Two samples of Canadian federal female offender case files are used to develop and test a gender-informed security reclassification scale. Study 1 uses 285 consecutive offender security level (OSL) reviews for federally sentenced women to empirically construct the Security Reclassification Scale for Women (SRSW). Study 2 uses all federal female OSL reviews that occurred between July 2000 and June 2003 (n = 580) to test the validity and reliability of the SRSW. Results suggest that the SRSW is a reliable and valid tool for the security classification of federally sentenced women in Canada. Relative to the current classification method, the SRSW places fewer cases at maximum security and more cases at minimum security. Within a fixed 3-month follow-up, the SRSW is significantly more predictive of minor institutional misconduct than the structured clinical method currently in use. Results are discussed in terms of both theoretical and operational implications.
Andrews, D. A. (1982). The Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI): The first follow-up. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.
2.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). LSI-R: The Level of Service Inventory-Revised. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
3.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
4.
Auditor General Canada. (2003). Correctional Service of Canada-Reintegration of women offenders. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author.
5.
Austin, J. (1983). Assessing the new generation of prison classification models. Crime & Delinquency, 29(4), 561-576.
6.
Austin, J., & Hardyman, P. L. (2004). Objective prison classification: A guide for correctional agencies (Accession Number 019319). Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
7.
Baird, S. C. (1981). Probation and parole classification: The Wisconsin model. Corrections Today, 43, 36-41.
8.
Blanchette, K., & Motiuk, L. L. (2004). Taking down the straw man: A reply to Webster and Doob. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46, 621-630.
9.
Boe, R. (2001). A medium-term federal offender population forecast: 2001-2004 (Research Report #R-100). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Correctional Service of Canada.
10.
Boe, R., Olah, C. L., & Cousineau, C. (2000). Federal imprisonment trends for women 1994-95 to 1998-99 (Research Report #R-93). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Correctional Service of Canada.
11.
Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and treatment. In A. T. Hartland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 18-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Brennan, T. (1998). Institutional classification of females: Problems and some proposals for reform. In R. T. Zaplin (Ed.), Female offenders: Critical perspectives and effective interventions (pp.179-204). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
13.
Brown, J. D. (1998). Statistics corner: Questions and answers about language testing statistics: Reliability and cloze test length. Shiken: JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 2(2), 19-22. Retrieved November 17, 2004, from http://www.jalt.org/test/bro_3.htm
14.
Buchanan, R. A., Whitlow, K. L., & Austin, J. (1986). National evaluation of objective prison classification systems: The current state of the art. Crime & Delinquency, 32, 272-290.
15.
Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. (1998). Position paper regarding the classification and carceral placement of women classified as maximum security prisoners. Unpublished report. Retrieved November 20, 2004, from http://www.elizabethfry.ca/maxe.htm
16.
Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. (2004, June). Executive director’s report. Retrieved November 20, 2004, from http://www.elizabethfry.ca/areport/2003-04/english/edreport.htm
17.
Canadian Human Rights Commission. (2003). Protecting their rights: A systemic review of human rights in correctional services for federally sentenced women. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author.
18.
Correctional Service of Canada. (2002). Corporate results. Performance Measurement Branch, Performance Assurance Sector. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author.
19.
Dachelet, H. N. (2001). Classification —The first step in reducing recidivism. The International Community Corrections Association, 32-38.
20.
Dawes, R., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668-1674.
21.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (1999). What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Crime & Delinquency, 45, 438-452.
22.
Farr, K. (2000). Classification for female inmates: Moving forward. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 3-17.
23.
Grant, B. A., & Luciani, F. P. (1998). Security classification using the Custody Rating Scale (Research Report #R-67). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Correctional Service of Canada.
24.
Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293-323.
25.
Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19-30.
26.
Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1983). A method of comparing the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology, 148, 839-843.
27.
Hardyman, P. L. (2001). Validation and refinement of objective prison classification systems for women: The experience of four states and common themes. Washington, DC: The Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections, National Institute of Corrections.
28.
Hardyman, P. L., & Van Voorhis, P. V. (2004). Developing gender-specific classification systems for women offenders (NIC Accession Number 018931). Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
29.
Hare, R. D. (2003). Hare PCL-R: 2nd ed. Technical manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
30.
Hildebrand, R. J. (1969). The anatomy of escape. Federal Probation, 33, 58-65.
31.
Holt, N. (1974). Escape from custody (Research Report #52, Research Division, California Department of Corrections). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Corrections.
32.
Irving, J., & Wichmann, C. G. (2001). An investigation into factors leading to increased security classification for women offenders (Research Report #R-98). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Correctional Service of Canada.
33.
Law, M. A. (2004). A longitudinal follow-up of federally sentenced women in the community: Assessing the predictive validity of the dynamic characteristics of the Community Intervention Scale. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
34.
Luciani, F. (1997). The security classification of offenders: Development of security reclassification protocols. Unpublished manuscript, Research Branch, Ottawa, Ontario, Correctional Service of Canada.
35.
Luciani, F., Motiuk, L. L., & Nafekh, M. (1996). An operational review of the Custody Rating Scale: Validity, reliability, and practical utility (Research Report #R-47). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Correctional Service of Canada.
36.
Marchese, M. C. (1992). Clinical versus actuarial prediction: A review of the literature. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 583-594.
37.
Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
38.
Meehl, P. E. (1965). Seer over sign: The first good example. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1, 27-32.
39.
Motiuk, L. L. (1997). Classification for correctional programming: The Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) process. Forum on Corrections Research, 9(1), 18-22.
40.
Nafekh, M., & Boe, R. (2003). A medium-term federal offender population forecast: 2003 to 2007 (Report No. R-137). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Correctional Service of Canada.
41.
Nuffield, J. (1982). Parole decision-making in Canada: Research toward decision guidelines. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Communications Division.
42.
Proctor, J. L. (1994). Evaluating a modified version of the federal prison system’s inmate classification model: An assessment of objectivity and predictive validity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21, 256-272.
43.
Scott, N. A., Mount, M. K., & Duffy, P. S. (1977). MMPI and demographic correlates and predictors of female prison escape. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 4, 284-300.
44.
Silver, E., & Miller, L. L. (2002). A cautionary note on the use of actuarial risk assessment tools for social control. Crime & Delinquency, 48, 138-161.
45.
Solicitor General Canada. (1987). Development of a security classification model for Canadian federal offenders. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Correctional Service of Canada.
46.
Stump, E. S., & Gilbert, W. W. (1972). Experimental MMPI Scales and other predictors of institutional adjustment. Unpublished manuscript, Ohio Penitentiary, Ohio Department of Corrections.
47.
Swets, J. A., Dawes, R. M., & Monahan, J. (2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 1-26.
48.
Van Voorhis, P. V., & Presser, L. (2001). Classification of women offenders: A national assessment of current practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
49.
Webster, C. M., & Doob, A. N. (2004a). Classification without validity or equity: An empirical examination of the Custody Rating Scale for federally sentenced women offenders in Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46, 395-421.
50.
Webster, C. M., & Doob, A. N. (2004b). ‘Taking down the strawman’ or building a house of straw? Validity, equity, and the Custody Rating Scale. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46, 631-638.
51.
Zinger, I. (2004). Actuarial risk assessment and human rights: A commentary. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46, 607-621.
