Are New Advances in Information
Technology transforming the U.S.
Prison System?



Size of Prison Population: With over 2.5 million
inmates currently under institutional control in this
country, it is clear that imprisonment is viewed as an
appropriate sanction for individuals convicted of a
variety of crimes (violent, drug, property, public
order).
Number of Prisons: To efficiently impose this sanction,
the U.S. currently has over 5000 adult prison and jails,
each with its own unique design features, staffing
ratios, design and operational capacity, offender
population characteristics, and resource level.
Classification: In each of these facilities, classification
decisions are made that directly affect the level of
violence and disorder in prison.


Objective external classification systems are
currently used by all federal and state prison
systems in this country to determine the initial
level of security/ control needed over the
incoming prisoner population.
Based on the offender’s overall assessment
“score” he/she is assigned to a minimum,
medium, maximum, or super-max prison
facility.







We look at the following factors:
The seriousness of the commitment offense,
sentence length,
The offender’s criminal history,
Escape history,
Prior incarceration history,
Special monitoring needs (due to security
threat assessment, gang affiliation, potential
victimization, etc.),



We can learn a great deal about a prison system
by closely examining how and why inmate
location decisions are made.
According to a recent nationwide review of
prison classification systems conducted by
Austin and McGinnis (2004), approximately 80
percent of the current federal and state prison
population are identified as being appropriate
for location in the general prison population;
These inmates are placed in minimum (35%),
medium (35%) and maximum security facilities
(10%; about 1% in super-max facilities)


Approximately 15% of all inmates are classified
(or reclassified) as special populations requiring
separate housing away from the general
population of prisoners;
These inmates are placed in administrative
segregation (6%), protective custody (2%), and
facilities designed specifically for inmates with
severe mental health (2%) or medical problems
(2%).


Use of Segregation Units has Increased: The percentage
of inmates placed in administrative and disciplinary
segregation has risen 40 percent nationally between
1995 and 2000; by comparison, the prison population
increased by 28 percent during this same period .
However, Use of Segregation varies by Location: a
recent study of special population units noted that
several states reported using segregation for less than 1
percent of the male and female inmate population
(Maryland, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Vermont),
while a few states placed a much larger percentage of
inmates in segregation (West Virginia (16%), New
Mexico (13%), and Colorado (8%)).
1. Make segregation a last resort and a more
productive form of confinement, and stop
releasing people directly from segregation to
the streets.
2. End conditions of isolation.
3. Protect mentally ill prisoners



There is Variation in the percentage of inmates
assigned to mental health units:
Several states housed less than 1 percent of
their male and female inmate populations in
mental health units( Florida, Indiana, Missouri,
New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont),
However, two states ( Georgia,12 %, and
Alaska,5%) take a very different approach to
the housing of mentally ill inmates.


In some prison systems (e.g. Rhode Island),
only a small proportion (less than 5%) of all
inmates are housed in one of these special
population units;
In other State Prison systems (e.g.
Massachusetts), a much larger proportion
(close to 40%) of all inmates are placed in these
locations.


Philosophy: It should be emphasized that the size of a
particular state’s special population system is driven
not by inmate characteristics and classification criteria
alone; it represents a policy choice by corrections
managers in each system.
Cost: Since it costs much more to house offenders in
special population groupings than in general
population groupings, it is not surprising that some
corrections systems limit the size of the special
population system by narrowly defining the criteria
used to make this initial classification decision.



It probably doesn’t come as a surprise that an inmate
placed in a maximum security facility in one state (or
federal) system, may be placed in a different security
level facility somewhere else.
In fact, many general population prisoners classified
as maximum custody do not present management
problems and are so classified because of the crime
they committed, their prison sentence, or a violent
event that occurred many years in the past”.
Factors (e.g. punishment) other than risk control (or
risk reduction) are driving the initial assignment
process in many state and federal prisons today.






