In June 2024, the Minnesota Department of Corrections implemented the Minnesota Severe and Frequent Estimate for Discipline (MnSafeD), a fully-automated, gender-specific classification assessment that was designed to predict prison misconduct. Customized to Minnesota’s prison population, the MnSafeD was created to identify the relatively small group of residents disproportionately responsible for much of the misconducts and violence that take place in prison. This study revalidated the MnSafeD on the first 8,631 residents who were scored on the instrument. The results showed the MnSafeD performed very well overall, achieving an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84. The instrument’s predictive accuracy was better for the men and for the post-intake reassessments (0.86). The results revealed there were no predictive disparities by race/ethnicity.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.WormithS. J. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 7–27.
2.
AustinJ. (2003). Findings in prison classification and risk assessment. National Institute of Corrections.
3.
BerkR. A.KrieglerB.BaekJ. (2006). Forecasting dangerous inmate misconduct: An application of ensemble statistical procedures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-006-9005-z
4.
BrowerJ. (2013). Correctional officer wellness and safety literature review. Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
5.
CampS. D.GaesG. G.LanganN. P.SaylorW. G. (2003). The influence of prisons on inmate misconduct: A multilevel investigation. Justice Quarterly, 20, 501–533.
6.
CaruanaR.Niculescu-MizilA.CrewG.KsikesA. (2004, July4–8). Ensemble selection from libraries of models [Conference session]. 21st International Conference on Machine Learning, Canada, Banff (pp. 1–12).
7.
ChaikenM. R.ChaikenJ. (1984). Offender types and public policy. Crime and Delinquency, 30, 195–226.
8.
ClarkV.DuweG. (2024). Sex differences in the effects of adverse childhood experiences on institutional misconduct among adults in prison. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 40(1–2), 308–337.
9.
CunninghamM. D.SorensenJ. R. (2006). Actuarial models for assessing prison violence risk: Revisions and extensions for the risk assessment scale for prison (RASP). Assessment, 13(3), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191106287791
10.
DuweG. (2019). Better practices in the development and validation of recidivism risk assessments: The Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-4 (MnSOST-4). Criminal Justice Policy Review. 30(4), 538–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417718608
11.
DuweG. (2020). The development and validation of a classification system for severe and frequent misconduct. The Prison Journal, 100(2), 173–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885519894587
12.
DuweG. (2024). Evaluating bias, shrinkage, and the home-field advantage: Results from a revalidation of the MnSTARR 2.0. Corrections: Policy, Practice and Research, 9(1), 20–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2021.2011802
13.
DuweG.ClarkV. (2025). The gap between the ideal and reality in risk-needs-responsivity assessments: Results from a survey of U.S. state prison systems. Corrections: Policy, Practice and Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2025.2533132
14.
DuweG.ClarkV.McNeeleyS. (2023). Does criminal thinking predict prison misconduct? An evaluation of TCU’s Criminal Thinking Scales. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 50(6), 830–848. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231163111
15.
DuweG.HallettM.HaysJ.JangS. J.JohnsonB. R. (2015). Bible college participation and prison misconduct: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 54, 371–390.
16.
DuweG.RocqueM. (2017). The effects of automating recidivism risk assessment on reliability, predictive validity, and return on investment (ROI). Criminology & Public Policy, 16, 235–269.
17.
DuweG.RocqueM. (2018). The home-field advantage and the perils of professional judgment: Evaluating the performance of the Static-99R and the MnSOST-3 in predicting sexual recidivism. Law and Human Behavior, 42, 269–279.
18.
EfronB.GongG. (1983). A leisurely look at the bootstrap, the jackknife, and cross-validation. American Statistician, 37, 36–48.
19.
FloresA. W.BechtelK.LowenkampC. T. (2016). False positives, false negatives, and false analyses: A rejoinder to machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals, and it’s biased against Blacks. Federal Probation, 80, 38–46.
20.
FrenchS. A.GendreauP. (2006). Reducing prison misconducts: What works!Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 185–218.
21.
GaesG. G.WallaceS.GilmanE.Klein-SaffranJ.SuppaS. (2002). The influence of prison gang affiliation on violence and other prison misconduct. The Prison Journal, 82, 359–385.
22.
GendreauP.GogginC. E.LawM. A. (1997). Predicting prison misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 414–431.
23.
GendreauP.LittleT.GogginC. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works!Criminology, 34, 575–607.
24.
GoverA. R.PerezD. M.JenningsW. G. (2008). Gender differences in factors contributing to institutional misconduct. The Prison Journal, 88, 378–403.
25.
GriffinM.HepburnJ. (2006). The effect of gang affiliation on violent misconduct among inmates during the early years of confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 419–448.
26.
HamiltonZ.DuweG.KigerlA.GwinnJ.LanganN.DollarC. (2021). Tailoring to a mandate: The development and validation of the Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risk and Needs (PATTERN). Justice Quarterly, 39(6), 1129–1155. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2021.1906930
27.
HamiltonZ.KigerlA.CampagnaM.BarnoskiR.LeeS.Van WormerJ.BlockL. (2016). Designed to fit: The development and validation of the STRONG-R recidivism risk assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(2), 230–263.
28.
HamiltonZ.KigerlA.KowalskiM. (2022). Prediction is local: The benefits of risk assessment optimization. Justice Quarterly, 39, 722–744.
29.
HardymanP. L.AustinJ.TullochO. C. (2002). Revalidating external prison classification systems. National Institute of Corrections.
30.
HelmusL. M.JohnsonS.HarrisA. J. R. (2019). Developing and validating a tool to predict placements in administrative segregation: Predictive accuracy with inmates, including indigenous and female inmates. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 25(4), 284–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000201
31.
Johnson ListwanS.ColvinM.HanleyD.FlanneryD. (2010). Victimization, social support, and psychological well-being: A study of recently released prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 1140–1159.
32.
LabrecqueR. M. (2022). Security threat management in prison: Revalidation and revision of the inmate risk assessment for segregation placement. The Prison Journal, 102(1), 47–63.
33.
LabrecqueR. M.SmithP. (2019). Reducing institutional disorder: Using the inmate risk assessment for segregation placement (RASP) to triage treatment services at the front-end of prison sentences. Crime and Delinquency, 65(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717748946
RealeK. S.UsmanH.RodriquezN. (2024). An examination of prison-based programming and prison misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 52(3), 429–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241302474
36.
RiceM. E.HarrisG. T. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29(5), 615–620.
37.
SmithW. (1996). The effects of base rate and cutoff point choice on commonly used measures of association and accuracy in recidivism research. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 12, 83–111.
38.
SteinerB.WooldredgeJ. (2014). Sex differences in the predictors of prisoner misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 433–452.
39.
TewksburyR.ConnorD. P.DenneyA. S. (2014). Disciplinary infractions behind bars: An exploration of importation and deprivation theories. Criminal Justice Review, 39, 201–218.
40.
TollenaarN.van der HeijdenP. G. M. (2013). Which method predicts recidivism best? A comparison of statistical, machine learning and data mining predictive methods. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A176(part 2), 565–584.
41.
Van VoorhisP. (2012). On behalf of women offenders: Women’s place in the science of evidence-based practice. Criminology & Public Policy, 11, 111.
42.
WolfgangM. E.FiglioR. M.SellinT. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. University of Chicago Press.
43.
WrightJ. D.RossiP. H. (1986). Armed and considered dangerous: A survey of felons and their firearms. Aldine de Gruyter.
