365.

6099
44
NEW
New South Wales Department of Corrective Services
Policy Unit Discussion Paper
June, 1986
THE CLASSIFICATION OF PRISONERS
ABSTRACT
The classification system at present in use in New South Wales has developed
in response to situations which have evolved historically, As problems have
emerged, they have been accommodated within a flexible and comprehensive
system in which individualized classification has been based upon what. has
been called "human judgment and a rational appr<;1Bch to each prisoner".
This paper will discuss some present and anticipated problems associated with
the system now in use, and will propose an alternative system to meet likely
future needs, The proposal draws on two overseas models, those of the
National Institute of Corrections (N.I.C.) and the Adult Internal Management.
System (A.I.M.S., or AIMS), both of which have been in use in the U.S.A. for
a number of years. It will be seen that the proposal is intended to serve a
range of correctional purposes going beyond simply the cohtainment of
prisoners.
!
II
v
1
~
j
H
~
,.
f, I
1
r:.S.W DEP(OF CORREC;ffi/E SERVICES
.__ _____ '-_IB:RARY
------...J
INTRODUCTION
Classification is a difficult area. T.here are few aspects of correction which
are at once so apparently simple, but which on closer examination are so
difficult to o p ~ r a t e satisfactorily. '!!'he potential benefits are considerable,
however.
Everyone is different, but the basics of human behaviour are universal.
Therein lies the problem. We are committed to recognizing and dealing .with
people as individuals but we also have to deal with prisoners en masse.
Classification therefore has to serve the sometimes conflicting needs of the
system and the community, as well as those of the prisoner.
It has been argued that society's needs may be met if the individual's real
needs are met, but achieving such an ideal is not easy. The traditional way
has been to remedy deficits while striving for rehabilitation and, failing
that, to pursue "correction".
In line with all this, the Department's purposes can be grouped into the
short-term objectives relating to containment and the long-term goal of
correction. Ideally, the latter will take place within the context of the
former -- "correction within containment". As the U.S. Chief Justice put it
in 1980,
"To put people behind walls and bars ........... and do nothing to
change them is to win a battle, but lose a war. It is wrong.
It is expensive. It is stupid."
There is always the problem of reconciling a triad of conflicting needs
those of the prisoner, the institution and the community. This is what makes
classification difficult, if it is done well.
The way in which New South Wales prisoners are now classified is very much a
product of the history of the system. Although classification will always be
an area o{ controversy 1 discussion is usually confined to the relatively few
unsatisfactory outcomes. Australian, British and American systems, however,
have been the subject of extensive scrutiny in recent years. In many cases,
an initial focus on a system's classification process has widened into an
examination of the total prison environment and then into a review of the
whole correctional system. This has been very much the case in the U.S.A.,
and it has provided considerable pressure for change.
Any conscientiously-conducted system of classification will serve the
perceived purposes of management, using such resources as are available, and
coping with the difficulties which tend to recur within any correctional
system. Given that situation, it is not unreasonable to say that the
Department's present classification system has probably done most of the
things that could reasonably have been expected of it over the years.
This is not to say that the present system is in all respects satisfactory,
nor that it will be adequate to meet the likely demands of the next few
years. So far as the present system is concerned, any substantial increase
2
in the number of classifications having to be made each year would probably
impose considerable strain, as would a need to deal with inmates in greater
depth than is now the case.
Fortunately, the advent of a computer data-base offers the prospect of some
relief for a hard-worked classification system of which more will certainly
be demanded in coming years. Properly used, the computer should enable the
Department to do things which would be beyond the capacity of any manual
system, particularly in regard to information-storage, access and analysis.
For a variety of reasons, therefore, it seems an appropriate time to change
to a system which will serve a wider range of Departmental purposes, be more
in line with the current Corporate Plan, take advantage of technological
resources coming on stream, and provide a basic structure which will more
readily accept upgrading over the years ahead.
The system which will be outlined and discussed below is not intended as a
fully-finished structure, complete in all respects, but rather as a prototype
. which should now be looked at carefully by all levels of the Department with
a view to refining its "workability" and practicality. Any necessary
amendments in matters of detail can be suggested during this process,
following which the system should then be field-tested at an operational
level before it is brought into general use throughout the Department.
The proposed system is an assemblage of purposes and which applies
universal, objective criteria to indicate security ratings while placing an
increased emphasis upon developmental programmes for prisoners, using a more
structured assessment of needs for this purpose. It offers the prospect of
doing more, doing it better and being better understood by staff and inmates
alike, as well as by the public at large.
--ooOoo--
I
I
I_

,,
3
PROBLEMS COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH CLASSIFICATION
This is not a list of complaints or criticisms about to the existing system
of classifying prisoners. Rather, it is a recognition of the potential for
problems that is inherent in any classification system, and an identification
of areas warranting special attention when developing an alternative system.
In some cases, problems which in the past might have been very difficult, or
even impossible to overcome, may now be amenable to solution by sensible use
of new technology. In this regard, a relatively sophisticated Management
Information System (M.I.S.), such as may be available through the design and
adoption of an appropriate computer programme or programmes, can give us the
capacity to record, store, verify, correlate, safeguard, reclaim and analyse
information which can significantly improve the Department's ability to
manage, effectively and productively, the people committed to its charge.
Special attention has thus been given to some particular areas and matters, a
short list of which is set out below.
1. The centralization (or decentralization) of classification
2. Initial classification being undertaken by one committee,
but reviews being carried out by another
3. Both the full classification committee and the Programme
Review Committees suffer from a lack of comprehensive
information and/or reliable assessment, or opinion, about
many of the people they have to deal with
4. In spite of the guidelines in Departmental circulars, and
recommendations in the Muir Report, each committee has
few written reports, other than those from psychologists,
to assist them in their decisions
5. In consequence of the foregoing, it can be difficult, at a
later date, to explain or justify classification decisions, if
called upon to do so
6. A number of Departmental files may exist in respect of an
offender, but what is in one may not be in another (nor
be readily available to a classification committee)
7. Information is often not easily exchanged between various
divisions within the Department
8. Where an offender may move regularly, and/or frequently,
between gaol and supervision in the community, valuable
information, from institutional files is often inaccessible to
the Probation and Parole Service. As a result, information-
gathering and assessment may be needlessly duplicated or
decisions may be made without adequate information
9. There is significant misunderstanding of the present class-
ification system by prisoners, staff, and community, alike
----'
4
10. The present systems of classifying and managing prisoners
seem unable to reduce the large numbers of prisoners who
require protection
ll. The comprehensive assessment of programme needs, in con-
junction with those relating to security, has been virtually
forgotten in the day-to-day struggle to find accommodation
in the maximum- and medium-security institutions which, in
many cases, are chronically overcrowded
12. Most systems tend to "over-classify", i.e., to hold inmates at
higher levels of security than is strictly necessary. This
tendency often strengthens over time, in the absence of a
countervailing pressure
--ooOoo--

5
PRESSURES FOR CHANGE
The problems outlined above have provided pressure for change, to the extent
that they are difficulties capable of elimination or amelioration.
The fundamental obligation of the Department is to do the best job it can,
within the ambit of its purposes and its resources. For the Department, this
involves a balancing of the Department's short- and long-term goals or
purposes, something which can be difficult when (as is sometimes the case)
they come into conflict.
It is instructive to look briefly at trends which have emerged over the last
decade or two in the U.S.A. America is interesting because it ranges from
extremes of urban concentration such as New York to remote, small, lightly-
populated rural communities. It has also seen a considerable variety of
experimentation, because each State has its own correctional system apart
from the overlying Federal system. But what is of particular interest is the
manner and extent of judicial scrutiny and intervention, with the resultant
pressure for change upon American correctional systems. The moat immediate
source of this has been the U.S. Supreme Court. Although much of the time
the Court has represented the wider community, there seem to have been times
when it has been somewhat ahead of public opinion.
In the result, however, correctional authorities in the U.S.A. either adopted
new classification systems or substantially upgraded existing schemes, under
pressure from the courts. A correctional authority without a functioning
classification system exposed itself to the very real risk of being sued.
Initial responses did not prove enough to satisfy the courts. What soon
followed was an interest in the quality of design of classification systems
(one State even presented a proposed scheme for Court examination and
approval prior to introducing it) and, soon after, a concern with effective
implementation of satisfactory designs.
There followed a third stage of judicial intervention, This proceeded from a
view conveniently summed up in a statement by the U.S. Chief Justice in 1980:
"Our criminal justice system is in need of fundamental change;
specifically, we must focus more ...... upon the conditions of in-
carcerated persons .... and I intend to press this ..... We have a
system of justice that provides each criminal ............. the most
elaborate due process, free counsel and the most expensive
trials, ..... yet we ..... cast the guilty into nineteenth-century
penal institutions..... If those responsible for ensuring decent
and responsible correctional administration fail to do so, ......
there is no choice but to act."
In Alabama, the Court decreed that the State's classification system be based
on the needs of the inmates, as well as on those of the institutions or of
the larger system. The next few years saw courts in a number of other States
adopting similar positions.
In New South Wales, this viewpoint is not novel. It has been given formal
1
1
L
''
6
recognition in the Department's Corporate Plan, a recent redraft of which
states Departmental purposes (in part) as:
"To provide a broad range ........... of custodial services for the
humane management, development, and care .......... of referred
convicted persons for the minimum effective period, with the
least necessary limitations of freedom, and having regard to
to legislative requirements, community interests, and the in-
dividual rights and needs of these persons."
It is appropriate at this stage to be considering the Department's purposes,
because before choosing a classification system it is necessary to have a
clear understanding of overall correctional goals. As the U.S. National
Institute of Corrections (N.I.C.) puts it,
"Prior to attempting to design a classification system ........ the
Department of Corrections must be very clear as to its own
goals and objectives."
"Only after conceptualizing its own goals, can a correctional
system develop a rational classification process."
The reference here is to the goals of the correctional system itself, and not
simply to the goals of a particular classification system. Those are more in
the nature of operational objectives, to be dealt with a later stage.
The U.S. Chief Justice saw the overall goals of the correctional system very
clearly when he said that to ignore the needs and development of prisoners
was "wrong .... expensive .... (and) .... stupid."
The result was a growing preoccupation by the courts with the totality of the
conditions of confinement. Cases on this kind of issue ("totality cases")
have been a third stage of judicial intervention in the U.S.A., and their
significance there is hard to overestimate.
While our constitutional and legal systems cannot be equated in all respects
with those of the U.S.A., there are some similarities worth remembering. Both
countries are federal systems and have a common-law background or heritage.
There has long been an awareness here of the value of judgments of the U.S.
Supreme Court, not as decisions binding on our courts but as "precedents of
persuasion", Two recent developments warrant comment. First, we have
effectively cut the ties with the Privy Council and, second, we are now
seeing in Australia something which has become well-developed in the U.S.A.
-- the so-called "class action". When one allows that there is much which
happens in America first but subsequently finds its way here, there may be
good reason to examine the American situation very carefully, in the hope of
learning from their experience. Certain trends in these "totality cases" are
already unmistakeable, and they give little comfort to prison administrators.
What has been brought out are three major areas of concern, the moral, the
financial and the practical.
,,
7
Meeting these conflicting demands within a correctional system is far from
easy.
The moral issue requires a correctional system which delivers humane
containment and develops prisoners to the level of re.habilitation.
The financial question is probably only ever answerable in terms of relative
cost-effectiveness.
The practicalities of correction are an attempt to reconcile these demands.
The moral imperative requires equality of opportunity for all offenders. The
financial imperative requires that we be able to determine what can be done
with which offenders in what circumstances by what people. Practicality
requires that if we cannot do everything at once, we should begin where the
prospects are best but that responsibility for outcome should be assigned
appropriately, i.e., the community for the situation of offenders before they
offend, offenders for such real choices they then make, the legislature and
the judiciary for their reactions to offences and offenders, the criminal
justice system for the protection of the community, the correctional system
for the provision of opportunities and the application of the resources it is
given, offenders for their utilization of those oportunities and resources,
and the community for the level of the resources it in fact provides.
The Department therefore should always achieve humane containment, should
strive for as much rehabilitation as it can find the resources for and should
be cost-effective in pursuing these goals.
Clearly, a fairly sophisticated, effective classification system is crucial.
We are being asked to do more, and to do .it better. A classification system
to meet those needs is the tool, and its design is to a large extent dictated
by those needs.
--ooOoo--
8
THE CHOICE OF A SYSTEM
There are many classification systems in use around the world. This raises
the question of adopting someone else's system or devising a new one. After
examining approaches and systems adopted elsewhere in Australia and in
various other countries, a compromise was decided upon. Keeping in mind the
needs discussed earlier, elements of other systems and procedures were used
to devise the proposal which is now put forward. The core is a model
designed by the National Institute of Corrections (N.I.C.) in the U.S.A. and
used by a number of American states (with various degrees of modification for
perceived local needs).
The full Adult Internal Management System (A.I.M.S., or AIMS), which has been
referred to earlier and is discussed elsewhere, can be used as a complete
classification and management system. In its full form, it was considered to
be too complex for our use as well as likely to need a major infusion of
highly-skilled and highly-trained staff to operate it. There are aspects of
AIMS which were considered less esoteric and of potential practical benefit
in the day to day management of our custodial institutions, and it was felt
that, as an adjunct to the basic system of classification we were proposing,
the management aspects of AIMS should be examined more closely to see if it
could be used to reduce the incidence of protection and segregation, as well
as of violence within an institutional population.
Another prime concern was the preservation and utilization of the skills, ex-
perience and judgment available from Departmental staff. It was considered,
therefore, that any system which allowed point-scores to dictate dispositions
was not acceptable. The adopted concept was that of a system which served
the decision-making process, not one which replaced it. The consequences are
seen in a number of places; the over-ride and veto provisions, the importance
of interviewing the inmate at various stages, the way in which sri inmate's
needs and/or problems are assessed and the benefits conferred by a high
quality management information service (M.I.S.) when the Department's planned
computer capacity becomes available.
It was desired to have a system which used universal and objective criteria
to serve the decision-making. The result is seen most strongly in the way in
which security ratings are indicated, both initially and upon review. Linked
with this was a desire to have a system which would be relatively simple,
understandable, more predictable, less likely to be distorted by bias or
prejudice or to be manipulated either by staff or inmates, and which,
finally, might reasonably be expected to arouse less doubt or controversy. A
further consequence of this is defensibility of decisions, because they are
products of enunciated policies and guidelines and because all the essential
components of the decision-making process are recorded.
The proposed system, by being more predictable for an inmate, offers the
prospect of incentive. Understanding the process reduces powerlessness and
frustration, and goes some way toward control by the inmate of his or her
environment. Not on its own, of course, but in conjunction with the
opportunities represented by developmental and other programmes, there is
scope for more constructive and productive management of our institutional
population.

