Classification and security threat group management.

"The management of a relatively small group of adult male inmates who exhibit dangerous, assaultive ... behavior of a chronic or intermittent nature ... threatens to become of crisis proportions in every state. Failure to deal effectively with this problem will seriously impair efforts in the states to reform the correctional system in all aspects."

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

This conclusion was found in the New England Regional prison study in 1973. This statement was a strong warning to correctional practitioners more than three decades ago to take an active role in evaluating current practices in preparation to address issues commonly related to dangerous and disruptive inmates. Many agencies in the past two decades have taken the proactive approach to evaluate and change, if necessary, their current policies and practices related to what can be referred to as the "Big Six": mental health, medical services, use of force, access to the courts, due process and First Amendment rights (freedom of religion, speech and the press). In some cases, the changes in policy and practice were the direct result of litigation; yet other changes resulted from correctional practitioners learning from the mistakes of others and correctional practitioners with vision.

Current trends in case law show that security threat group (STG) management, particularly the assignment of dangerous and disruptive gang members to administrative segregation/high security, will continue to be a challenge that must be met with a best practices approach. A security threat group management program based on classification principles could possibly be a step in the right direction but may be subject to judicial review for violation of the 14th Amendment, specifically due process. However, the use of reliable and valid criteria to assess an inmate's custody level is one of the core distinguishing features of an objective classification system. U.S. correctional agencies have been given the task to show that their classification systems are not arbitrary and capricious.

Classification is an important management tool in the identification and control of dangerous and disruptive inmate behavior, particularly when the process employs objective criteria. Using objective systems, administrators can identify potentially disruptive inmates for placement in facilities that provide a high degree of internal security and staff supervision. Objective classification also aids in the identification of the most suitable disruptive inmates for release from restrictive housing units. Regular classification reviews ensure that changes in inmate behavior are documented and appropriate actions are taken. Since STG members are more likely to be involved in prison violence and organized prison disruption, classification can be the core to manage resources.

Some cases related to STG management and due process requirements are Wolff v. McDonnell (1974), Hewitt v. Helms (1983), Madrid v. Gomez (1995) and Koch v. Lewis (2001). A review of these cases gives a historical perspective of placing dangerous and disruptive inmates into extreme custody levels based on their negative behavior or validation. The courts are not exactly clear as to what constitutes adequate due process; however, it would be a best practice to provide fundamental protections.

Colorado's Method

During the past few decades, agency policy has been impacted in the Colorado Department of Corrections by legal challenges. Observing these legal challenges and their direct impact on prison operations provided a new perspective regarding inmate classification. It became apparent that the Central Classification Unit was the backbone for managing the agency's inmate population and efficient bed management.

The role of Central Classification in the Colorado DOC has evolved during the past 10 years. Significant improvements have been made due to litigation, population increases, new technology, vision, state statute, partnerships and progressive leadership.

The increase in STG members entering the Denver Reception and Diagnostic Center, along with an increase in reportable incidents by gang members in facilities, provided the catalyst to develop the Security Threat Group Management Program within the Central Classification Unit. This new initiative, from drawing board to implementation, was by design a program encompassing dedicated staff, training, identification, technology, partnership and intelligence sharing.

More than 10 years ago, the Colorado DOC solicited the National Institute of Corrections to assess the impact STG members were having on the system. The NIC facilitators presented their assessment and recommendations for addressing the problem. It was made very clear that any attempt to successfully engage in identifying, monitoring and assigning STG members could be done through classification processes. Classification appeared to be the best fit based on the fact that the Central Classification Unit holds the authority to assign and transfer inmates.

Shortly after the NIC review, Central Classification took the lead. Policy was written, and validation criteria were established and programmed into the department's information system. STG training was provided to Central Classification Unit staff, beginning with basic STG 101 and progressing to specialized curriculum.

STG activity was addressed in the administrative regulations governing: administrative segregation, STG management and identification, offender reading material, and intelligence gathering. Determining that an inmate must be assigned to a higher custody level requires supporting documentation and, if necessary, due process to avoid abuse and maintain efficient bed management.

