; The right of inmates to appear at classificationhearings; The right ofinmates to challenge unfavorable reportsaffecting their classifications; The recording of all classification proceedings.sClassification: An Essential Management ToolAll jails, regardless of size, are required to deal with widelydiverse elements of society. Armed robbers to exhibi-1

'\1!7'J ;J.f!\r, ![c-N4' ""if.,},, "W ;:.hXLt."-AW9 ,;:A ,c·A!', SLi,.M .".h . {JA r:vr.c"\W" """:1 o. T.'M' . ·,··.,T;:;;,.'·"··,,.· . ·,;;.li'!lHM;L.#J4 , m.Q,,;;i'Jail ClasSification and DisciplineAs a result, inmates frequently contended that the facility's rules and regulations varied with the officer incharge.Today, the use of punishment for disci plinary purposesis subject to review by certain bodies, such as a rules infraction committee or a disciplinary hearing board. Becausethe actions of these boards or committees can result insignificant loss of "good time;' parole opportunity, orother privileges, they have been the object of considerable controversy as well as scrutiny by the courts. Disciplinereviewers must ensure that the Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment are notviolated and that considerations of due process are followed closely, particularly those pertaining to the equalprotection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.5These opinions reflected inmates' successful challenging of their classifications on due process grounds up tothat point.During the next few years, federal courts consistentlydemonstrated the relevance and significance of classification, and findings continued to provide the frameworkfor developing standards. For example, in Kirby v. Blackledge (1976) the court said that inmates were entitled toa formal hearing before being subjected to any "grievousloss;' such as that. accompanying assignment to a maximum security level.ACA Standards Published in 1977In 1977, the American Correctional Association (ACA),in cooperation with the Commission on Accreditationfor Corrections, published the now widely acclaimed andrespected Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities.These standards have been recognized as nationallyaccepted guidelines for professionalizing jail management, operations, and staff as well as for providing appropriate services and programs in response to inmate needs.In 1987, ACA, in cooperation with the Commission onAccreditation for Corrections, published Standards forSmallJail Facilities, in response to the need for professionalstandards development in the 63 percent of the nation'sjails with populations of 50 or fewer inmates.Today,jails that have achieved and maintained the goalsestablished by these standards report increased supportfrom the public, the media and the courts.The standards include requirements that:ACA Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities details theprocedures to be followed by the jail in maintaining orderand discipline within the facility. These proceduresinclude: Establ shinga set of equitable inmate rules and regulations specifying violations and sanctions and ensuring that each inmate receives a copy and understandsthem; Providing that disciplinary hearings involving cases ofrule violations are conducted by an impartial personor panel; Granting inmates the right to appeal decisions of thedisciplinary hearing to the administrator or an independent authority.e Establishing a valid grievance procedure.6 * Written policy and procedure provide for inmate classification regarding custody, housing, and programparticipation; Specific criteria, including an appeals process, be utilized for changing an inmate's status;" Certain categories of inmates be managed separately; Inmates not be segregated by race, calm, creed, ornational origin *ACCREDITATION AS A GOAL FORroDAY'S JAILSBecause both classification and discipline within the jailare the subjects offrequent criticism from inmates as wellas examination by the courts, it is essential that all jailsestablish clear, workable policies and procedures in theseareas, based on nationally recognized standards that havesurvived such scrutiny.Today, a number ofjails across the nation have completedthe process of accreditation through the Commission onAccreditation for Corrections; and many more arepreparing to go through the process. The documentationfor this procedure is no easy task. Ideally, however, theadministrator's long-range goal should be to achieve thestandards required for accreditation. Establishing andmaintaining the regulations for classification and discipline according to state and local codes as well as ACAStandards for Adult Local Detention Facilities ensures thatthese two critical areas meet nationally recognized standards as well as the requirements for accreditation.Equitable Discipline Procedures MandatedEqually important to the jail as a proper classificationsystem are appropriate, equitable disciplinary proceduresto ensure order, control, and staff and inmate safety.Prompt, consistent discipline throughout the jail canserve as a positive force, encouraging inmates to behavein an orderly fashion.In many instances in the past,jail officials and staff weregranted wide discretion to punish inmates as they saw fit.*See Appendix D for ACA Standards related to classification andAppendix E for ACA Standards related to discipline.2