"
9
This aspect of the proposal is crucial -- the elevation, almost to parity, of
the inmate's problems and needs in the process of the classification
decision. Without this, not much else is attainable within our prisons, and
our capacity to meet our own already-stated objectives becomes sharply
circumscribed.
The other crucial element is the Management Information System which has been
mentioned previously. Its long-term importance can hardly be overestimated.
The present proposal can be adopted without waiting for it, but its arrival
will add very significantly to the Department's capacity to do more with its
resources.
--ooOoo--
"----
10
NEW SOUTH \1ALES
DEPARTMENT oF CoRRECTIVE SERVICES
POLICY UNIT
D R A F T
POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
FOR
INSTITUTIONAL CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEES
,,
.
"
11
INSTITUTIONAL CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEES
POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL
CONTENTS:
l. Policy and Aims
2. Objectives
3. Guiding Principles
4. Definitions
5. Matrix - Prop;ramme by Institution and Institution by Programme
6. INITIAL CLASSIFICATION incl. overview, specimen forms and guide to:
The Initial Security Rating
The Initial Needs Assessment
. The Initial Classification
The Custody/Housing Assignment
7. REVIEW OF CLASSIFICATION including overview, blank forms and guide to:
The Reassessment of Security Needs
The Reassessment of Programme Needs
The Review of Classification
The Reassessment of Custody/Housing Assignment
8. Leave Programmes and Work-Release
9. Institutional Classification Committee Membership
10. Performance Review Checklist for Institutional Classification
Chairpersons.
ll.
12.
Comprehensive Sample Agenda for Classification Review Committee
Meeting
Sample Minutes of a Classification Review Committee Meeting
12
THE CLASSIFICATION OF PRISONERS
POLICY STATEMENT
Classification makes possible the appropriate placement of prisoners within
the Department's custodial institutions. Its purpose is to find a proper
balance between the conflicting needs of the prisoner, the institution and
the community.
Because of increasing demands upon classification, and the need for more
searching assessment of offenders, it has become necessary to adopt a system
which uses a wider range of objective, universal criteria for classification
decisions. Such decisions will be based essentially on such factors as the
risks represented by offenders, their developmental and other needs, and
their prospects for successful re-integration into the community.
AIMS
1, To assess, classify and place prisoners so as to facilitate the meeting
by the Department of its obligations in regard to the custody, care and
development of each prisoner.
2. To identify, evaluate and respond to the needs of the prisoner, the in-
stitution and the community in each case.

13
OBJECTIVES
1. To assess, classify and place all sentenced prisoners in accordance with
established principles and guidelines.
2. To complete an initial classification at the earliest practicable time
in each case.
3. To provide a review of each prisoner's classification on a predetermined
schedule, while allowing for earlier review upon the initiative of either
the prisoner or the Department.
4. To make possible a full Classification, or as separate functions:
a security assessment
a needs assessment
a custody assignment to appropriate housing
5. To classify each prisoner at the point of reception, wherever possible.
6, To classify and place each prisoner at the lowest appropriate level of
security.
7. To assess the developmental programme needs of each prisoner, assigning
an appropriate programme wherever possible.
8. To house and group prisoners so as to minimise management
problems and requests for formal protection.
9. To maximise prisoner understanding of the principles, the procedures and
the criteria for the initial classification and all subsequent reviews.
10. To maximise prisoner participation in the processes of assessment,
classification and placement.
11. To maximise programme continuity and minimise unnecessary transfers.
12. To provide clear guidelines for discretionary overrides by
classification staff, with the requirement that, a written explanation
be made in all such cases.
13. To facilitate the gradual re-entry of appropriate prisoners to the
community at the earliest proper time.
14. To identify and appropriately classify those prisoners whose escape or
release would threaten community safety,
15. To accept as prima facie grounds for initial placement to either maximum
or minimum security the recommendation of a sentencing judge or
magistrate made to the Department when sentencing the offender.
16. To establish a basic Offender Profile linked to the individual's M.I.N.,
with a standard format assembling both hard data and assessment so as to
provide a profile or picture of each offender.
14
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
1. The purpose of a classification system is to facilitate the effective care
custody, and development of prisoners by assessing and identifying the
programme requirements and programme needs of each prisoner, and placing
him/her in an institution where these requirements may be most
appropriately met.
2. The first step in the classifying sentenced prisoners is to identify
the lowest most appropriate security rating and place each prisoner
accordingly.
3. The classification process also involves identification and collation
of information on individual needs relevant to the provision of health,
educational, vocational and other relevant services. This is essential to
the effective management of prisoners, their care, containment and
development.
4. The classification process uses standardised criteria to assess the levels
of security, custody and programme needs of each prisoner. In this way it
is consistent and fair.
5. Given no system is foolproof, there shall be a prov1ston for the Director
of Classification to consider and if necessary veto the decisions of
institutional Classification Committees. A written report explaining the
reasons for using the veto facility will be provided to the inmate
and classification committee concerned.
6. All sentenced prisoners will be classified regardless of their length
sentence.
7. To minimise disruption and maintain continuity for staff/inmate contact,
as far as possible, classification will be completed for each sentenced
prisoner at the gaol of reception.
.
15
8. The Admission Form, completed by both remand and sentenced prisoners, will
identify the degree of need in, but not limited, to the areas of health,
work, vocational academic and social development. If an offender is
sentenced these areas may be further assessed for the purpose of
classification.
9. Essential to the effective operation of any classification system is a
clear understanding of the system and its operation by both staff and
inmates. Active encouragement to understand the process and the
opportunities available to inmates within each institution, will be
promoted and assisted.
10. Essential to an effective classification system is the appropriate
allocation of resources. Planning and provision of services
should, where possible, maximise opportunities for inmates to
utilise services available in the institution.
11. Once a programme has been identified for a prisoner, and the services
required for the programme are available, then every reasonable effort
will be made to facilitate the prisoners'commencement, continuing
involvement and completion of that programme,
12. Reclassification of prisoners involves the review of each prisoners,
security and custody requirements and programme needs together with
an assessment of the behaviour of each prisoner within the institution
Reclassification will occur on a regular and planned basis. Adequate
prior notice to both the inmate involved and representatives of
relevant institutional programmes is fundamental to this process.
13. Prisoners need to be involved in the process of classification and
review. Each prisoner must have adequate knowledge and understanding
of opportunities available. At all Classification and Programme Review
Committee Meetings, a prisoner must be consulted and as far as possible
participate in the decision making process. Only from such involvement
in the decision making process will greater responsibility be taken
by a prisoner for recommended decisions and programme involvement.
--ooOoo--
16
DEFINITIONS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION PROCESS
CLASSIFICATION
Classification is a total process which includes a number of stages, the
first being the RECEPTION (see definition) of a prisoner into prison and the
starting or restarting of an information file on each incoming prisoner.
The second stage involves the assigning. of a SECURITY level based upon the
current most serious offence, the most serious offence during the previous
five years, and the history of institutional violence.
The third stage involves an ASSESSMENT process that uses standardised and
objective criteria to assess each prisoner with regard to matters;
1. Medical
2. Drug and Alcohol abuse
3. Educational and Vocational needs
4. Psychological needs
5. Welfare needs
6. Cultural and Linguistic needs
7. Intramural employment
8. Activities
Assessments will specify a priority rating for each area of need based upon
the level of need, the degree of motivation exhibited by the prisoner, and
the extent to whiCh this may reasonably programmed within the prison system
given the duration of the prisoner's sentence and other relevant factors.
The fourth stage involves the collation of all relevant data, including
security level, all the assessments, and any previous departmental
assessments. The Classification Summary Sheet is completed by the
Classification Committee and the prisoner is interviewed and programme
recommendations as well as an institutional placement is made.
The fifth stage involves a CUSTODY ASSIGNMENT which occurs in the three weeks
following a prisoner's placement at a maximum or medium security institution.
Custody Assignment uses the Adult Internal Management System (AIMS) for an
appropriate housing placement within the institution.
CUSTODY /HOUSING ASSIGNMENT
A systematic measurement of a prisoner's behavioural adjustment to prison
enabling prisoners to be grouped and housed appropriately within an
institution.
SECURITY LEVEL
An individually assigned rating for each prisoner which indicates the lowest
degree of physical constraint appropriate to house that prisoner without
threatening public safety. Or alternatively, the rating given to a
correctional institution which indicates the maximum level of security
measures, both structural and staffing, that each institution provides.
'


17
ASSESSMENT
A process of collecting, exammmg and considering information about each
prisoner which is relevant to his/her placement at an institution and
involvement in specific programmes.
RECEPTION
The process of receiving a prisoner into an institution. It includes
undertaking the necessary procedures of identification and fingerprinting
each prisoner, the issueing of property and the explanation of institutional
rules, regulations and services available.
The recording of relevant personal data and information on each inmate is
carried out as part of this process. This information is the basis for staff
to identify a profile on each prisoner as well as the need for further
assessment of particular areas.
RECEPTION COMMITTEE
An institutional committee, chaired by the Superintendent or his delegate,
which interviews all remand and transferred sentenced prisoners as soon as
possible following their reception. This committee undertakes to inform
remand prisoners of the date of their forthcoming court appearance/a and to
explain such matters as how to obtain legal representation or other relevant
matters. For sentenced prisoners, the committee ensures that an immediate
housing and work assignment is made, in addition to referring prisoners to
appropriate staff in relation to their individual programme needs.
PROGRAMME
A prisoner's programme is the total plan or package of security, custody, and
courses, classes, counselling etc., for each prisoner in regard
to:employmen t, education, training, drug and/or alcohol, pre-release
preparation, psychological counselling or therapy, structured leisure time
activities, and any other relevant matters. All these aspects of a prisoner's
programme change in the duration of that sentence and should all be
reconsidered when one aspect changes.
RE-CLASSIFICATION
This process involves the scheduled and regular review of each prisoners'
classification. This entails each prisoner being interviewed by an
institution-based Classification Review Committee. At this interview an
individual prisoner's security and custody level, as well as programme and
work participation and progress is reviewed and suitable recommendations are
made to the Director of Classification.
Reclassification is primarily concerned with ensuring that a prisoner is held
at the lowest most appropriate security rating and that programme continuity
and relevance is maximised. Additionally maintaining up to date records on
each prisoners' progress.
18
The Director of Classification may veto any initial classification or re-
classification decision, in respect of any prisoner.
An explanation of the reasons for the veto must be written on the
Classification Su mmmary and he shall inform the institutional Classification
Committee within 14 days. They in turn shall immediately inform the
prisoner.
OVERRIDE
It is recognized that there will be occasions when the points score generated
by a Security Rating Form will indicate a security level which the
institutional Classification Committee may consider inappropriate. In such
cases the Committee may override the indicated security level, but in so
doing the Committee must clearly state its reasons. For a further exposition
of reasons for using the override, see THE CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE elsewhere
in this manual.
CARE IN PLACEMENT
This term replaces and expands upon the presently used "protection" label.
Care in placement means that in terms of a prisoner's safety, care needs to
be exercised with regard to where he/she is placed within the prison system.
Whereas the term "protection" is absolute (one is either a protection
prisoner or not) the term care in placement denotes a relative concept
applying to all prisoners to some extent. The five-point scale used in the
Offender Assessment Profile can usefully portray the actual degree of care in
placement required for each prisoner. Thus, a "five" would imply the need
for segregation and perhaps close supervision, while a "three" would usually
imply assignment to normal discipline within a carefully selected
institution.


19
THE PROGRAMME BY INSTITUTION MATRIX
The programme by institution matrix consists of a series of standard charts
which detail the programmes, amenities, and services which are available at
each New South Wales correctional institution. From this, for example, it is
possible to ascertain at which institutions a prisoner could undertake a
course in welding or word processing.
The matrix is intended for use by Classification and Classification Review
Committees. The use of such a matrix will provide these Committees with
comprehensive and up-to-date information about programmes, amenities, and
services available in all the institutions throughout the State.
It is essential that institutional officers who have responsibility for
service or programme provision, relay to their Divisonal Director any changes
to programme or service status at their institutions. This, in turn, should
immediately be relayed to the Classification Branch Officer responsible for
for issuing updated matrix information
' '
0
N
><

f.
""' :>:
z
0

t::


f-.


