Because of the extreme demands made by continuously escalating offender populations on already scarce prison space and program resources, a number of laissez-faire management approaches have been exposed as deficient. Forcing offenders to adhere to availability-driven models results in frequent misalignment of correctional responses, often with excessive financial and human costs. A developing trend toward data-based, objective approaches and the use of high-quality information systems has direct implications for prison resource management. Decisions regarding both individual offenders and systemwide policy can benefit from these evolving models. However, management ingenuity will not be equal to the task if extraprison forces are not simultaneously examined and modified.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Robert Mathias and Diane Steelman, Controlling Prison Populations: An Assessment of Current Mechanisms (Fort Lee, NJ: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1982), p. 1.
2.
2. A leafy vine imported from Japan as an erosion-control measure and particularly abundant in the Southeast, kudzu seems to have a will of its own and encroaches on lands—or other stationary objects—well outside its intended boundaries, choking off competitors and advancing its domain. The reader is left to ponder other similarities to the growth of American prisons.
3.
3. For example, requiring separation of violent from nonviolent offenders, Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F. Supp. 956 (D.R.I. 1977); consideration of specific offender characteristics related to placement and treatment, Pugh v. Locke, 406 F. Supp. 318 (M.D.Ala. 1976); and the use of rational, consistent, valid methods of inmate assessment, Ramos v. Lamm, 77-K-1093 (D.Colo. 1979).
4.
4. The reader should not conclude, however, that the majority of America's prisons currently provide minimally habitable living environments. See Alonzo Cobb, Jr., “Home Truths about Prison Overcrowding,” this issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science; Joan Mullen, “Conditions of Overcrowding,” ibid.; Hans Toch, “Warehouses for People?” ibid.
5.
Mathias and Steelman, Controlling Prison Populations.
6.
6. For a full discussion of costs, see Gail S. Funke, “The Economics of Prison Crowding,” this issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
7.
7. John Monahan, Predicting Violent Behavior: An Assessment of Clinical Techniques (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981).
8.
8. Cory and Gettinger, Time to Build? p. 15-27; Joan Mullen and Bradford Smith, American Prisons and Jails, vol. 3, Conditions and Costs of Confinement (Washington, DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1980).
9.
see also Cobb's consumer account of this aspect of overclassification, “Home Truths about Prison Overcrowding.”
10.
10. James Austin, “Assessing the New Generation of Prison Classification Models,”Crime & Delinquency, 29:561-576 (1983).
11.
see also Classification as a Management Tool: Theories and Models for Decision Makers (College Park, MD: American Correctional Association, 1982).
12.
12. See Claudia Angelos and James B. Jacobs, “Prison Overcrowding and the Law,” this issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
13.
13. Austin, “Assessing Classification Models”; Prison Classification: A Model Systems Approach (Washington, DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 1982).
14.
14. Carl B. Clements, “Toward an Objective Approach to Offender Classification,”Law and Psychology Review, in press.
15.
15. David Farrington and Christopher Nuttall, “Prison Size, Overcrowding, Prison Violence, and Recidivism”Journal of Criminal Justice, 8(4):221-231 (1980).
16.
16. Toch, “Warehouses for People?”; Clements, “Relationship of Offender Classification.”
17.
17. Carl Clements, John McKee, and Susan Jones, Offender Needs Assessment: Models and Approaches (Washington, DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 1984).
18.
18. Ibid., p. 23.
19.
19. Norman Holt, Gary Ducat, and H. C. Eakles, “California's New Inmate Classification System,” in Classification as a Management Tool.
20.
20. D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, “On the Psychology of Prediction,”Psychological Review, 80:237-251 (1973).
21.
Stephen Gettinger , “ `Objective' Classification: Catalyst for Change,”Corrections Magazine, 8: 24-37 (June 1982).
22.
22. Carl B. Clements, “Test-trait Fallacies: Prison Style,”American Psychologist, 35: 476-478 (1980).
23.
23. Martin J. Bohn, “Inmate Classification and the Reduction of Institutional Violence,” in Classification (College Park, MD: American Correctional Association, 1981), pp. 5-12.
24.
24. Client Management Classification: Institutional Treatment Outline (Madison: Wisconsin Bureau of Corrections, 1982).
