Amid calls for gender-informed classification measures for women offenders, the Correctional Service of Canada developed and field tested the Security Reclassification Scale for Women (SRSW). In 2005, the SRSW was implemented nationally to anchor security level review decisions for federally sentenced women offenders. To reassess the scale's psychometric properties, this study used the population of 448 consecutive security reviews conducted since the scale's implementation. Results demonstrated that the SRSW continues to be a reliable measure with satisfactory convergent and predictive validity. Moreover, SRSW security classification recommendations equaled or outperformed correctional caseworker recommendations on all indices of validity.
Ægisdóttir, S., White, M.J., Spengler, P.M., Maugherman, A.S., Anderson, L.A., Cook, R.S., et al. (2006). The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: Fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. Counseling Psychologist, 34, 341-382.
2.
Alexander, J., & Austin, J. (1992). Handbook for evaluating objective prison classification systems. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
3.
Austin, J. (1983). Assessing the new generation of prison classification models. Crime & Delinquency, 28, 561-576.
4.
Austin, J., & Hardyman, P.L. (2004). Objective prison classification: A guide for correctional agencies. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
5.
Blanchette, K. (2005). Field-test of a gender-informed security reclassification scale for female offenders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
6.
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.
7.
Blanchette, K., & Taylor, K.N. (2007). Development and field-test of a gender-informed security reclassification scale for women offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 362-379.
8.
Blanchette, K., Verbrugge, P., & Wichmann, C.G. (2002). The Custody Rating Scale, initial security level placement, and women offenders (Report R-127). Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.
9.
Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L.L. (1990). Classification to halfway houses: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Criminology, 28, 497-506.
10.
Brennan, T. (1987). Classification for control in jails and prisons . In D. M. Gottfredson & M. Tonry (Eds.), Prediction and classification: Criminal justice decision making (pp. 323-366). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
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.
12.
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.
13.
Burke, P., & Adams, L. (1991). Classification of women offenders in state correctional facilities: A handbook for practitioners. Washington, DC : National Institute of Corrections.
14.
Correctional Service of Canada. (2002). Corporate results, Performance Measurement Branch. Ottawa , Canada: Author.
15.
Correctional Service of Canada. (2006). Commissioner's directive 710-6: Review of offender security classification . Ottawa, Canada: Author.
16.
Correctional Service of Canada. (2007). [March 1, 2007, snapshot of women offenders' sentence length and initial security classifications]. Unpublished raw data.
17.
Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S. 20 (1992).
18.
Cortina, J.M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.
19.
Farr, K. (2000). Classification for female inmates: Moving forward . Crime & Delinquency, 46, 3-17.
20.
Grant, B.A., & Luciani, F.P. (1998). Security classification using the Custody Rating Scale (Report R-67). Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.
21.
Hanley, J.A., & McNeil, B.J. (1983). A method for comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology, 12, 839-843.
22.
Hannah-Moffat, K., & Shaw, M. (2001). Taking risks: Incorporating gender and culture into the classification and assessment of federally sentenced women in Canada . Ottawa: Policy Research, Status of Women Canada.
23.
Hanson, R.W., Moss, C.S., Hosford, R.W., & Johnson, M.E. (1983). Predicting inmate penitentiary adjustment: An assessment of four classifcatory methods. Crime & Delinquency , 10, 293-309.
24.
Hardyman, P.L., & Van Voorhis, P.V. (2004). Developing gender-specific classification systems for women offenders. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
25.
Harer, M.D., & Langan, N.P. (2001). Gender differences in predictors of prison violence: Assessing the predictive validity of a risk classification system. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 513-536.
26.
Luciani, F., Motiuk, L.L., & Nafekh, M. (1996). An operational review of the Custody Rating Scale: Validity, reliability, and practical utility (Report R-47). Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.
27.
Luciani, F., Taylor, G., & Motiuk, L. (1998). National field test results of the security reclassification protocol: Final report. Unpublished manuscript, Correctional Service of Canada, Ottawa.
28.
Motiuk, L.L. (1997). Classification for correctional programming: The Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) process. Forum on Corrections Research, 9(1), 18-22.
29.
Nuffield, J. (1982). Parole decision-making in Canada: Research toward decision guidelines. Ottawa: Solicitor General of Canada.
30.
Shaw, M., & Hannah-Moffat, K. (2000). Gender, diversity, and risk assessment in Canadian corrections. Probation Journal , 47, 163-173.
31.
Solicitor General of Canada. (1987). Development of a security classification model for Canadian federal offenders . Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.
32.
Van Voorhis, P.V., & Presser, L. (2001). Classification of women offenders: A national assessment of current practices. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
