The classification aims at assessing the different needs of the prisoners as well as categorizing the inmates. The focus of the classification process was to find out the various assessments and activities included in the process of intake and the general duties of the different state agencies (Patricia & Johnette, 2004). This was to be achieved through an assumption that no model was suitable but rather the various assessments, activities, the state of the system, and the general needs of the agency could significantly help in accelerating the classification process, and help in achieving the different desired goals and objectives. The primary purpose of carrying out any classification is to find out whether the objectives of that particular agency are being achieved as initially planned and at what level they are being achieved.
Any agency or organization should make a strategic follow up to find out whether the particular allocation of resources is helping greatly in achieving the desired goals and objectives of the agency since most resources like money and employees are always allocated to different evaluation and classification activities. Most evaluations of any classification in the agency usually involve critical assessment of the significant objectives of prisons, for example, the general safety of inmates and employees, fairness and equal opportunities for everyone as well as transparency in the widespread use of the prison resources. The primary goal of the classification was to find out how prison classification evaluations are conducted.
What are the Top Three to Five Factors that Drive our Initial Diagnostic?
The overall national review found out different factors that would bring about a positive change in the prison system. These factors were the primary drivers of the initial classification process, and they included the following (Jack & James, 1992):
Availability of various risks and needs assessment tools and these would help in determining the different programs the inmates can be encouraged to participate in once they are in prison.
A comprehensive and timely sharing of various sets of data across the intake facilities and all the correctional state agencies
The presence of linked information systems of management.An increment in the general administrative furniture and space at the various intake facilities.All the above factors significantly accelerated the desire to carry out the initial classification process.
Is there a difference between the Agencys Diagnostic/Classification Process at In-take and the Classification Process used at the Post In-take Facility Assignment?
The process of classification was implemented in two phases whereby a general national review of the 50 selected state agencies was carried out, and this helped in getting data concerning the general population, the functions of the facilities, and the different responsibilities of the concerned personnel as well as the possible weaknesses of the classification process. The second criteria involved a close evaluation of four states selected from the national review. These two processes were not so much different though the first method seemed to a give a broad assessment.
The classification processes at intake had significant consequences due to small samples at the time of evaluating the classification. Despite the various difficulties that were faced at the initial intake, the ranking of the agency in this preliminary input contributed heavily to the general knowledge of the different advantages and limitations of the classification process in the various agency systems basing on the current state of the systems. Different observations were made at the initial intake like the occurrence of relatively significant decreases in the general level of the classification processes. It was found out that the initial input of prisoners liable for any level of custody had a relatively higher percentage than it was in previous years.
Finally, the data suggested that proper incorporation of different institutional goals, needs assessment, and adequate planning is highly vital in the maximization of institutional resources, giving support to areas concerning better preparation and release of the prisoners.
Patricia, L., Hardyman, James, A., & Johnette, P. (2004). Prisoner intake systems: Assessing needs and classifying prisoners. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections.
Jack, A. & James, A., (1992). Handbook for evaluating objective prison classification systems. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the customtermpaperwriting.org website, please click below to request its removal: