This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Gobeil, R. Articles by Blanchette, K. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Revalidation of a Gender-Informed Security Reclassification Scale for Women Inmates

Correctional Service of Canada and Carleton University, Ottawa

Kelley Blanchette

Correctional Service of Canada and Carleton University, Ottawa

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.

Key Words: classification • security classification • women offenders

References

• 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Alexander, J., & Austin, J. (1992). Handbook for evaluating objective prison classification systems. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
• Austin, J. (1983). Assessing the new generation of prison classification models. Crime & Delinquency, 28, 561-576.
• Austin, J., & Hardyman, P.L. (2004). Objective prison classification: A guide for correctional agencies. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
• Blanchette, K. (2005). Field-test of a gender-informed security reclassification scale for female offenders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
• 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.
• 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• 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.
• Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L.L. (1990). Classification to halfway houses: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Criminology, 28, 497-506.[CrossRef]
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.[Abstract]
• Burke, P., & Adams, L. (1991). Classification of women offenders in state correctional facilities: A handbook for practitioners. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
• Correctional Service of Canada. (2002). Corporate results, Performance Measurement Branch. Ottawa, Canada: Author.
• Correctional Service of Canada. (2006). Commissioner's directive 710-6: Review of offender security classification. Ottawa, Canada: Author.
• Correctional Service of Canada. (2007). [March 1, 2007, snapshot of women offenders' sentence length and initial security classifications]. Unpublished raw data.
• Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S. 20 (1992).
• Cortina, J.M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.[CrossRef]
• Farr, K. (2000). Classification for female inmates: Moving forward. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 3-17.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Grant, B.A., & Luciani, F.P. (1998). Security classification using the Custody Rating Scale (Report R-67). Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Hardyman, P.L., & Van Voorhis, P.V. (2004). Developing gender-specific classification systems for women offenders. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
• 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• 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.
• 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.
• Motiuk, L.L. (1997). Classification for correctional programming: The Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) process. Forum on Corrections Research, 9(1), 18-22.
• Nuffield, J. (1982). Parole decision-making in Canada: Research toward decision guidelines. Ottawa: Solicitor General of Canada.
• Shaw, M., & Hannah-Moffat, K. (2000). Gender, diversity, and risk assessment in Canadian corrections. Probation Journal, 47, 163-173.
• Solicitor General of Canada. (1987). Development of a security classification model for Canadian federal offenders. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.
• Van Voorhis, P.V., & Presser, L. (2001). Classification of women offenders: A national assessment of current practices. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Vol. 23, No. 4, 296-309 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1043986207309411


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Gobeil, R. Articles by Blanchette, K. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?