\ 1?·;;:;""'.:F.-:;,, -'! i";\ ;-t·'.,'c . {,,-C"' IntroductionPURPOSE OF HANDBOOKNorES1. Carl R. Peed. ':Jail Classification: Its History and Impact:' The NationalSheriff, December 1986:January 1987.2. John Finnerty. "Structuring an Inmate Classification System:' TheNational Sheriff, February·March 1986.3. Timothy Matthews. ':Judicial Intervention in th:!Jail Setting: LiabilityofJail Administrators:' Master's thesis, University of South Carolina,1984.4. Standardsfor Adult LocalDetentionFacilities, 2nd ed. College Park, MD:American Correctional Association in cooperation with the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections, 1981.5. Timothy Matthews, op. cit.6. American Correctional Association, op. cit.This handbook is designed to assist the administrator inestablishing and implementing both a valid classificationsystem and an equitable disciplinary procedure appropriate to his or her facility While differences in philosophies as well as in size, scope, resources, and capabilitiesof our nation's jails preclude presenting model systemsthat may be precisely applicable to each one, this handbook offers guidance to the administrator in meeting theoverall objectives of classification and discipline withinthe framework of ACA Standards and applicable state andlocal codesThe topic of classification, in particular, is a hotlydebated one among corrections professionals todayResearchers and criminal justice practitioners across thenation are currently developing and implementingmodel systems in an effort to determine the most consistent, equitable means of classifying the widely diverse jailinmate populationThese systems range from the purely objective, whichutilize a variety of standardized scoring forms, as illustrated in Appendix A, to those that are primarily dependent upon the expertise of classification personnel, as inAppendix B, and finally, to those employing such instruments as the computerized decision tree, as in Appendix C.It is recognized that the uniquely differing nature ofeach jail's classification problems requires equally differing approaches However, it is hoped that a thoroughexamination of these options will, at a minimum, enable today's administrator to identify and apply that information and those strategies that are most applicable tolocal circumstances and to approach the vital task of classification with a greater understanding of its overall goalsand benefits.3

,; ''''''('l !l;;:;:'-mS''!!'.! .,,\!!!!Q4!!11!P§!!!Ij !!I!!.l j.,!!!I!!jUI!!!. TI"!!If"}., " .,'---' ', .,, .-CHAPTER Iuverview of Tail Classificationin the United StatesEvery jail needs a good classification system to identifyand separate inmates into compatible, controllable living units to ensure their security and safety as well as thatof the staff and the institution. Classification exists tosome degree in every jail in which inmates are ssignedto housing units with differing levels of custody or surveillance or whenever they are provided or denied accessto jail activities or services. However, the development ofclassification in jails has consistently lagged behind thatin our nation's prisons. Indeed, many jails today are saidto have classification systems similar to those in our prisons 100 years ago.!This chapter discusses the evolution ofjail classification,including the factors impacting on its slow development.These factors make classification extremely difficultand complicated in many facilities; howevel a brief examination of each reveals that they are often the very factorsthat require its implementation.1. Unique, DiverseJail Functions. While prisons confine only sentenced offenders, jails have traditionallydetained a widely diverse population, such as the following: EVOLUTION OF JAILCLASSIFICATION IN THEUNITED STATES "Inmate classification in the United States has evolvedfrom the pre-1870 prison method of placing personsaccording to the severity of their offenses to the late 1800sfocus on placing them to provide individual treatmentand rehabilitation, and finally, to its present state-as atool for determining appropriate inmate security and custody levels to facilitate population management.While classification as a management strategy hasexisted in prisons in some form since before the mid1800s, its use in jails is a relatively new concept. As recentlyas 1979, 'a National Institute of Corrections surveyrevealed a lack of formal, pre-trial classification procedures in most facilities. Today, the majority of jails stillsimply separate males from females, adults from juveniles,sentenced from unsentenced inmates, and mentally stableinmates from mentally disturbed inmates:Suspects awaiting investigation and charge;Persons charged and awaiting trial;Persons convicted and awaiting sentence;Persons sentenced to terms of less than one year anda day;Persons believed to have violated their probation orparole;Persons held because of detainers in otherjurisdictions;Sentenced offenders awaiting transfer to state prisons;Persons awaiting transfer to juvenile facilities.4Compounding the problems associated with the hOllS- .ing of offenders in varying stages of investigation or sentencing are the presence in jails not only of both menand women, but also ofjuveniles and special managementinmates, such as homosexuals, drug addicts and psychopaths. Forcing persons from all walks of life to live sideby-side in vastly differing physical and mental states,jailsare now dealing with a range of personalities and problemsthat, in many instances, cannot function together.2. ChangingJail Populations. To further diversify andcomplicate the jail's function, its mission, as well as itspopulation, has changed drastically during the pastdecade due to a number of factors, including the following:Overcrowded Prisons. Critical overcrowding in stateprison systems has forced many local facilities tohold, for longer and longer periods, more felons andhardened criminals, many of whom are sociopathsor social misfits.Factors Impacting on Lagging DevelopmentThe slow evolution of jail classifi ation is the result ofa wide range offactors injails, including: 1) their unique,diverse functions; 2) changing populations; 3) frequentlack of verifiable information; 4) overcrowding and highvolume of daily admissions; 5) rapid population turnover;6) facility limitations; and 7) lack of staff training.sDeinstitutionalization of the Mentally HI. At thesame time the jails have been placed in the role oflongterm keeper of the prison overflow, there has been a5

.;.; , ,.,.- .4i ,-W!,I.?,., k' "''fo' 7 '' '". ·,A ,.,,,;:gr-,'h.,Li",. !i#4\M%9 q. A?f.}Jail Classification and Discipline5. Rapid Population Thrnover. While obtaining andverifying information necessary for separating offendersinto effective categories to facilitate management is aproblem with many inmates, it is most difficult with thosewho are released from jail within 72 hours. As a result,many facilities delay the classification process for inmateswho are likely to leave within a short time after intake.In most cases, any decisions that are made regarding thesepersons are based upon charges, bond amounts, and selfreported medical histories?movement to deimtitutionalize the mentally ill fromlarge state hospitals; and many of these persons havefiltered into the jails."Incarceration Replacing 1reatment Programs.Societal pressures have increased to incarcerate certain groups of offenders that previously might havebeen considered for treatment programs or otheralternatives. These offenders include such diverseelements as DUIs, child abusers, drug users, andwhite collar criminals, who, along with the usualassortment of misdemeanants, traffic offenders, andcivil defendants, have contributed to a mix as variedas society itself-all under one roof.66. Facility Limitations. Most jails are designed for maximum security and lack the capabilities to physicallyseparate inmates who have been categorized by varyingcustody levels. In addition, most older facilities have alimited number of single cells. Occasionally, this lack ofappropriate space leads to disregarding all but the mostflagrant security and supervision needs and to housinginmates solely according to their perceived abilities toget along with others.lOMany smaller jails also have limited or non-exi5tent program and counseling facilities; thus, their classificationsystems exist for supervision purposes only.Thus, the traditional view of the jail as the short-termholding facility for pre- and post·trial misdemeanants andfelons awaiting transfer to state systems is no longer alwaysan accurate one.3. Lack of Verifiable Information. Lack of timely, highquality information is nearly always a critical factor inthe failure to establish valid, workable classification systems. Classification is dependent upon the informationreceived; and while information is readily obtainablefrom record checks and inmate interviews, it is oftenincomplete (lnd unreliable; and both the inmate and thejail suffer as a result of inappropriate housing and progTam assignments.7. Lack of Staff Training. The intensive trainingneeded for developing skilled, effective classificationinterviewers is not available in all jails. In addition, inmany facilities, all staff, including correctional officers,have not been trained to fully understand the basis forand appropriate use of the classification system, including the criteria and procedures for reclassification. Theofficer who lacks training and/or confidence in the facility's system can easily sabotage it, knowingly or inadvertently, by such actions as arbitrarily moving an inmateto a different cell or preventing his or her participationin a scheduled program or activity.Research has shown that attempts to elStablish reliableclassification systems have been unsuccessful in jailswhere the entire staff, including correctional officers,have not been trained and motivated to implement andsupport them correctly.4. Overcrowding, High Volume of Admi. sions. New,more severe drug laws have contributed to greater numbers of admissions, which, along with increased sentencesand a constant backlog of court cases have resulted in critical overcrowding and overwhelming workloads in manyfacilities. These factors, coupled with inadequate staffing,have often prevented accurate inmate assessment for classification purposes. Overworked staff may tend to stream·line and simplify procedures, obtaining inadequateinformation on some inmates, thereby misclassifying them:When not enough time or staff are available foraccurate inmate assessment, the classification system isadversely affected.Overcrowding may also lead to "capacity-driven" classification decisions, in which housing and programassignments are determined, not by formal policies andprocedures, but by available bed space and programopenings. Since there is added potential for violenceamong crowded inmates, the tendency is to overclassifythem (place them in overly restrictive custody levels) inan effort to increase security-a move that results in need·less confinement and longer stays.sBenign Neglect, Conflicting PressuresIn addition to the above factors that have

our advisory board: Sheriff Fred Pearce, Chairman Multnomah County, OR James Austin Director of Research The National Council on Crime and Delinquency San Francisco, CA Sheriff James A. Gondles Arlington County, VA Jack Green Mministrator, Standards and Accreditation American Correctional Association College Park, MD Sheriff M. Wayne Huggins