>--
0:
f
<

r
1----- 1-
-
-- - ---- --- --
-r D n-?/.1 j' 0 '>
'> )__
WORR RELEASE
---- t----
-----S'ILVERWATER--
---

---- ---- .
">
PARRJ\HATTA
-
-- --
I--
--
PAHKLEA
"">
1-- ---t- -- - -- -- ----
vuE RON
--- --
----. ---- -----
----- - ---
NORHA PARKER
HULAI'IA

M.T.C
R-
1--

---

-- --
). M.H.P.

H.R.C.

)..

MIINTIUS
-- --- 1-- ------

<11.1 n,,,w
'>
'>
KIRKCONNELL
GRAFTON X WING
1----
GRAFTON
GOULBURN X WING
t-- --- -- - ----- --- - -- ...
GOULBURN
-
GLEN INNES
F.HU PLAINS
r---
--- --- - -- -- --
COCJHA
----
r----
1--,----- ---1------1--
CESSNOCK '> '>
C.I.P.
'> ___2_ '>
1-----
BERRIMl\
1--- 1---
f- 1--- -- -- --- ----
flATHURST X WING
--1-- -+--
BATHURST

I




t
7'1>1 Q
R
\- <I.. ";) 1--l\
<::
t ....... -..\\


t
l '1:
'- I'{



\.)

t(
""'



'
.:t
,, j
'I
\j )
----1 ---
--
I-- ----- --
-----t-----
--
--
.
!
I
21
PROGRA!ofo!E BY INSTITUTION MATRIX
I
I
I
~
:s::s:
I
~ ~
,
tP tP tP () ()()
~ ;

G'lG'l
"'
:s:
~
(il
"' "'
i'3i'3
L':l L':!O
~ ~
H . . . :>' :>'
~
H rn
~
~
H :0 :0
,.,
t<
~
L':l
~ :0
a8
.
~
t< t<
,., . .
~ el
"'
~ gJ gJ
,.,,.,
() t< ()'U ()
~ ~ :0:0 ~ .
H
~ ~ ~
s;
. . . :>' z
Gl rnrn () :>'
ill ~ ~ "'
:><,_,
,.,,.,
:>: H z 0 :>' t<
z L':l >< L':l
~ ~
i ~
>< rn
"'
>< t<
:;:
:;: t< L':l
:;: H :0 l"l
H H z
z z G'l
VOCATIONAL PROGRA!ofo!ES
G'l G'l
010 AUTOMOTIVE TRADES * *
011 BRICKLAYING * *
012 BUILDING TRADES * I
I
I
013 CABINET MAKING * I I
!
014 CARPENTRY AND JOINERY *
015 COTTAGE CRAFTS * *
I
* I I
016
COMPUTER PROGRAMING
* I I
i
I
I 017 FITTING AND MACHINING *
I
:
I '
*
;
018 HORTICULTURE
I I
I
*
I I
i
019 PRE-SKILLS
i
I
* * *
I l
I
I
J20 POTTERY I I
I
I
I
I
! I I
021 PAINTING AND DECORATING I
' i ! I
: I
I
I '
' * I
I
'
022 SHEETMETAL WORK I
'
! i
'
*
023 SEWING
.
;
I
I
!
*
024 TYPING
l
!*
'
*
I
* * I ' ~
025 WELDING ; !
-
* * j I
026 WORD PROCESSING

N
N
><

f.

z
0

t:

....
r-

....
>-
"'

<

"Tt!J""',q $& {_P.P e)
, WORK J<cU;ASE

--- -- .
PARRI\HATTA
PAHKLEA
uuEROFl -
NORHA PARKER
MULAWA
H.T.C
H.H.P.
H.n.c.
HliNNUs
rUTl,I\NU
KIRKCONNELL
GRAFTON X WING
GRAFTON
GOULBURN X WING
GOULBURN
GLEN INNES
EMU PLAINS

CESSNOCK
C.I.P.
BERRIHA
BA'rHURST X WING
BATHURST
----... , ... ,-.. ''T--- ----
- --
1---
""')
-
-c--
....,.
-..,
1--
'>.
--:r---

'>
...,.
'
---
-
---
- ---
'>
">
-- --
'S'
\1}

t-
"
...
"
"'

'
>

l-t.J
':1

"(




}
-0
--
--')

>>
_.:2_
1--
....,.
i--

-
....,.
'>
.....


').

'>
'>
>
...,.

"
---

1--
'>. ,_.2.
.......
':.
....,.
...... '>
'>
----
'>



,.-t


It
lij

II)

'

...

\)
"
u
l

---
_s--
---- -
-
---

-- ---- --- -----
--

-s,-
1--- I--
':. -
"'>-
":>
f--
'-.
'>
'>
'>
'>. .....

.....
'>
.....
-- ---- -
'> '>
......
.....
.
------ --- ----- ------ ----- --
.....,.
--
':.
......
'>

>
+---
.
1--
'
1


...
' .
..,
\'-
lh
\1
'
'
..,
It
'.!.
..._
t
"'


<I)
'll
\,
II(

...
c..)
'
cr.
..
!

{
...

,..
\i
"'

\,(
I
)
'>
'>
.....
.2.
.....
.....
'>
">
.....
.....
.....
.....
'
'>
'>
...
~
1.1)
L-l:.J
--1--'--1---1-- I I I I I
-1 I + I I I -I- I I
---1 I I I I
-- ----- ---+--1-
1, r---
' .. J)
)
'
'
._,_
N
><
.....
I:

i

.....
E-<
!i1
.....
;...
"'
!

---
1--
1'. ll <!.- {-rt>MA"i)
WU.KK E
SILVERi1ATER ___
PARRAMATTA
PARKLEA
NORMA PARKER
MULAWA
M.T.C
M.R.P,
M.R.C.
KIRK CONNELL
GRAFTON X WING
GRAFTON
GOULBURN X WING
GOULBURN
GLEN INNES
EMU PLAINS
COOMA
CESSNOCK
C.I.P,
BERRIMA
BATHURST X WING
BA1'HURST
-- --
--
'>
.....
..... ':..
-
.....

fA\ tN
1.11
"




..
.....
I
\'-

}


I "
....
"'t:
)
'
'
-- ---- ----
f---
---- -- -
-. ---- -
. - - ... . .

"). .....
"). ')
) ")..
.....
'> '> '>
.....

';\

tu


.,..
...


'
\..) p


ZJ
l
\,..)
lu
t u
l \


-3
" llj
11(111
\

l
Q
ol
....
:t
IJ
----
....
--- --
---
r---
\-
-- ---- ----- ------
--
----

f--
\
.....

}
...... ")..
'1. '>. >.

') \ ).

').
'>
). ')
\.
- ---
.....
").. ')
+-- f- --
--- -- .
-----
r-- -
.....
.....
">
')
'
'> '> '>
......
'>
'>
.
...,
't
IJ
\]


' ...(
'
\J
'
\--
... .
'
\!1
\)




'
Q.
Q(
-.j
\--

\!I
\\I

{
It
Q'
u ..,.l>
'1
"'
II;'( ::.
't I!J
..,j

'
'1::
\l
"
.....
::.



"1 ""<
ll\
N
...
....



....
E-o

....
>-
"''
I

-woRK E

PARRAMATTA
PARKLEA
NORMA PARKER
MULAWA
M. T :-;:;-
M.R.P.
M.R.C.
KIRKCONNELL
GRAFTON X WING
GRAFTON
GOULBURN X WING
GOULBURN
GLEN INNES
EMU PLAINS
COOMA
CESSNOCK
C.I.P.
BERRIMA
BATHURST X WING
BATHURST
f.----- -
e--.
"'5""

> ">
'>
'>
-


'
"

'

::s
':t
"'(

'

..
"\

'
\i.
)
-
1----1-
-----

).
'>
-
") '). '>
'>
'>

':.
'\
1
"'


\)
)

'
"(

i
't

.1(
r

"'\

"

--- -"--1-
-- -
'
-- f.-- -----
-- -- ------
1-- --
--- --- -----
--
- -- f--. 1-----1
1-
----- -
'> '\
"

).
"> '>
">
"> '\. '\.
- --
--
---- .. ------1---- ---'
"> \. '>
'\.
'
':..

)(
''I:
I
!
;
l--
\I 'I ..
Q:lt

'

\'-

'\:

g;

\){
\!)
q

"'
{



llt
'
.':!

,<l
V)
..


Ill
I
ll(

::::.

"
I
)
'
'
I
)
-- -- 1- ---f--
- --r--
..

-I
f-- t--
1-----s-rr.mmwt\'l'ER--
=f
7
---
7
--;-
--
I
7 I
-f
-- 1--- f-- r-
PARRAMATTA
PARKLEA
I
7 / I
7
.!...
_{_

7
.!_
.
r--;-
. -;
.
NORMA PARKER 7
I
MULAWA ,; I 7 l I
M,T,C. I
/ I
. I
/. I
-
M.R.P, I I I
I I .
M.R.C, ./
w.-.
7
/ / /
l1
I
-----
-MAITLAND
I I J '
I
KIRKCONNELL .; I
( j
GRAFTON X WING
I
j / I I_ !.,
I
GRAFTON j j j
7 /
I J
GOULBURN X WING I
I
I
---- -- --- -- .. ----- f--
GOULBURN I, I
GLEN INNES I I I
I
_! I
EMU PLAINS
I I J
i-
COllMA I I
CESSNOCK I ./
I I
c.r.P. ..; I I
BERRIMA

I
BM'HURST X WING I j I I
BATHURST I j .,;
l I
.

.1


I


"\



!
'I::

;



I

,,

.
I
<

-:,
-:;,
."<
j


I'
'J


,'-

'-'.)
>i -.(

\$

-I.S
"'
..
:,

....
....

,.(
{ ':t:
' . '! "'
"I '
...;
._, .;;
'
I,
11 ;.,.

<t'
I
!
1
"'
...: I
'v ':t
'

li
<.ri
!
I
"J'
'J I i

''..\
-1
;!
<
""

<t "

"'
<
""
.. _,


,...,
''
't!
'' ' .r, r&..::
)>-....
'"'

' <:)" ..../. "S

<:>
I
j
..J '
'.!
:
:l:: "
":!


I
'
.....
'l<

-t
""
..,
.. -
.'1? '!' l: I '
"'
J
;,
I
"
'!!
''"

.J '
i

r-.,
-<
..

I
I "-'
-
-.s
'
._,
i
...

.
--


...::
"'
.: -:::
'
--.::
I
<.) <o'
"'
"
" .:6 I
!
<::Q'
""'
""'
""
I
i
i <:t::
'!;. <!: : <l:.
l

'
26

VISITS
EMPLOYMENT
TRADE TRAINING
GENERAL EDUCATION I
DRUG & ALCOHOL
PSYCHOLOGICAL
f/ELFARE
RELIGIOUS
ABORIGINAL
ACTIVITIES
"
N
PARK LEA
I On public transport
_ Faailities for
Metal/woodwork
Printing, Domestic
Text1les
Cabinet making

Fl tt1ng & Turning
Literacy & Numeracy

School Studies
Var lOUS cor-respondence

Dr: am a
Cooking
- --
Besid
,. - , 1 n c h . ...E.J:.ru:L
Grou:e & Individual
Individual Counselling
Anglican servicesLcounQell'
R.Catholi_c
11
I_
11
Comm.Aborig.Employ.
TAPE
"

"
Aborig. Legal Officer
" Welfare Officer
Track,
Football, Soccer, Cricket,
Tennis, Sqash, . Indoor Game
-
---------- .. ---------- ..
-
----
E-<
H
..,
H
"' <>:
..,
H
<>:
>
<>:

PROGRAMME BY INSTITUTION MATRIX

----


-- -- -- --
------

1- --------
----
-- --

--
--
-- --
-- --- --
-- --


-- --- -- --- --- --
---

--
-- --------

------ --
-- ----
-- --

--
--
-- ---- -- -----

-- -- ---"'-- -- ---
--- --- ---

..