In order to make prisons safer, a variety of
assessment instruments are used to classify
inmates in each of the following areas:
(1) Threat/dangerousness,
(2) Mental health/ potential for victimization
and self-injury,
(3) Physical health,
(4) Treatment/programming needs, and
(5) Escape/ flight risk.



There are a number of different risk
assessment instruments currently in use across
the country.
Some instruments focus on specific forms of
violence (e.g. the Rapid Risk Assessment for
Sexual Offense Recidivism (RRASOR), the
Sexual Violence Risk-20(SVR-20), and the
Static-99, target sex offending),
Other instruments assess an individual’s
general propensity for violent/assaultive
behavior(eg. the Hare Psychopathy ChecklistRevised (PCL-R)).


The main problem associated with using the
latest generation of risk assessment tools in
prison settings is that these instruments were
developed and validated using subsequent
offender behavior in the community as the
outcome measure of interest;
They have not been developed and tested
using institutional violence as the
criterion/outcome measure.




Because the base rate of various forms of institutional
violence is very low, it is likely that current risk
instruments—when validated—will have difficulty
distinguishing dangerous from non-dangerous
inmates.
This creates two potential problems for corrections
managers:
false positives, i.e. individuals predicted to be violent
who actually do not become violent while in prison;
and
false negatives, i.e. individuals predicted to be nondangerous who do in fact commit a violent act while in
prison.



















1. Reduce crowding. States and localities must commit to eliminating the crowded
conditions that exist in many of the country’s prisons and jails and work with
corrections administrators to set and meet reasonable limits on the number of
prisoners that facilities can safely house.
2. Promote productivity and rehabilitation. Invest in programs that are proven
to reduce violence and to change behavior over the long term.
3. Use objective classification and direct supervision. Incorporate violence
prevention in every facility’s fundamental classification and supervision
procedures.
4. Use force, non-lethal weaponry, and restraints only as a last resort. Dramatically
reduce the use of non-lethal weapons, restraints, and physical force by using
non-forceful responses whenever possible, restricting the use of weaponry to
qualified staff, and eliminating the use of restraints except when necessary to
prevent serious injury to self or others.
5. Employ surveillance technology. Make good use of recording surveillance
cameras to monitor the correctional environment.
6. Support community and family bonds. Reexamine where prisons are located
and where prisoners are assigned, encourage visitation, and implement phone
call reform.



Gang Members: While almost 90% of all prisons screen
for gang/security threat group membership, there is
significant variation in the percentage of the inmate
population (male and female) actually identified as
gang/STG members.
Extent of Gang Membership Varies: In some states,
such as Wisconsin (43%), New Mexico (36%), and
Minnesota (30%), a large proportion of the incoming
inmate population is identified; but in several other
prison systems the initial screening results in the
identification of a much smaller proportion of the
inmate population.
In California and Michigan, for example, only 1% of
the inmate population was classified as gang/STG
members










Gang/ STG membership can be determined from a range of sources, including
inmate interviews, official police and court records, and evidence of inmate tattoos
identifying gang affiliation.
In Florida’s department of corrections, an inmate would be classified as a gang
member if he/she met any two of the following criteria:
Admits to criminal street gang membership;
Is identified as a gang member by a parent/guardian;
Is identified as a gang member by a documented reliable informant;
Reside/frequents a gang's area, adopts their style of dress, hand signs, or tattoos,
and associates with known gang members;
Is identified as a gang member by an informant of previously untested reliability
and such identification is corroborated by independent information;
Was arrested more than once in the company of identified gang member for
offenses which are consistent with usual criminal street gang activity;
Is identified as a criminal street gang member by physical evidence such as
photographs or other documentation;
Was stopped in the company of known criminal street gang members four or more
times.




A number of recent reviews have indicated that the
influence of gangs on both community and institutional
violence and disorder has been exaggerated (Byrne and
Hummer, in press; Byrne, 2006).
In addition, there is no current empirical evidence
identifying a link between security threat group
membership and prison violence .
Despite this research shortfall, gang/STG status will
likely result in placement in administrative segregation
and/or location in a high security facility (maximum
security or super –max prison).
In some prison systems, it may even affect offender
location during the initial prison classification process
or upon transfer to a new institution.



In California, corrections authorities were until
recently assigning inmates to racially segregated cells
in order to “ prevent members of race-based gangs
from turning on one another in two-man cells”.
In Johnson v. California, the Supreme Court declared this
practice unconstitutional .
According to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor(2005), “
When government officers are permitted to use race as
a proxy for gang membership and violence without
demonstrating a compelling government interest and
proving that their means are narrowly tailored, society
as a whole suffers”


Religious Conversion and Terrorism: One area of
potential controversy is an upcoming initiative to
improve our data collection (and information sharing)
on both religious preferences and religious conversion
in prison; this approach is based on the belief that
prisoner radicalization may result in increased levels of
domestic terrorism in this country over the next few
years.
Tracking Religion: Since it is estimated that over 70
percent of religious conversions in prison involve
conversion to Islam, it appears that it is the
identification and tracking of this group of converted
inmates that will be the primary focus of this strategy,
although radicalized right-wing Christian extremist
groups are also identified( e.g. Aryan Nation)


Nature of the Problem: A number of recent reviews of
federal, state, and local prisons and jails in the United
States have identified the classification, treatment, and
control of the mentally ill offender as one of the most
serious management problems facing prison officials
today.
Extent of the Problem: While estimates of the size of
the mentally ill prison and jail populations vary by the
type of assessment completed and the definition of
mental illness used, there is general agreement that—at
minimum-- about one in five offenders entering our
prison system today have a serious mental disorder



Rate of schizophrenia or other psychotic
disorders is three to five times greater among
prisoners as compared to the U.S. population.,
while the rate of bipolar disorder is 1.5 to 3
times greater (NCCHC,2002).
Conservatively, it is estimated that “ there are
at least 350,000 mentally ill people in prison
and jail on any given day”,
There are three times as many severely
mentally ill individuals in prison than in
psychiatric hospitals.



I agree with the conclusion of the National
Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s
Prisons:
(1) it certainly appears that we have replaced
yesterday’s asylums with today’s prisons; and
(2) “the result is not only needless suffering by
the individuals who are under treated but
safety problems those prisoners cause staff and
other prisoners”.



Women prisoners are far more likely than
men to identify as having a mental illness
(24% vs 16%) and,
Among those who do identify as mentally ill,
women are far more likely than men to report
a history of sexual (59% vs. 15%)and physical
abuse (68% vs. 27%).
The American Psychiatric Association
recommends developing treatment programs
especially for women prisoners that can
address their history of trauma




Infectious disease: Hepatitus C(4x greater),
AIDS infection (8-9 x higher), Active TB (4x
greater) AIDS (5x greater)
Chronic Disease: asthma (higher)
Mental Illness: Schizophrenia(3-5x higher),
Bipolar(1.5-3 x higher), major depression(same)
Substance Abuse: 25% fit Alcohol dependent
profile; 83% with drug use history
People carrying an infectious disease who were
released from prison and jail in 1996:
 Hepatitis C :1.3-1.4 million
 HIV : 98,000-145,000
 AIDS: 39,000
 Tuberculosis: 566,000 latent and 12,000 active
cases





Education
Skill Level and Work History
Individual Problem Areas: substance abuse,
mental health problems, sex offender
treatment.
In each treatment area, objective, standardized
assessment instruments are available
The problem? Treatment availability, access,
and quality in prison settings




Assessing flight risk is difficult because the
base rate is so low.
The prison escape rate declined significantly
between 1988 and 1998, from 1.4 escapes per
100 inmates in 88 to .04 in 1998.
The vast majority of all escapes are from
minimum security institutions. They are
usually walk-a ways, who are quickly captured
or return.
The problem of assessing flight risk is
compounded by an unclear definition of
attempted/completed escapes.



Comprehensive, automated, on-line management
information systems represent the future of prison
classification and offender management.
The Adult Internal Management System (AIMS) often
referred to as the Quay system and designed and
tested in several prison systems by Dr. Herbert Quay,
is the most common internal classification system used
today.
AIMS is currently being used by several facilities in the
Federal Bureau of Prisons and in all or part of several
state prison systems ( Ohio, South Dakota, Missouri,
and South Carolina).



Camp and Gaes (2005) randomly assigned
medium security inmates to minimum security
facilities,
Bench and Allen (2003) randomly assigned
maximum security inmates (based on the
external risk classification) to medium security
facilities;
Findings: both studies found no significant
differences in either overall misconduct or
serious misconduct violations across
experimental and control groups.
RESEARCH
(1) Contrary to expectations, placement of
high risk offenders in less restrictive
prison settings( medium security) does
not lower their rate of institutional
misconduct; and placement of medium
risk offenders in lower risk settings
does not raise their rate of misconduct;
(2) Berk et al(2006) developed a model for
predicting dangerous misconduct in
prison( assault, drug trafficking, and
robbery) but the model had accuracy
problems( 50%) due to a very low base
rate of misconduct( 3%), which led to a
false positives ratio of 10:1.

POLICY




The implications of these findings
for external classification systems
are straight-forward: New risk
reduction strategies are needed
Alternatives to control-based
placements should be field-tested to
determine their effect on inmate
misconduct.
Age(younger), gender(male), history
of violence(known),history of
mental illness(known) program
participation(low), and recent
disciplinary action are all correlated
with inmate misconduct.
We need to link each risk factor with
the appropriate programmatic
response.
HARD REENTRY
TECHNOLOGY









GPS/Rf Electronic monitoring
GPS for staff location
Polygraphs and plethysmographs to
support sex offender treatment
Laptops for line staff
Reporting Kiosks for low risk
offenders
Remote Alcohol monitoring devices
Breathalizers
Instant drug tests
Language translation devices
SOFT REENTRY
TECHNOLOGY







Improved risk assessment instruments
for sex, drug, and mentally ill offender
assessment
COMPSTAT for reentry and mapping
software applications(
offender/resource location)
SMART case management technology
New technology for monitoring
identity manipulation by registered
sex offenders
Field Search software to monitor
internet activities of sex offenders
New persuasive technology
applications
Monitoring activities via social
network sites



The Identification of High Risk Offenders
The Identification of High Risk Locations
The Identification of High Risk Times




An example of a sophisticated integrated offender case
management system is the University of Maryland
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Automated
Tracking System (HATS).
HATS is an automated information system that is
used in by the Maryland Division of Probation and
Parole, drug courts, community-based treatment
programs, and other agencies serving offenders in
Maryland.
This system integrates data from many sources
relating to offender treatment and supervision.
Information is available for offenders regarding intake,
referrals and appointments, program inventory,
offender confidentiality and releases, supervision,
graduated sanctions and treatment tracking.





Four basic principles of COMPSTAT-driven
reentry initiatives
1. Intelligence: assessing individual and community risk
2. Rapid Deployment: target high risk offenders, smaller caseloads, resources
available immediately upon release( employment, housing, counseling, treatment),
location of officers in community, not office.
3. Effective tactics: evidence-based practice matching programs to offender
problems/needs
4. Follow-up and assessment: performance measurement and identification of high
performance and low performance programs/strategies


The internet provides opportunities for social
networking by offenders reentering the
community after a period of incarceration
The internet also provides an opportunity for
reentry personnel to monitor offender behavior
on these social networking sites; it is another
facet of supervision in cyber space.









According to a review by Blalock( 2010), community corrections workers are
developing strategies that involve direct monitoring of offender social network
activity via undercover surveillance and the creation of false identities to gain
access to online groups
street names, gang names, and monikers can be learned from photos,
screen names, and personalized URLs;
• leads can be developed from wall/comment conversations and photos;
• friends and associates can be learned from friend lists;
• individual movements can be learned from mini-feeds
Whereabouts can be located by IP address, city/state location, etc.
Field Search Software looks for pornography on the computers of sex offenders
New software developed by IDAnalytics and Utica College’s CIMIP can notify
authorities of identity manipulation by registered sex offenders via cell phone and
credit card purchase monitoring



Challenge: Silk Road and the creation of
anonymous online identities via TOR software
allows access to the dark side of the internet
Controversy: Big brother privacy concerns and the
fact that online monitoring takes time away from
other activities that may foster desistance(
mentoring via direct contact).
Future: the likely development of site tracking
software perhaps using reviews of key words and
pictures to monitor sites and then notify reentry
personnel with potential problem behavior
Computing technologies may persuade in three ways:
 1. They may serve as a persuasive tool that leads people
through a process, makes target behavior easier to do or
perform calculations or measurements that motivate.
 2.They may persuade as a social actor that rewards people
with positive feedback, models a target behavior or attitude
or provides social support.
 3. They may act as a medium, allowing people to explore
cause-and-effect relationships, provide people with
experiences that motivate or help people rehearse a
behavior.




1. The Methamphetamine Remote Recovery Project: Used in conjunction with a
cognitive-based treatment philosophy, computing technologies provide more
opportunity for communication between the probation officer and the offender for
routine supervisory check-ins as well as determine in individual treatment needs.
Together, the probation officer, treatment provider and offender can locate
additional substance abuse support based on offender needs through the
Substance Abuse Treatment Locator (SATL).
https://findtreatment.samhsa.gov/TreatmentLocator/faces/quickSearch.jspx
The SATL is a web-based search engine that will allow probationers to locate and
make initial contact with substance abuse treatment providers in their area





Example 2. E-Treat: E-Treat is a computer-assisted intervention for individuals seeking
treatment for substance abuse disorders. Although not designed specifically for
probationers, the programme does accept referrals from probation and parole officers.
TheE-Treat programme combines elements of motivational interviewing with persuasive
technologies to support the motivation to continue treatment for those who are either
waiting for long-term treatment or are in transition between treatment services.
E-Treat employs recovery coaches – trained in motivational interviewing – to conduct
initial assessments, assist clients in using available computer resources and initiate
access to electronic resources available through the E-Treat intervention .
Recovery coaches provide personalised coaching and support – they also send motivational
messages to clients using telephone, text messages, email and web-based
communication. Individualised messages offer suggestions about sustaining recovery
efforts, such as exploring ambivalence about entering treatment, averting destructive
communication patterns and eliciting self-motivational statements.
http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/5/1/10





Example 3. Ann-e:This iPhone application allows persons
involved in Twelve Step programmes to find meetings being
held close to where the offender is located at the time of a
mobile query.
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/meetings/a/anne_app.htm
Offenders can also request real-time support from persons
on call for support or even offer support to others in need.
Probation officers can send mobile reminders and support
to probationers during risky times and places associated
with relapse and use positive messages in real time for
offenders as they make positive choices.
This application may offer a less intrusive persuasive option
which would be more appropriate for low-risk offenders or
those transitioning out of higher risk levels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1J-LKXDTTA





Field Search--Originally designed to assist probation and parole officers in sex offender management, the
Field Search suite is equally effective in first responder situations or in examining computers for evidence of
other crimes.
https://www.justnet.org/fieldsearch/fs_features.html
Research: A January 2008 survey of 269 Field Search users
found that more than one-half of the respondents use Field
Search primarily for probation/ parole operations, and
more than one-quarter use it primarily for law enforcement
operations.
More than 70 percent of respondents successfully used
evidence captured by Field Search in a court proceeding,
and 17 percent reported that the evidence was used to
successfully prosecute new criminal charges.
The respondents expressed their satisfaction with Field
Search, primarily as a tool that can generate information
used by treatment providers and provide a means of
determining compliance with conditions of supervision.