During this critical time in developing a sound program, the Colorado Legislature passed a bill to further manage STG members in the prison system and while on parole. Colorado Revised Statute 17-1-109 Duties, and Functions of the Superintendent, empowers the superintendent (warden) to take the necessary action to restrict and confine inmates who are involved with STG activity or recruitment. This statute is primarily used to administratively segregate the most active gang members and those who call the shots. This statute and supporting documentation has proved to be a silver bullet, and the Colorado Legislature should be commended for its foresight.

Additional resources were tapped, and facility wardens assigned a full-time staff member to oversee the intelligence gathering and coordinate the efforts to suppress STG activity. The intelligence officer was also responsible for sharing information collected and disseminating it via monthly meetings and the DOC's information system. This information provided additional capabilities for Central Classification to identify inmates who are potentially disruptive and assign them to facilities based on reclassification and threat assessment.

The inspector general's office plays a major role in STG management. Its primary role is to prosecute criminal acts committed by STG members and coordinate efforts with the state attorney general's office to prosecute criminal enterprises.

Taking its Toll on Corrections

Classification reviews and facility assignment are determined by the traditional factors: criminal and behavioral history, medical and mental health history and needs, length of sentence, treatment/program needs and information provided by diagnosticians that may additionally influence the review. Today, other factors must be considered, including STG affiliation, the Americans With Disabilities Act, high-profile status, interstate compact and bed availability. This places a heavy burden on the classification personnel designated to assign the offender to a facility that can safely house him or her and attempt to meet the inmate's needs. The input of information by the different disciplines impacting assignment has progressed over time, mainly due to improvements in the means of assessment. Assessment tools are now more reliable and have been validated over time. For the most part, the information used to make sound decisions is credible. It is also important to point out that the correctional experience of a classification specialist is also valuable.

Correctional agencies will continue with the course of action they feel will meet the demands placed on their agency. Offenders will earn their way into high-security beds due to their dangerous and disruptive behavior. These same offenders will have some success in challenging their assignment to high-security environments. There is no better defense against placement challenges than an objective classification system.

The future is the playing field for new approaches and enhancements to classification systems. The existing data pertaining to offender classification can be extrapolated and analyzed to expand and construct new strategies in classification to improve the management of dangerous and disruptive inmates. Improved classification will also impact the efficient use of an existing compressed bed system. Classification decisions concerning STG members can be supported by the data collected, showing the extreme risk these dangerous and disruptive inmates pose to the normal operations of a prison system.

Classification alone cannot constitute a decrease in prison violence, risk of escape or litigation. Prison staff at all levels comprise a safe and legitimate prison system. However, an objective classification system rooted in validity, technology, best practices, established policies and procedures, and a commitment to embrace change will provide a foundation for line staff to conduct their daily duties and responsibilities with confidence.

Encouragement and support should be given to classification staff in prisons and jails across the United States. These individuals make critical decisions daily based on information provided internally and externally. Therefore, the best available tools and training should be provided to them. A periodic investment to evaluate a classification system will pay out dividends.

"Violence within the nation's prisons has become almost commonplace. The incidence of assaults ... inmates against staff, and against one another ... has grown increasingly severe, particularly among maximum-security inmates. The effect of violence and other disruptive behavior has exacted a heavy toll on correctional resources." Former NIC director Raymond C. Brown made this statement in 1988. There is no debate about whether offenders are more violent today as compared with the past. One thing is clear: STG inmates are more disruptive, and the strategies and tactics to suppress their violent acts must be justified and prudent. The classification of an offender to the most extreme environment or the least restrictive can only be accomplished through clear channels of communication. The supporting documentation must be valid and reliable. Every effort must be made to improve systems and processes. Agency classification systems should be reviewed at least every five years. The principles of classification will not change drastically; however, the relationship of classification and other offender management programs can improve inmate management overall.

There is no doubt that dangerous and disruptive offenders have taken their toll on correctional resources; however, the partially tapped resource of creativity, if cultivated, can produce new methods of managing America's most dangerous and disruptive inmates.

REFERENCES

Buchanan, R.A., C.A. Unger and K.L. Whitlow. 1988. Disruptive maximum security inmate management guide. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections.

Austin, J. and P.L. Hardyman. 2004. Objective prison classification a guide for correctional agencies. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections.

Collins, W.C. 2004. Supermax prisons and the constitution liability concerns in the Extended Control Unit. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections.

Daryl A. Vigil is a classification supervisor for the Colorado Department of Corrections.