-- ---- --- -- --

- --
______:__
--1-----


--


t_


f--

-- -- ---- ----

--- -- --
---- --- --

-- -- ------ --"- --- -- -- --
---
-- --- --- ----

ng_
--
-.-
-- -- -- --
-- --


---- ---- ----------

-- ---- ---- ----- -- --
--- -- -- -- -- -- --

--- -- -- ---- ----- ----- --
--- -- -- --- -- -- -- --- -- --
-- --------
--
1--- --
1-
--1-
-

-
----
-- --- --- --- ----- ----- ---------
------ --- ----- --- . - --- ---- ---
. ----- -----
-e -- --- ----t- --1-
"' "
_Q
Q) z Q) Q) Q)
--
--- -- :u
E.
"'
0 0 ---,;r-
....
"'
.... .... . ...
....
"'
-iJ :>, :>
> 0
....
-iJ :>, .... .... ....
"
"
"
....
c c Q) Q)
tJ'
..,
"'
0 Ul Ul
"''"'
4-l
Q)
""'
Q) Q) 0
....
"'
Q) Q)
"'
-iJ ....
E E
I Q) 0 0 c c o:>
.... . ...
"
Q) .... c c
.... Q) -iJ -iJ -iJ Q)
.... . ...
<lJ Q) -iJ
"' "'
I I
....
0.
"
F. E
....
.-<
"' ....
M -iJ M
tJ' E E
"' "'
M-i-1 M ....
Q)
0 0 .-< <lJ .0:<
"
"'
c
u u
>
0: <l;CJ
"'
0. H
---------- --
-- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- --
--
----t- --
1-
--------- --
--r--- --
--
:-
-- -- -- -- ----
--
r---
-
-- -- ----1-
1-
-- --
--- --- --- --
---
t-
---- ---- -- -
- ----,-
-------- -- --
----
-- -- --r- -- --
-- --- ------ --
--- -- -- -- --- --
-- --
--
-- -- --
-- -------- --
--- ----- ---
--t-
--------t- --
I
j
28
FUNCTION
1. Reception data
collection and
identification,
and initial
screening for
assessment and
classification
2. Security
Assessment.
3. Needs
Assessment
4. Formal
Classification
5. Custody
Assil!lllllent
FIVE STAGE
INITIAL CLASSIFICATION
WHO
OVERVIEW
HOW
Existing procedures
on admission.
Classification Coordi:
WHERE
At Gaol of
Reception for
remand and
The Reception
Officer or a
Classification
Co-ordinator nator identifies need: sentenced
Classification
Co-ordinator or
Classification
Committee.
Staff responsible:
for providing
relevant services:
Institutional
Classification
Committees.
Wing officer &/or:
Psychologist
for more assessment
info.entering it on
data base.
Scoring standard,
objective information:
relating to past
institutional and
offence history.
These assessors rate
specific need/s
of a prisoner
according to set
guidelines.
Once all assessments
are available, a
Classification
decision is made.
Behaviour checklist
completed & scored;
housing allocated.
prisoners.
At Gaol of
Reception for
sentenced
prisoners.
At Gaol of
Reception or
if special
circumstances
warrant(e.g.
overcrowding)
at any gaol
appropriate to
security
As above
At Gaol of
Classification
'
29
RECEPTION
Upon reception, or shortly after, each prisoner should be screened with
regard to possible areas of need which may benefit from assessment and, where
appropriate, in-prison development.
Questions directed toward screening should be included in the Reception Sheet
and be followed by a brief screening interview. Until a new Reception Sheet
can devised, greater reliance will need to be placed on the interview.
Ideally, the Reception Sheet and Interview will form Stage One of the
classification process. It is a prime opportunity to begin gathering
information on each prisoner which, with the advent of computer technology,
should become a complete data file holding all assessments and history. Such
a file should offer access to all Divisional representatives of the
Department according to need to know, and should be used as the basis of all
subsequent reports on a prisoner.
30
INITIAL INMATE CLASSIFICATION - SECURITY RATING
The security rating is Stage 2 of initial classification. It is a system
used to recommend a security level for each inmate. Specific information
considered relevant to assessing the "potential risk" represented by each
inmate in the community and/or within the institution is gathered and scored.
The format has been drawn from the US National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
model classification system. For many of the American States and the Federal
system, their custodial institutions are identified by both the level of
perimeter security and the level of custody or staff supervision. For the
purpose of the NSW prison system, the present proposal will identify only the
security level, defined as the type of physical constraint in and around the
institution, considering factors such as:
- perimeter security.
- existence and operation of towers.
- use of detection devices.
The existing security levels by which the institutions are divided are
Maximum, Medium and Minimum. The proposed model identifies and recommends
placment within these three categories. Decisions as to whether an inmate
should be as a Al or A2, or Cl, C2 or C3 would be a Classification Committee
decision based on both the recommended security rating and assessments of
needs.
Some changes considered appropriate for NSW have been made to the NIC model
and will be discussed in the relevant section.
The security rating is based on criteria that screen for "risk". The
proposed form identifies and scores information relevant to the inmate's
past behaviour both within an institution and as exhibited in current and
previous offences. The severity, frequency and recency of this behaviour
is taken into account as the best indicators of future behaviour.
The NIC model accepts that the only criterion relevant to maximum security
placement is "violence potential", i.e dangerous and violent behaviour that
has occurred within the community and/or the institution. Placements at
medium and/or minimum security levels however, are concerned with more than
just dangerous behaviour . Factors such as "escape, management problems (non-
violent disruptive behaviour, contraband etc), eventual community placement
and the likelihood of continued criminal activity were considered within the
concept of "risk" in the development of this model. (Prison Classification -
a Model Systems Approach, US Department of Justice, pg 18).
The present proposal encompasses elements of both decision-tree and additive
models. The criteria used to determine maximum security are different from
those used to make medium/ minimum security decisions, but the discriminatory
power is not allotted to just one or two variables.
31
GUIDE TO USE OF SECURITY RATING FORM
This form
sentenced
information
reviews.
is used to identify a recommended security rating for each
inmate upon reception. A form cannot be completed without
on all areas. It is not used for subsequent classification
A brief explanation on each section follows.
1. ffiSTORY OF INSTITUTIONAL VIOLENCE
The number of points
right-hand column.
relevant.
reflecting the appropriate category is entered in the
The five years prior to current admission date is
Assault and battery is defined as any act toward another person in which
bodily contact occurred and injury was attempted.
2. SEVERITY OF CURRENT OFFENCE
The number of points reflecting the severity of offence of the current
offence is entered in the right-hand column. Refer to the Severity of
Offence Scale on the back of the form. Score only the most severe of
multiple offences.
The Severity of Offence Scale is at this stage based on one example given by
the National Institute of Corrections.
3. PREVIOUS MOST VIOLENT OFFENCE
This has been changed from identifying a previous offence defined as
"assaultive" to one defined as a "violent" offence. The reason for the
change is to broaden the term beyond an incident in which bodily contact
occurred or was attempted, or where a weapon was present and to encompass the
threat of violence. A violent offence is then defined as an offence against a
person or persons, and includes offences where assault has occurred, has
been attempted and/or where a weapon or threat of violence has been present.
4. ESCAPE ffiSTORY
The number of points reflecting the most severe incident in the individual's
escape history is entered in the right-hand column, "History" is defined as
the last three years of incaceration. "Escape" or "attempt" is defined by the
appropriate conviction.
As the form indicates the scores for items 1. to 4. should be added. If the
total is 10 or greater then the recommended security rating is Maximum.
If the score is 9 or less the items on the next page should be answered and
scored.
32
5. WARRANT OF COMMITMENT
'l'he wording of this section has been changed to apply to NSW sentencing.
Thus "detainer" and "felony" have been replaced with the different levels of
sentencing in NSW and reflected in the levels of court conerned.
The points reflecting the current status of the holding warrant should be
entered in the right-hand column, scoring the most serious warrant the inmate
is being held on.
6. PRIOR CONVICTIONS IN A HIGHER COURT
The points reflecting the inmate's prior conviction, if any, in a higher
court should be entered in the right-hand column.
7. ALCOHOL/DRUG ABUSE/PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY
This section has been amended to include a score for psychiatric history. It
is seen as an important indicator of behaviour relevant to the "risk" factor.
As such psychiatric history is given equal weighting with alcohol/drug abuse.
What is rated is information that clearly indicates a direct relationship
between drug abuse or mental disorder and behaviour.
If there is no indication of alcohol or drug abuse or psychiatric history
which has ever caused any emotional or legal problems, a zero score should be
entered.
"Abuse or psychiatric history causing occasional legal or social problems" is
defined as the use of drugs and/or alcohol or a mental disorder resulting
in :
a) less than six convictions on charges directly related to
the use or disorder,/or
b) infrequent interruption of employment within the past
three years as a result of the abuse or disorder,/or
c) self-admission to a relevant treatment centre.
"Serious abuse or mental. disorder causing serious disruption of functioning"
is defined as use of drugs and/or alcohol or a mental disorder that has
resulted in: a) six or more convictions on charges directly related to the
use or disorder,/or
b) frequent interuption or cessation of employment,/or
c) commitment to gaol or treatment centre.
8. STABILITY FACTORS
All information should be verified before points are allotted for these
items. Scores received for this item must be subtracted to obtain the total.
33
As the form indicates, if the total
recommended security rating is Medium.
recommended security rating is Minimum.
score ranges from 7-22 then the
For a total score of 6 or below, the
The completed security rating form will generate a recommendation for each
prisoner's placement within either the Maximum, Medium, or Minimum security
range.
The committee must then consider which specific security rating it considers
appropriate for that particular prisoner, e.g. within the minimum security
range whether C2 or C3 etc. If the committee decides upon a specific security
rating outside the recommended security range, it can override the
recommendation but must specify its reasons for doing so.
The committee will need to match the inmate's security rating with the list
of institutions which maintain an appropriate level of security, when making
the decision concerning placement at a particular institution.
.
34
STAGE 2 INITIAL SECURITY RATING PAGB 1
INSTITUTION ............ NAME ............
DATE. ... ......................... . D.O.B ...... MIN ........
MOST SEVERE OFFENCE ......
NON PAROLE EXPIRY DA'l'E ....
HEAD SENTENCE . .............
TARGETED DATE OF RELEASE ...
1. HISTORY OF INSTITUTIONAL VIOLENCE
None .............................. 0
Assault without weapon or serious injury.................... 3
Assault with a weapon or serious injury..................... ~ 7 ______ ___
2. SEVERITY OF CURRENT OFFBNCB
of the form. Score the most
multiple convictions.)
SCORE
(Refer to scale on the back
serious offence if there are
Low . ................... .........................
Low Moderate ....................................
Moderate ....................................................
High . ...................................................... .
Highest .................... ............................... o
SCORE
3. PREVIOUS MOST SEVERE VIOLENT OFFENCE (Refer to scale again)
0
1
2
4
6
Non'e, Low, or Low Moderate o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0
Moderate . o ; o 2
High ... o o o o o o o o o o o o ~ 4
Highest ................... o o o o ,6'---------
SCORE
4. ESCAPE HISTORY
No escapes or attempts (or no prior imprisonment) .. 0
An absconding or attempt from minimum security or while on
an approved leave (No actual or threatened violence)
Over 1 year ago . .. o o o o o I
Within the last year .. . . . . 3
An escape from .ediu. or aaximum security, or from
minimum security with actual or threatened violence,
Over 5 years ago . .. o o o o - o 5
Within the last 5 years .......... ~ 7 ________ __
MAXIMUM SECURITY SCORE (Add items l through 4)
If score is 10 or above, inmate should be assigned
to maximum security. If score is under 10, complete
SCORE
items 5 through 8 and use medium/minimum scale. SUB-TOTAL, _________ _
35
STAGE 2 INITIAL SECURITY RATING PAGE 2
INSTITUTION ................ . NAI\fE . ..... ......
DATE ... D.O. B ......... M. I.N ....
5. WARRANT OF COMMITMENT (score only the highest)
Convicted in Magistrates Court ........... , . , . . l
Convicted in a higher court.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. 4
Notice of Extradition...................................... 6
Governor's Pleasure........................................ ~ 4 ________ _
SCORE
6. PRIOR CONVICTIONS IN A HIGHER COURT
None. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
One. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Two or more . .................................... . . . . . . . . . . . ::>:4________ __
SCORE
7. ALCOHOL/DRUG ABUSE/PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY ( combinefor score)
None. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 0
Minor Psychiatric history or abuse causing occasional legal
and social adjustment problems............................. l
Psych./D&A history causing serious disruption to function.. ~ 3 ________ __
SCORE
8. STABILITY FACTORS (Check appropriate categories and combine for score)
Age 30 years or over .. ......... -.... " .. . . . . . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . -2
School Leaving Certificate (or equivalent) ...... -1
Employed or attending an academic or vocational
course (full or part-time) for 6 months or
longer at time of arrest ........ - ~ 1 ~ - - - - - - - - -
SCORE
MEDIUM/MINIMUM TOTAL SCORE (Add items 1 through 8) ...... ______ _
MEDIUM/MINIMUM SCALE:
Medium Security .. 7-22
Minimum Security . 6 or less
CLASSIFICATION ASSESSOR ..
INDICATED SECURITY
LEVEL. ......... ---------
..

;.
36
SEVERITY OF OFFENCE SCALE
For Offences not on this scale refer to the Director of Classification
HIGHEST
HIGH
MODERATE
Abduction, Kidnapping
Escape from a Medium or Maximum security prison.
Explosives (detonation - potential risk of injury)
Major Assault, Grievious Bodily Harm, Malicious Wounding
(occasioning serious injury,risk of death or disfigurement).
Murder (including attempted)
Robbery with major assault
Sexual assault (including attempted)
Arson (major)
Explosives (possession, transportation)
Extortion, demand money with menace/s
Manslaughter (other than by driving)
Robbery with or without minor assault
Arson (minor)
Contempt of court
Drugs (convicted in a higher court)
Escape (from minimum security or a leave programme
or bail jumping)
Fraud and associated offences (over $20,000)
Offences Against Property (over $20,000 )
Sexual and related offences (other than Prostitution
and relating offences)
Unlawful possession or use of weapons or firearms
LOW MODERATE Drugs (convicted in a lower court)
Fraud ($1000 to $20,000)
Offences against property ($1000 to $20,000)
Prostitution and relating offences
Minor assault
Drugs (own use)
Fine/s
Fraud (under $1000)
Offences against property (under $1000)
I
37
INITIAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
This section of the classification process addresses the Department's
responsibilities with regard to the proper care of inmates in the
least restrictive environment and with opportunities for development.
The proposed classification model requires that greater consideration be
given to the care and development of inmates whilst recognising that within
an institution it is not always possible for all needs to be met fully and in
the most effective manner. The purpose of the assessment checklist is not to
specify how officers assess in their area of expertise. The methods will
vary widely. However each assessing officer is accountable for the for the
provision of relevant input to the proper placement of each inmate. Not to
do so may obscure the individual's real situation and significantly limit the
Department's capacity to do something constructive about the inmate's care
and development.
The proposed procedure begins when a sentenced inmate is received into the
gaol. An initial interview will be conducted by the Classification Co-
ordinator, during which any areas of need should be identified for further
assessment. These areas encompass, but are not limited to:
1) Care in Placement
2) Medical/dental care
3) Psychological care
4) Drug and alcohol problems
5) Cultural/Ethnic background
6) Employment opportunities
7) Educational and vocational opportunities
8) Recreational activities
9) Personal and social problems
The Classification Co-ordinator will involve each inmate in this process.
Relevant information from both the description sheet and interview should
then be sent to appropriate staff members for further assessment of the
inmate.
The Initial Needs Assessment Checklist will then be completed by each staff
member who has assessed an inmate, Again it must be stressed that this
checklist does not dictate how each assessment is undertaken, Rather it
requires a series of factors be considered whe.n programme alternatives or
problem resolutions are being decided. Specifically, these factors requiring
consideration are;
I) An individual's awareness of the problem and/or need
and ability and willingness to deal with it.
2) The extent to which resources are available within the
institutions to provide for this need and/or problem.
3) The extent to which the problem and/or need may be dealt
with effectively in an institutional setting.
4) The parameters set by each inmate's length of sentence and
indicated security rating.
38
To clarify further the purpose and use of this checklist each of the above
areas will be discussed and exemplified.
1) In dealing with any personal issue that is problematic or debilitating an
individual has first to decide and recognise that it is a need or problem.
For example John X is illiterate. Some would say that being illiterate is a
problem and therefore John should be taught to read and write. However John
can sign his name (and he feels that this is enough to know), reads enough to
get by and likes to work as a shearer. John doesn't see that he has a need
to learn how to read or write, so is it a problem? If this is so, ia it then
a priority for this Department to spend resources on teaching John to read
and or write? These are the questions that should be addressed when
assessing a need or problem and deciding on a placement. Each inmate's
awareness of the problem and/or need and readiness to deal with it have to be
addressed in each assessment.
2) A personal need and/or problem can be dealt with in a variety of ways. How
a medical problem may be dealt with may be limited to the type of facility or
medication required. However, ways of dealing with a problem or need arising
from a differing cultural background, family contact or a lack of employment
skills, may vary widely. Often the total need or problem cannot be dealt with
whilst an inmate is in custody. These issues need to be addressed by the
staff concerned, in consultation with the inmate. At this point of the
classification process it may not be possible, in some cases, to provide a
solution but assessors should suggest some strategies for dealing with the
problem and/or need. For example John X, like many inmates, has a genuine
concern to maintain contact with his family. He wants to be placed in the
Sydney region to facilitate regular visits from his wife and children.
However his security rating indicates placement at a minimum security
institution, most of which are outside the Sydney region. The assessing
officer may then need to focus on some alternative ways of facilitating
family contact. Travel arrangements for visits, the financial situation of
the family, phone contact and letter writing are some of these alternatives
that could be discussed with the inmate This process may help the inmate to
address these alternatives and identify some form of assistance which may be
required in relation to financial assistance or ability in written
communication.
3) Each assessor will need to be aware of the resources, facilities and staff
available at each institution. For example, employment opportunities at
each gaol is necessary knowledge for all Industries Officers and should be
considered when recommending placement. The availability of an Arabic
interpreter may be necessary information for a Welfare Officer to consider in
the placement of a Lebanese inmate who does not understand or speak English
well. Regular and updated information should be available to assessing
officers by way of a programme matrix.
4) The initial security rating identified prior to these assessments being
undertaken is another important consideration. This rating will indicate the
range of institutions that may be considered when deciding an inmate's
.
39
placement. If the number of points scored on the security rating form come
close to a borderline assignment between one security rating and another,
then institutions providing for both security categories may need to be
considered. For example, the security rating form indicates a "C" for inmate
John X who is strongly motivated to begin a trade training course in motor
mechanics. However the course is only provided in one "B" security
institution. In this case the Education Officer may wish to note that he
should have the opportunity of beginning the motor mechanics course in the
"B" security institution, given other factors such as length of sentence,
personal motivation, ability to learn and availabilty of space are all
considered. If the Classification Committee agrees to this programme, it may
then "override" the indicated security rating.
5) Length of sentence is another factor that should be considered when
assessing a need and/or problem. For example an assessment of inmate Jack Z
who is an alcoholic and serving a three month sentence may warrant rather
different programmes for dealing with his alcohol abuse than might Susan Y
who is an alcoholic serving a sentence of eighteen months.
The format for the needs assessment checklist covers all of
checklist requires each assessor to consider them
recommendation and setting a priority rating.
these points. The
when making a
Both the priority rating and infomation regarding an inmate's awareness,
staff and other reso).lrces available, sentence length and indicated security
rating should be considered carefully by the Classification Committee when
deciding each inmates institutional and programme placement.
'
I
I
j
40
STAGE 3 INITIAL NEEDS ASSE.SSMENT CHECKLIST
INSTITUTION......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INMATE ............................... .
ASSESSOR ................ DATE .......... D.O.B ............... M. I.N ............ .
ASSESSMENT OF PROBLEMS/NEEDS REGARDING
DO YOU BELIEVE INMATE HAS A SIGNIF-
ICANT NEED OR PROBLEM IN THIS AREA'?
IF SO, DESCRIBE THE NEED OR PROBLEM
AND ITS MAGNITUDE
DOES INMATE SEE IT AS SIGNIFICANT?
DOES INMATE WANT TO DEAL WITH IT?
IS HE OR SHE READY TO DEAL WITH IT?
HOW CAN THE NEED I PROBI.EM BE DEALT
WITH IN AN INSTITUTIONAL SETTING?
WHICH INSTITUTIONS CAN BEST PROVIDE
RESOURCES I STAFF TO DEAL WITH IT?
WHAT COULD BE OFFERED, CONSIDERING:
-- SENTENCE STILL TO BE SERVED
-- THE INDICATED SECURITY RATING
-- LEVEL OF AWARENESS/MOTIVATION
-- AVAILABLE STAFF AND RESOURCES
-- OTHER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
GIVEN ALL THE FACTORS LISTED ABOVE,
WHICH PRIORITY RATING SHOULD ATTACH
TO YOUR RECOMMENDATION? (Circle one
of the following levels -- i.e. top
priority is 5; lowest level is l)
WHERE SPACES ABOVE ARE INSUFFICIENT
USE BACK FOR FURTHER COMMENTS, ETC.


l 2 3 4 5
SIGNATURE .. , ............. . I /19
I
'
41
INITIAL CLASSIFICATION
Initial classification is a formal interview with an inmate which occurs when
the Classification Committee at a Reception Gaol decides an initial
institutional placement, security rating and programme for a prisoner.
The Classification Committee at each Reception Gaol will be constituted by
the Classification Co-ordinator, those officers involved in the assessment
of inmates and a designated representative of the Superintendent.
The Classification Committee should consider information drawn from both the
security assessment and needs assessments completed on each inmate. The
primary focus for the Committee in deciding on the proper placement of each
inmate is, that all relevant information is discussed between the Committee
members and the inmate concerned. The decision made by the Committee is the
basis for placement of each inmate. The Committee may "override" the
indicated security rating in cases where programme considerations or further
information on the "risk" factor are relevant. Reasons for use of the
"override" should be clearly noted on the Classification Summary Sheet.
Formal classification involves a number of steps. The first is the indicated
Security Rating resulting from the completion of Security Rating Sheet. This
will be within one of three bands; Maximum, Medium or Minimum and should be
noted on the Initial Classification Summary Sheet. Under each security
rating are listed institutions appropriate to that rating. At this stage it
is important to recognise that the indicated security rating does not
necessarily determine the final institutional placement. Programmes and
services identified as having high priority in the care and development of
an inmate might warrant consideration being given to institutions other than
those identified by the scored security rating. As previously noted, the
Committee may then "override" the security rating when finally deciding on
the appropriate placement of an inmate.
The second step requires consideration of inmate's care and developmental
needs; Needs Assessment Checklists completed for an inmate are to be provided
to the Classification Committee. The priority rating set for the
recommendations in each problem/need area is then recorded on the Summary
Sheet. The profile provides a visual display of the assessed problem/need
areas and compares the degree to which each problem/need may be addressed.
The Committee then has to consider the profile, using the information
provided in the Initial Needs Assessment Checklists.
As is now the case, the Committee should come to an agreement about the
appropriate security rating, institutional placement and programme
involvement for each inmate. Where possible, a decision should be reached by
consensus, otherwise a majority vote is to be taken. Those committee members
diss.enting should note their reasons for disagreement. The inmate concerned
will be required to acknowledge the decision and may state reasons, if any
for disagreement.
The next step in the initial classification process is to discuss with the
inmate the process of classification review. The committee must ensure that
each inmate is aware a review of his/her classification will occur every six
months and, if warranted, upon request by the inmate. The inmate must also be
informed that the reduction of security is not automatic; rather it is on
42
behaviour within the institution. Using the Security Rating Review Sheet the
Committee will be required to identify for eac,h inmate the period of time
that will elapse before the next reduction of classification( within the
bandwidths of A to B, or B to C ), This provides the inmate with a framework
for planning; an important facilitator for greater peronal control and
responsibility.
It must also be conveyed to the inmate that a reduction
automatically mean a subsequent change of placement.
accommodation, other relevant services and facilities
programmes and work will dictate the transfer of
reclassified to another institution.
in security will not
The availability of
and vacancies in
inmates who ate
Once the Classification Committee has completed the interview and has reached
a decision on the initial classification placement this information is to be
sent to the Director of Classification. As a representative of the
Commission, the Director of Classification retains the right to "veto" the
Committee's decision within a set time period. The "veto" may be used in
cases where the Director considers their is significant disparity between
institutional classification decisions or, in cases where further information
relevant to the placement of an inmate has not been received and/or
considered by the Classification Committee. As a check or monitoring
procedure, the "veto" should be exercised infrequently. Not to do so may
indicate a misuse of the "veto" or an inadequacy in the system.
!
'
43
STAGE 4 INITIAL CLASSIFICATION SUMMARY PAGE 1
INSTITUTION .................. . NAME
D.O.B .... M. I.N ...... DATE . .....
SECURITY RATING SCORE . INDICATED SECURITY LEVEL .....
OVERRIDE CONSIDERATIONS: (To be used when the Committee considers that the
indicated security level is inappropriate, please state reasons)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Take the indicated security level or where applicable, the amended level
after exercising the override and circle the appropriate coltunn on the
list of institutions (below).
OFFENDER ASSESSMENT PROFILE: From the appropriate ASSESSMENT SHEETS place
the assessed priority levels in the appropriate columns. Columns are arranged
in order of importance and are stepped. This visual display of needs allows
the Committee to better discriminate between competing relative programme
priorities for each inmate.
MEDICAL CARE IN
5 'PLACEMENT
4 5
3 4
2 3
1 2
0 1
0
A
C. J.P.
GOULBURN
MAITLAND
M.R.C.
M.R.P.
MULAWA
PARKLEA
PARRAMATTA
lD&A
5
4
3
2
1
0
EDUC & PERSONAL CULTURAL
TRAIN PSYCH SOCIAL LINGUIST EMPLOY ACTIVITY
5 5 5 5 5 5
4 4 4 4 4 4
3 3 3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
LIST OF INSTITUTIONS
8
BERRIMA
BATHURST
BATHURST X WING
COOMA
GOULBURN X WING
GRAFTON
c
EMU PLAINS
GLEN INNES
GRAFTON X WING
KIRKCONNELL
NORMA PARKER
MANNUS
M.T.C.
OBERON
PLEASE TURN TO PAGE 2
44
STAGE 4 INITIAL CLASSIFICATION SUMMARY PAGE 2
INSTITUTION ....... NAME .
DATE ............. D.O. B ............................... .
SPECIFIC SECURITY RATING . ,
CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS PLACEMENT AT:
Please state reasons for placement
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ....... 0 0 0
CONCLUDING COMMENTS OR DISSENTING REPORT (if any, write on back of form if
space inadequate) .......................................................... .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o o o o 'o o o o o o 'o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 o 0 0 0 o
0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CLASSIFICATION CHAIRMAN ............
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ........
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ....... 0 0 0 0 0
I
VETO CONSIDERATIONS (DIRECTOR OF CLASSIFICATION ONLY)
DATE SIGHTED .............................. .
CLASSIFICATION VETOED BECAUSE .....................
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ............. 0
0 0 0 ............................. 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 ...................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DATE COMMITTEE INFORMED OF VETO......
SIGNED ..................
45
CUSTODY ASSIGNMENT
This fifth stage extends the classification process to include the assignment
of inmates to appropriate accommodation within an institution. The purpose is
to facilitate better management of the institutions.
There are many different factors which might be considered relevant when
housing inmates together. Inmates may be grouped together because they are
attending a treatment programme (for example a drug and alcohol programme).
Housing together a group of vegetarians, who are able to cook their own meals
is another example of housing to facilitate better organisation of the
institution. Similarly, housing together inmates who choose to live together,
and therefore are more co-operative with each other, may also constitute
better management.
Another approach developed by the US National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
identifies and houses inmates according to particular behavioural
characteristics. The Adult Internal Management System (AIMS) identifies
behaviour with regard essentially to aggressive and passive characteristics.
The intention is to identify and separate aggressive inmates from those who
are particularly passive and may be victims of those aggressors. The purpose
is to separate these inmates before an assault occurs, thus reducing
potential and actual conflict.
The AIMS approach has been designed for use in institutions which contain
male inmates from the age of eighteen upward, and where at least two separate
living units are available. The system lists five behavioural groups that are
identified and marked out according to an inmate's most common behaviours
during a set observation period. Together with information relating to past
behaviour trends, an inmate's behaviour categorises him within one of the
five groups and he is placed in accommodation accordingly, The five groups
and the associated characteristic behaviours are outlined in Figure 1.
At this stage it is proposed that one section of the full AIMS be utilised
for the internal management of maximum and medium security institutions
housing male prisoners. This section idEmtifies and separates inmates using a
behavioural checklist (Figure 2).
The behaviour checklist would be administered at the gaol of classification.
Each inmate's behaviour would. be observed and rated over a specified time
period using the Behavioural Adjustment Checklist (Figure 2). The checklist
would administered by custodial officers (probably those working in the
accommodation areas of the institution) possibly in collaboration . with the
psychologists.
The purpose of the identification process would remain, as in the total AIMS,
primarily to separate the aggressive or "heavy" inmates (Group 1), from those
who exhibit passive or "victim" behaviour (Group 2).
The use of one section of the AIMS model, the Behavioural Adjustment
Checklist, is advocated as a simple method of behaviour identification which
could be reviewed reguarly. However it must be noted that the total AIMS
approach requires evaluation of behaviour be drawn from information recording
both past and present behaviour patterns. Evaluating only present behaviour
may reduce the validity of such a process. Any further review of this system
46
will need to consider this potential risk very carefully. Consideration must
also be given to the effect of labelling behaviour and separating inmates on
this basis. One consequence may in fact be to reinforce the debilitating
aspects of the behaviour, i.e. that to place "aggressors" or "victims"
together may create an environment where that characteristic behaviour is
reinforced. Thus the opportunites for individual may be significantly
reduced.
A brief overview of the total AIMS is presented below. As a whole, it is a
relatively complex process. The present proposal would require only Step 1
be completed (the Behavioural Adjustment Checklist). This score would then be
translated to the Raw Score Form (Figure 4), The highest Raw Score will
indicate the group that best describes each inmate's behaviour. Accommodation
would then be allocated accordingly. Alternatively, additional refinement
might be obtained in less clear-cut cases, by proceeding to complete the T-
score conversion.
IDENTIFICATION PROCESS
The AIMS model involves a number of separate steps in the identification
process.
STEP ONE
The first, a Correctional Adjustment Checklist is a set of forty-one
statements which describe particular behaviours (Figure 2). Once an inmate is
placed in the institution of classification, his behaviour is monitored for a
period of no less than ten days and, ideally, four weeks. The AIMS model
advocates this period of observation occur in a separate Admission and
Observation Unit. Using the Correctional Adjustment Checklist, a custodial
officer observes each inmate's behaviour and notes the relevant and most
frequent behaviour on the Checklist. Ideally the officer should be in
frequent contact with the inmate being observed. Staff continuity is an
important aspect of this identification process.
STEP TWO
This involves the completion of a Checklist for the Analysis of Life History
Records (Figure 3). A caseworker interviews each inmate. Information from
both the interview and a pre-sentence report is used to identify the
behaviour traits noted on the checklist that that best describe the inmate's
history of behaviour.
STEP THREE
Both checklists are scored for each inmate. The inmate's total score is then
entered in the appropriate Raw Score column of the Classification Profile
(Figure 4).
STEP FOUR
The raw scores from both checklists are converted to T-scores. (Figures 5 and
6).
47
STEP FIVE
The T-scores obtained from Scales 1 and 5 of the Adjustment Checklist and
Scale 3 of the Life History Checklists represents the Final T-score for each
of the three scales. To obtain the Final T-scores for Scale 1, the
Correctional Adjustment Checklist T-score is added to the Correctional
Adjustment Life History T-score for Scale 1 and the sum is divided by two.
The same process is used to determine the Final T-score for Scale 4. The
highest final score determines which of the five groups the inmate is
assigned to.
The most important separation in the institution is between Groups 1 and 5.
The number of separate accommodation areas that exist within each institution
will determine whether all five groups may be housed separately. Ideally
Groups 1 and 2 should be separated from Groups 3, 4 and 5.
The system requires that staff be adequately trained to administer both
checklists. The system designers strongly emphasise that the purpose of both
checklists is to make certain that behavioural characteristics are identified
on an empirical basis and are not just arbitary decisions. Thus correctly
identifying behaviour involves accurate identification of both past behaviour
and behaviour noted during the Assessment and Observation period.
--ooOoo--
.
48
Fi Gu'<t:.. 1..
Characteristic Behaviors by Group
Heavy II
Aggressive Sly
Confrontational Not directly
confrontational
Easily bored Untrustworthy
Hostile to Hostile to
authority authority
High rate of Moderate-to-
disciplinary high rate of
infractions disciplinary
infractions
Little concern "Con artists,"
for others manipulative
Victimizers Victimizers
Ill-Moderate
Not excessively
aggressive or
dependent
Reliable,
cooperative
Industrious
Do not see
selves as
criminals
Low rate of
disciplinary
infractions
Concern for
others
Avoid fights
tV
Dependent
Unreliable
Passive
"Clinging''
Low-to-
moderate rate
of disciplinary
infractions
Self-absorbed
Light v
Constantly
afraid
Anxious
Easily upset
Seek protection
Moderate rate
of disciplinary
infractions
Explosive
under stress
Easily victimized Easily victimized

J
I
'
J
J
l

i
i
.
49
Fic:.ul< 2
Correctional Adjustment Checklist (CACL)
Name and number of inmate ____________________________ _
Name of person completing this
Yourposition ______________ Datecompleted ---------------
Instructions: Please indicate which of the following behaviors this inmate exhibits. If the behavior describes the
inmate, circle the "1." If it does not, circle the "0." Please complete every item.
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0. 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0
0
0
0
1. Worried, anxious
2. Tries, but cannot seem to follow directions
3. Tense, unable to relax
4. Socially withdrawn
5. Continually asks for help from staff
6. Gets along with the hoods
7. Seems to take no pleasure in anything
8. Jittery, ju111py; seems afraid
9. Uses leisure time to cause trouble
10. Continually uses profane language; curses and swears
11. Easily upset
12. Sluggish and drowsy
13. Cannot be trusted at all
14. Moody, brooding
15. Needs constant supervision
16. Victimizes weaker inmates
17. Seems dull and unintelligent
18. Is an agitator about race
19. Continually tries to con staff
20. Impulsive; unpredictable
21. Afraid of other inmates
22. Seems to seek excitement
23. Never seems happy
24. Doesn't trust staff
25. Passive; easily led
26. Talks aggressively to other inmates
27. Accepts no blame for any of his troubles
28. Con\inually complains; accuses staff of unfairness
29. Daydreams; seems to be mentally off in space
30. Talks aggressively to staff
31. Has a quick temper
32. Obviously holds grudges; seeks to "get even"
33. Inattentive; seems preoccupied
34. Attempts to play staff against one another
35. Passively resistant; has to be forced to participate
36. Tries to form a clique
37. Openly defies regulations and rules
38. Often sad and depressed
39. Stirs up trouble among inmates
40. Aids or abets others in breaking the rules
41. Considers himself unjustly confined
Source: Herbert C. Quay, Ph.D.
1
I
I

Checklist for the Analysis of Life History Records of Adult Offenders (CALH)
Name and number of inmate _____________________________ _
Name of person completing this checklist-------------------------
Your position--------------Date completed--------------
Instructions: Place a checkmark before each trait that describes this inmate's life history.
1. Has few, if any, friends
2. Thrillseeking
3. Preoccupied; "dreamy"
4. Uncontrollable as a child
5. Has expressed guilt over offense
6. Expresses need for selfimprovement
7. Socially withdrawn
8. Weak, indecisive, easily led
9. Previous local, state, or federal incarceration
10. Tough, defiant
11. lrreg'uiar work history (if not a student)
12. Noted not to be responsive to counseling
13. Gives impression of ineptness, incompetence in managing everyday problems in living
14. Supported wife and children
15. Claims offense was motivated by family problems
16. Close ties with criminal elements
17. Depressed, morose
18. Physically aggressive (strong arm, assault, reckless homicide, attempted murder,
mugging, etc.)
19. Apprehension likely due to "stupid" behavior on the part of the offender
20. Single marriage
21. Expresses feelings of inadequacy, worthlessness
22. Difficulties in the public schools
23. Suffered financial reverses prior to commission of offense for which incarcerated
24. Passive, submissive
25. Bravado, braggart
26. Guiltless; blames others
27. Expresses Jack of concern for others
Source: Herbert C. Quay, Ph.D.
'
I
' I
I
I
51
1.,.., &L.-'KE 4
Raw Score.Form: Life History Checklist (CALH)
Name and number of inmate ___________________________ _
Name of person completing this checklist _______________________ _
Your position-------------Date completed--------------
Instructions: For each item checked on the Checklist for the Analysis of Life History Records of Adult Offenders,
place a checkmark on the line corresponding to the item number. Add the checkmarks to obtain the
Raw Score for each group.
Group
Ill IV
1. __
2. __ 3. __
4. __
5. __
6. __
7. __
8. __
9. __
10. __
11. __

12. __ 13. __
14. __
15. __
16. __ 17. __
18. __ 19. __
20. __
21.--
22. __ 23. __
24. __
25. __
26. __
27. __
Total (Raw Score)
Source: Herbert C. Quay, Ph.D.

52
F, G....:R.E" 4 c_CY"">+, /)wed
Raw Score Form: Correctional Adjustment Checklist (CACL)
Name and number of inmate ___________________________ _
Name of person completing this checklist _______________________ _
Your position--------------Date completed--------------
Instructions: For each "1" circled on the Correctional Adjustment Checklist, place a checkmark on the line cor-
responding to the item number. Add the checkmarks to obtain the Raw Score for each group.
Total (Raw Score)
6. __
9. __
10. __
13.--
15.--
16. __
18.--
20. __
22. __
26. __
27. __
30. __
31.--
32. __
36. __
37. __
39. __
40. __
Source: Herbert C. Quay, Ph.D.
II

19. __
24. __
28. __
34. __
41. __
Group
IV
2.
--
4. __
7.
--
12. __
14. __
17.
--
23. __
25. __
29. __
33. __
35. __
v
1. __
3. __
5. __
8. __
11. __
21.
38. __
_j
I
1
j
53
S
Raw Score to Normalized T.score Conversions for Correctional Adjustment
Checklist (CACL)
Scale I Scale II Scale IV Scale V
Raw score T-score Raw score Tscore Raw score Tscore Raw score Tscore
0 41 0 44 0 40 0 39
1 49 1 54 1 47 1 46
2 53 2 59 2 51 ,2 50
3 56 3 62 3 54 3 54
4 58 4 65 4 56 4 57
5 59 5 70 5 59 5 61
6 60 6 61 6 65
7 61 7 63 7 71
8 62 8 65
9 63 9 69
10 64 10 73
11 65 11 78

12 66
13 67
14 68
15 69
16 71
17 73
18 76
54
F, e::r...::Q 6
l
I
RawScore to Normalized T-score Conversions for Life History Checklist (CALH)
Scale I Scale Ill Scale IV
Raw score T-score Raw score T-score Raw score T-score
0 35 0 39 0 39
1 43 1 47 1 47
2 47 2 52 2 53
3 51 3 58 3 58
4 55 4 64 4 62
5 58 5 70 5 66
6 61 6 76 6 70
7 64 7 74
8 67 8 82
9 71 9 90
10 75
11 82


