Development and field test of a gender-informed security reclassification scale for female offenders

Criminal Justice and Behavior

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 362-379

  Blanchette, Kelley ^a,b   Taylor, Kelly N ^b  

^a CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b Correctional Service of Canada ^*  (Canada)

Author keywords

Classification; Female offenders; Security classification

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847110107     PISSN: 00938548     EISSN: 15523594     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093854806290162     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. 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.