55
THE FOUR STAGES OF CLASSIFICATION REVIEW
STAGE 1
Inmate is scheduled for a Review of Classification by the Classification Co-
ordinator every six months.
Assessing Officers are are notified in advance, enabling them to complete a
re-assessment of the inmate's programme need and priority rating.
STAGE 2
Classification Co-ordinator completes a Review of Security Ratin[( form.
STAGE 3
Completed Assessment forms are collected and attached to The Review of
Classification Summary form. New priority scores are inserted onto the
Offender Profile on the The Summary form.
The Institutional Classification Committee then interviews the prisoner and
evaluates the new assessments, the appropriateness of the total programme,
including the security rating and placement.
Decisions are communicated to the Director of Classification who has the
right to veto. The veto must be conveyed back to the Committee within ten
working days otherwise the original decision is automatically confirmed.
STAGE 4
Following the Review of Classification or subsequent to a prisoner's
transfer, the inmate is re-assessed for Custody/Housing assignment. If "
change is indicated the inmate should then be re-assir{ned to approriate
accomodation.
56
REVIEW OF SECURITY RATING
This is Stage Two of a complete review of a prisoner's classification.
The review of the security rating follows the general pattern of the initial
rating, but it introduces a weighting for factors related to institutional
behaviour since admission.
It recognizes the passage of time in regard to past offences and misconduct
(for example, only escapes within the last three years are scored) and it
provides lower point-scores for the severity of old offences.
It thus makes possible a reduction in overall points scored and hence the
potential for a lower security rating, but it leaves both the committee's
decision and the Director's veto on the same footing as before. Clearly,
however, the prisoner, by his or her conduct, has the capacity to influence
the outcome of the review.
57
STAGE 1 SECURITY RATING RBVIBW PAGE 1
INSTITUTION ....
DATE .....
MOST SEVERE OFFENCE ......
NON-PAROLE EXPIRY DATE .
1. HISTORY OF INSTITUTIONAL VIOLENCE
NAME ............
D.O.B ... M.I.N .....
READ SENTENCE ................
TARGETED DATE OF RBLEASE ..
None. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Assault without a weapon or serious injury ........ 3
Assault involving a weapon and/or serious injury and/or death . ~ 7 ________ __
SCORE
2. Did the above assault occur within the last six months ?
Yes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _,o________ __
3. SEVERITY OF CURRENT OFFENCE (refer to severity of offence scale)
Low or Low-Moderate .......... 0
Moderate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
High. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I .... 0 0 0 0 3
Highest. . . . . . . . . . . . ;:,4________ __
SCORE
4. PRBVIOUS MOST SEVERB VIOLENT OFFENCE (refer to severity scale)
None, Low, or Low-Moderate .................. . ................. 0
Moderate ........... o 1
High o o o o o o o o o o o a o a a a a a a a a a a a a a a '" a a a a a a a a a a 3
Highest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ::>:4___ _
SCORE
5. ESCAPE HISTORY (rate only the last three years)
No escapes or attempts ......... -3
An absconding or attempt, from minimum security or from an
approved leave with no actual or threatened violence:
Over one year ago . ..... o o o o o o 0 0 0 -1
Within the last year. . . . . . . . . 1
An escape or attempt from medium or maximum security, or an
escape from minimum security with actual or threatened violence:
Over one year ago . .... o o . o o o o o o a 5
Within the last year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .!7________ _
SCORE
CONTINUE TO REVIEW SECURITY SCORE ON SHEET 2
58
STAGE l SECURITY RATING REVIEW PAGE 2
6. NUMBER OF PROVEN MISCONDUCT REPORTS
NAME
D.O. B . M. I.N ...
None in the last 13-18 months ................. -5
None in the last 7-12 months ...... -3
None in the last 6 months ................. -1
One in the last 6 months. . . .. . .. .. . .. . . . . .. .. . .. .. 0
two or more in the last six months .................. ~ 4 ________ _
SCORE
7. MOST SEVERE PROVEN MISCONDUCT REPORT (in the last eighteen months)
None. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Low-Moderate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Moderate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
High. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Highest. . . . . . . . . .!..7___ _
SCORE
8. WARRANT OF COMMITMENT
No new warrants subsequent to initial classification, no prosecution
outstanding, extradition not indicated ...... 0
A subsequent conviction in a magistrates Court or
prosecution is indicated ................ ....................... 3
A subsequent conviction in or remand to a Higher Court and/or
extradition indicated ................ "'-5________ _
SCORE
9. PRIOR CONVICTIONS IN A HIGHER COURT
None ........................................................... 0
One ............................................................ 2
Two or more. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ 4 ' - - - - - - - - - -
MEDIUM/MINIMUM SCALE
Medium .... 7-22
Minimum .... 6 or less
SCORE
TOTAL SCORE
Using the MEDIUM/MINIMUM scale
translate the total number of
points into a security rating.
Place the score and this indicated
Security Rating in the appropriate
place on the CLASSIFICATION
SUMMARY
NAME OF SECURITY REVIEW ASSESSOR .................
59
DISCIPLINARY SEVERITY SCALE
Any offence for which a conviction is recorded under The Prisons Act, Section
23 (a)(b)(c)(d)(f)(h)(i) and (e) where the damage is in excess of $500.00.
MODERATE
Any offence for which a conviction is recorded under The Prisons Act, Section
23 (j)(k)(I)(m)(n)(o)(p)(q) and (e) where the damage is under $500.00.
Any offence for which a conviction is recorded under The Prison Rules.
60
REASSESSMENT OF NEEDS
This is Stage Three of a complete review of a prisoner's classification.
Again, the process is similar to that of the initial assessment, in that the
assessor's opinion is unfettered, but in progress toward it, he or she is
asked to answer a number of very specific questions aimed at focusing
attention upon certain key areas and factors.
The review form initially directs attention to the inmate's current situation
before considering progress in regard to any needs or problems which were in
evidence previously.
As before, it asks for a recommendation, followed by a rating of the strength
with which the implementation of the recommendation is believed to be
necessary in the re-classification decision. For the purposes of comparison,
and in dealing with an inmate over an extended period, there may be benefit
in also setting a rating (even if subjective) of the magnitude of a need or
problem in absolute terms, so that change may be more easily detected and
measured. For example, an inmate with a drug problem might have his or her
need/problem assessed as very considerable in absolute terms, but may be
seen as unwilling or unable to benefit from a programme at a particular time.
In that eire umstance, a recommendation may be seen as being of low priority
(at that stage). On the other hand, if the problem/need is major, in
absolute terms, it may be important for this to be acknowledged and for
improvement or deterioration to be recognized.
j
I
:1
I
l
j
I
l
I
I
1
' -j
I
I
61
NEEDS ASSESSMENT REVIEW
INMATE .............. D.O.B ............ M.I.N ........ INSTITUTION .. .
ASSESSOR .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . DATE .. .. .. .. REVIEW OF
NEED OR PROBLEM IN
THIS GENERAL AREA?.._ _____ _. IS IT?
1. IS THERE A PRESENT I J WHAIFSTO .,

2. HOW LONG HAS THIS D DID INMATE ACKNOWLEDGE IT I
PROBLEM EXISTED? AT LAST REVIEW/ASSESSEMENT
. OR IS IT NOW ACKNOWLEDGED? I

3. DOES INMATE SEE f I HOW DOES HE/SHE SEE THE I
ANY PROGRESS MADE? _ _ SITUATION AT PRESENT? _

4. DO YOU SEE ANY
PROGRESS MADE BY
THE INMATE?
5. HAVE RECOMMENDED
STEPS BEEN TAKEN?
WHAT PROGRESS, OR WHAT
REGRESSION DO YOU SEE,
OR IS THERE NO CHANGE?
IF NOT, ARE THEY RELEVANT I
NOW?
6. IN WHAT WAYS CAN I I
THE NEED/PROBLEM
BE DEALT WITH IN
AN INSTITUTION?
7. WHICH ====:::::;--ARE-. __ T_HE __ RE_ANY-:.:r,==========j,
IS MOST SUITABLE? ALTERNATIVES? _

8. WHAT CAN BE OFFERED, CONSIDERING
-- BALANCE OF SENTENCE TO SERVE
-- PRESENT/ANTICIPATED SECURITY
RATING
-- LEVEL OF AWARENESS/MOTIVATION
-- AVAILABLE STAFF AND RESOURCES
--OTHER SPECIAL
9. GIVEN THESE CONSIDERATIONS ABOVE,, 1 2 3 4 5
THE PROGRESS TO DATE AND ANY NEW L.------------------'
NEED OR PROBLEM, WHAT PRIORITY
RATING SHOULD ATTACH TO PROPOSAL
NOW MADE?
ANY FURTHER COMMENT OR EXPLANATION
(circle one of the levels above
-- i.e. highest priority is 5;
lowest is 1)
0 .... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 I 0 o o 0 0 o o o 0 o 0 o 0 o o o o o 0 o o o e o o 0 o o o o o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o o o 0 0 o o o o o o 0 0 0 o o o 0 o o o o 0 0 0 o 0 o e o o
.............................................................................
62
STAGE 3 CLASSIFICATION REVIEW SUMMARY PAGE l
INSTITUTION ................ NAME .
DATE ........................... . D.O. B ........... M.I.N ........ .
SECURITY RATING SCORE ....... INDICATED SECURITY LEVEL .......
OVERRIDE CONSIDERATIONS: (To be used when the Committee considers that the
indicated security level to be inappropriate, please state reasons)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Take the indicated security level,or where applicable, the amended level
where an override has been exercised, and circle the appropriate column
. in the list of institutions (below).
OFFENDER ASSESSMENT PROFILE : From the appropriate re-assessment sheets,
place the assessed priority levels in the corresponding columns. Columns are
arranged in order of importance and are stepped. This visual display of
needs allows the Committee to better discriminate between competing relative
programme priorities for each inmate.
MEDICAL CARE IN
5 :PLACEMENT EDUC & PERSONAL CULTURAL
4 5 :D&A TRAIN.PSYCH SOCIAL LINGUIST EMPLOY ACTIVITIES
3 4 55 55 55 5
2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
0 111 1 1 1 1
A
C.I.P.
GOULBURN
MAITLAND
M.R.C.
M.R.P.
MULAWA
PARKLEA
PARRAMATTA
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LIST OF INSTITUTIONS
B
BATHURST
BATHURST X WING
BERRIMA
COOMA
GOULBURN X WING
GRAFTON
c
EMU PLAINS
GLEN INNES
GRAFTON X WING
KIRKCONNELL
NORMA PARKER
MANNUS
M.T.C.
OBERON
PLEASE TURN TO PAGE 2
63
STAGE 3 CLASSIFICATION REVIEW SUMMARY PAGE 2
INSTITUTION ...........
DATE ...........
NAME
D.O.B ...............
SPECIFIC SECURITY RATING ........
CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS PLACEMENT AT...............
Please state reasons for placement:
" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CONCLUDING COMMENTS OR DISSENTING REPORT (if any, write on back of form if
space inadequate) ..................................
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SIGNATURES
CHAIRPERSON .....
MEMBERS .
0 0 0 0 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VETO CONSIDERATIONS (DIRECTOR OF CLASSIFICATION ONLY)
DATE SIGHTED .
CLASSIFICATION VETOED BECAUSE .............................................. .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DATE COMMITTEE INFORMED OF VETO......
SIGNED ............
LEAVE PROGRAMMES
the institutional Classification Committee is to consider all prisoner
applications for temporary leave. In so doing, it is to follow the Policies,
guidelines, and procedures contained in the relevant Departmental Circulars
which detail the various leave programmes. (See APPENDIX at ther back of
the manual for copies of current circulars)
- ~ 'i
65
INSTITUTIONAL CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE MEMBERSIDP
The committee is convened by the Superintendent and is usually chaired either
by the Superintendent, his or her delegate, or the Classification Committee
Co-ordinator. Other members are drawn from institution-based professional
and industrial officers so that each division is represented. It is up to
the Superintendent and eligible officers to establish the regular committee
membership appropriate to a particular institution.
A quorum of three is required. However, all eligible officers must be
informed in advance of each meeting. Any officer who cannot attend should
endeavour to arrange a substitute and must ensure that any assessment or
relevant information required for the meeting is forwarded to the Chairperson
beforehand, in addition to their appologies.
Where there is more than one divisional representative at an institution,
committee membership is first due to the most senior officer.
--ooOoo--
66
MANAGKMBNT REVII!W CHECKLIST
FOR
INSTITUTIONAL CLASSIFICATION CHAIRPERSONS
To be completed every six months by the Chairperson and signed by all
Committee members.
1. Are there any new Classification Committee members who have not been
inducted through the Classification Committee training programme? ------
2. If the answer is yes, then describe what remedial action has been taken.
3. Do all Classification Committee members receive the agenda in advance ?
4. If the answer is no, describe the remedial action taken.
5. Do prisoners receive advance notice of their forthcoming interview ?
6. If the answer is no, describe the remedial action taken.
7. Is each meeting properly minuted?
8. If not, then decribe what remedial action has been taken.
9. Have any meetings during the last six months not been attended by all
Committee members ?
10. If the answer is yes, give reasons and where these
approved leave, explain what action has been taken
attendance by all Committee members.
are for other than an
to ensure a regular
67
-2-
11. Is there an efficient prisoner c a l l ~ u p system which allows the committee
to proceed without undue delay ?
12. If the answer is no, describe the major causes of delay and the remedial
action necessary.
13. Are prisoners informed of the nature and purpose of the interview ?
14. Describe the procedure used to inform prisoners.
15. What special procedures are invoked to identify and compensate prisoners
who have linguistic disabilities ?
16. From the minutes,
have been : (a)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
how many prisoners during the past six months,
interviewed
classified
re-classified
transferred
deferred because of a lack of information
17. How many times during the last six months have Committee decisions been
vetoed by the Director of Classification ?
18. How many times has the override facility been used ?
Signed
Chairperson __________________ _
Members
68
COMPREHENSIVE AGENDA FOR THE INSTITUTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
C<MIITTBB MEETING
1. Open meeting
2. Accept previous minutes
3. General Business
4. Note any prisoners who have received additional sentences
5. Note any prisoners hospitalised locally
6. Note any prisoners who have earned or lost remissions
7. Applications for educational study during work hours
B. Applications for temporary leave or the Work Release Programme
9. Interview and classify local receptions
10. Interview scheduled classification reviews
11. Interview applicants for classification reviews
12. Date for next meeting
13. Close meeting
69
MINUTES OF THE CLASSIFICATION
DETAILS
NAME:
NO:
D.O.B:
CONV:
SENT:
ARRIVAL DATE
AT 'IllE PRISON:
E.E. DATE:
NAME:
NO:
D.O.B:
CONV:
SENT:
ARRIVAL DATE
AT 'IllE PRISON:
E.E. DATE:
NAME:
NO:
D.O.B:
CONV:
SENT:
ARRIVAL DATE
AT THE PRISON:
E.E. DATE:
NAME:
NO:
0.0.8:
CONV:
SENT:
ARRIVAL 01\TE
AT THE PRISON:
E.E. DATE:
SMITH, Peter John
81/000
6.10.55
THEFT, BUffiL.ZI.RY
3/2 yrs. and U/P yr.
2 rnths.
1.1.82
january 1983
JONES, Paul Phillip
80/000
10.11.48
ARMED ROBBERY
8/6 yrs.
March 1981
January 1984
BRO'IIN , James
82/000
5.7.57
THEFT
12 rronths
1.10.82 (local recep.)
June 1983
COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 8.10.82
REASON TO BE SEEN
Application for 8 hours temp.
leave. Previous accompanied t/1 in
June 1982. Receives eery goo:l
reports. Family very supportive.
Recamrnend: 8 hours unaccompanied
t/1/
Application for transfer to
Mannus. Consistently earns less
than full remission, for both
conduct ard industry. Protection
required from Kelly Bros. at
Mannus. Advised to improve
attitude ard reapply June 1983.
Application to remain L.B. Family
resides in Moe. Previously served
4 weeks at Long Bay.. NJ escapes.
Recamrnerd reclass. to Long Bay.

70
Department of Corrective
Roden Cutler House
24 Camp bell Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000 00
Services
Reference:
File No:
Policy Unit 217 8389
85/845
Date: 10 October 1985
CIRCULAR NO: 85/33
SPONSORED PRISONER LEAVE
POLICY
As part of its policy of a graduated re-entry by prisoners intQ the
community, the Commission is concerned that programmes of leave
which depend upon sponsorship should operate effectively and. fairly.
It is also concerned that appropriate persons are selected as sponsors
and that they fully understand the obligations of sponsorship and are
well-equipped to f1..1lfil them.
Approval of sponsors will be the responsibility of the Superintendents
involved, as will be the review and_ continuation of particular
sponsorship and leave arrangements, but in dealing with these
various matters the guidelines set out herein should be observed.
AIMS
The establishment and maintenance of effective procedures for the
assessment, guidance and support of sponsors and for the review of
sponsorships and leave arrangements, with a view to reducing:
i ) the failure of individual sponsors to fulfil their
obligations;
71
- 2 -
ii) the likelihood of resultant breakdown of individual
leave arrangements; and
iii) the consequent possibility of sponsored leave
programmes being curtailed or rendered unavailable
to other potentially eligible prisoners.
OBJECTIVES
1. To establish and maintain appropriate f'!r sponsors
. 2. To provide effective assessment of person.s applying to be
sponsors.
3. To establish and maintain a computer-based register of
applicants and approved sponsors.
4. To provide appropriate information, guidance and sup'port for
approved sponsors.
5. To establish and maintain a system of menitoring, evaluating
and reviewing sponsorships and approved arrangements for
sponsored leave.
6. To investigate instances of break-down of sponsored leave
arrangements and to identify sponsors unsuitable in particular
situations or generally.
PROCEDURES
1. Criteria for Sponsors
I
J
l
72
- 3 -
Mandatory requirements are that a proposed sponsor must:
1.1. be at least 18 years old;
1.2. in the op1mon of the Superintendent be a fit and proper
person to fulfil all the obligations of sponsorship in
respect of the particular leave. for which application is
made;
1.3. provide proof of identity.
Matters which should normally be ascertained or co-nsidered are:
1. 4. that the sponsor be personally known. to the prisoner;
1.5. that the sponsor have known the prisoner personal!y long
enough and well enough to be confident of the prisoner's
satisfactory behaviour and compliance with all the terms
and conditions of the latter's leave if it be approved;
1.6. closeness of the relationship between sponsor and prisoner
(i.e. family);
1. 7. the duration of the relationship;
1.8. the depth and quality of the relationship;
1.9. whether or not the relationship existed outside the
institution;
1.10. the stability or permanency of the sponsor's employment,
place of residence, etc.;
1.11. possession of a current driver's licence;
73
- 4 -
1. 12. lack of a criminal record;
1 1 3. any previous sponsorship.
1.14. the practicality and soundness of any particular leave
plan proposed by the sponsor.
The matters dealt with above ( 1.4 to 1 .14) are significant but
not mandatory criteria. Particular circumstances may mean that,
for example, a driver's liCence is not needed or that, where the
proposed sponsor is, say, a Salvation Army Officer or' a CRC
volunteer, there may be little or no prior acquaintance with the
prisoner.
2. Assessment of Applicants
A Superintendent, unless able to be satisfied by other means,
should arrange for a home visit and an assessment of the
proposed sponsor by e.ither a Probation and Parole Officer or a
Welfare Officer.
3. A Computer-based Register of Applicants and Approved Sponsors
Past performance can be a useful indicator of future
achievement. Although the success (or failure) of a particular
sponsored leave arrangement does not depend solely upon the
sponsor, someone who ,has coped satisfactorily in the role
previously should have a better Idea of the obligations of
sponsorship than someone who has not. Even a sponsor who has
encountered difficulties may have learned useful lessons from a
failure.
In either case, it is important that this history be known, not
only to the Superintendent assessing an application, but also to
anyone providing guidance and support to an approved sponsor.
74
- 5 -
1 t is therefore recommended that as soon as resources permit, a
computer-based register of all applicants and approved sponsors
be established and maintained thereafter. It will then be the
responsibility of the Superintendent to:
3.1. inquire of any applicant w l ~ e t h e r or not there has been
any prior involvement with sponsorship;
3.2. check the register to verify and, if necessary, determine
the extent of that involvement;
3.3. make any consequent inquiries which may be deemed
necessary;
3.4. enter into the register the fact and circumstances of the
application then under consideration; and
3.5. up-date the register by entry of further relevant
information as it becomes available.
4. Provision of Information, Guidance and Support for Sponsors
An important means of meeting these needs is the availability to
intending and approved sponsors of a comprehensive pamphlet or
booklet outlining the obligations of the sponsor and the
prisoner, in a sponsored-leave arrangement.
Ideally, such a booklet would go beyond a bare recital of
rules, and would offer advice which might exemplify commonly
. .
encountered problems and offer possible solutions.
It would also provide one or more contact points or telephone
numbers, in case of difficulty.
Over and above this, assistance should be given, where
appropriate, by Probation and Parole or Welfare staff,
particularly where these had been involved at an earlier stage
- 6 -
75
by way of a home visit and assessment or become involved at a
later stage as part of the process of monitoring and evaluating
sponsorships and approved arrangements for sponsored leave, as
set out in section 5 hereof.
5. Monitoring, Evaluation and Review of Sponsorships and Approved
Leave Arrangements
.-.;,.
Any sponsored leave arrangement will involve some element of
risk. While careful prior assessment should reduce this to an
acceptable level, the real test comes when ,the leave is actually
taken, and it may be that the test comes not on the first but on
a subsequent occasion.
The assessment process (although it may now be called
monitoring and evaluation) should continue up to, during and
after the period over which leave is taken, so that a review
can be made and any necessary action be undertaken in regard
to:
5.1. continuation of leave;
5.2. cancellation of leave;
5.3. continuation of a particular sponsorship;
5.4. cancellation of a particular sponsorship;
5.5. guidance anti support of a particular sponsor;
5.6. unsuitability of a sponsor generally.
Responsibility'for any such action will remain with the
Superintendent but unless the Superintendent can be satisfied by
other means, follow-up contact should be made with the sponsor
and with the prisoner, In each case by a Probation and Parole
Officer or a Welfare Officer who should advis.e the Superintendent:
76
- 7 -
5.7. if problems are perceived; and, if so,
5.8.
what they are and what action needs to be taken; or
5.9. whether or not the perceived problem or difficulty has
been resolved; and
5.10. whether or not the continuation, deferment or cancellation
of further sponsored leave, or the variation of conditions
applying thereto, is advisable;
5.11. as to the suitability of the sponsor in regard to a
particular instance, or generally; and
5.12. as to the prospects for future sponsored leave for the
particular prisoner.
6. Criteria for Limited or Permanent Barring of Sponsors
6.1. In every case of break-down of a sponsored leave
arrangement the Superintendent shall investigate the
circumstances to satisfy himself whetF.er the primary
responsibility for breakdown lay with:
i) the prisoners; and/or
i i) the sponsor; or
iii) neither.
If, II') the Superintendent's opinion, it was with the sponsor,
whether or not the latter should be designated ineligible for
further sponsorship of:
I) that particular prisoner; or
ii) any prisoner;
..
77
- 8 -
and in either case, if such ineligibility should be:
i) subject to some contingency (and if so, what); or
ii) some limited period (and if so, what); or
iii) permanent.
6.2. In this regard, the Superintendent should take into
account any report or advice avaifable to him in relation
to the matters covered in 5. 7 to 5.12, above.
6.3. The Superintendent's conclusion should then be entered into
the computer-based register (as per 3.5 above).
~ N
Chairman
Corrective Services Commission
78
CIRCULAR NO: 85/47
Department of Corrective Services
Roden Cutler House
24 Campbell Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000 00
Reference:
File No:
Date:
Policy Unit 217 8389
85/555
10 October 1985
This circular supersedes Circular No. 85/29, 15th August, 1985. Under
the sub-heading of "Approval" the first circular I acked in clarity.
This new circular has corrected that error.
WEEKEND LEAVE ISOLATED CAMPS
POLICY
As part of an overall pol icy of graduated re-entry by prisoners into
the community, the Commission has approved a limited programme of
weekend leave from certain Prison Camps.
AIMS
To provide for the improved management of ITlinimum security
institutions, to provide an incentive and opportunity for certain
prisoners located at the Mannus, Oberon and Glen Innes Prison Camps
and to facilitate the strengthening of family and community ties
relevant to the prisoner's re-entry to the community.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an incentive for prisoners to transfer to the relatively
isolated Prison Camps.
To provide a reward for prisoners who display above-average work
and conduct.
To allow prisoners an extended opportunity to strengthen family
and/or community ties prior to their release.
79
PROCEDURES
Eligibility
Prisoners who have consistently performed at above average levels in
conduct and industry and who have had three day-leave without
incident are eligible to apply. A standard prisoner request form
should be used.
Assessment
The Programme Review Committee will consider each application on its
merits and will make a recommendation to the Superintendent.
Approval
The Superintendent will have the right to approve (or reject) a
weekend leave recommendation from the Programmes Review Committee.
If the applicant is an indeterminate sentence prisoner or if the
original offence is one of the following:
1. Homicide
2. Major Assault
3. A Sexual Offence
the Superintendent wll I refer the recommendations to the Commission.
POLICY
Sponsorship (refer to Policy Circular No. 85/33 in regard to sponsored
prisoner leave generally),
Two sponsors will be required to guarantee accompaniment of the
prisoner and to ensure that reliable transport will be available to
enable the prisoner to be returned on time.
80
Guidelines for Sponsorship {refer to Policy Circular No. 85/33 in
regard to sponsored prisoner leave generally).
Particular emphasis should be placed upon:
reliability of transport;
alternative plan of action in the event of an accident or
breakdown.
Restrictions
Weekend leave shall be restricted to one weekend per month. Maximum
hours of weekend leave shall be from 6.00 pm Friday to 4.00 pm
Sunday. The Superintendent h'as discretionary power to adjust these
hours within this overall time period.
Prisoners must specify where they will be staying, and a destination
more than 150 kms away w iII not norma II y be approved,
Prisoners shall not cross the State border.
Evaluation
An evaluation should be undertaken as provided in Policy Circular
No. 85/33.
An evaluative report on the appropriateness of the leave for the
prisoner should be undertaken by the Psychologist. Similar reports
shall be provided on subsequent weekend leaves at the
Superintendent's request
..: l:di\ILHJTED
r u ...
rt II !'2-sX s
Chairman
Corrective Services Commission
81
CIRCULAR NO:
82161
''o.;;J:"'U..I.. "-<lU ...... I."- V.I. .......... .._.,_ .... 11-,LVII;l ...:;J'C.&..V.L\.,;Ci:) 1
Roden Cutler House,
24 Campbell Street,
SYDNEY. 2000
File No: 77/1434 '
Reference: K. McCormick 217 8128
Date: 6th December, 1982.
DAY LEAVE
Circulars 4679, 82/2 are hereby rescinded.
The Corrective Services Commission has again reviewed
the criteria for Day Leave. The Departmental policy
for this progranune is now as follows:
Essential Conditions
1. Except for the exclusions referred to in (2)
below, an inmate must be a C2 classification
prisoner for three months before being eligible
for consideration for day leave;
2. Inmates convicted of a crime of violence
(including Governor's Pleasure and Life
Sentence prisoners) or for a drug offence
dealt with at a District Court, must be a
C3 category prisoner befoxe being eligible
for consideration for Day Leave;. and
3. Any inmate confirmed on a C3 classification
becomes eligible to apply for Day Leave.
General Conditions
(a) Prisoners granted day leave \vill have their first
three day leaves at intervals of not less than 8
weeks. Subsequent day leaves may be taken at
intervals of not less than four weeks.
(b) The time span of Day Leave shall be of a maximum
of B.OOam to S.OOpm; subject to the of
the Superintendent who may require earlier return
in the interests of security and availability of
reception staff.
(c) Subject to the same conditional discretion of the
Superintendent the return from Day Leave may be
extended to 6.00pm when "Daylight Saving" is in
operation.

82
(d) Inmates who have successfully participated in the
Day Leave Programme for 2 years, without any breach
may be permitted extension of Day Leave to B.OOpm.
(e) In general, Day Leave will be granted only on
Saturday, sundayand Public Holidays. In special
circumstances Day Leave may be granted on a week
day but full particulars in support of such requests
must.be ipcluded in the application.
NOTHING IN THESE CONDITIONS ARE TO PRECLUDE INMATES
ALREADY APPROVED FOR DAY LEAVE FROM CONTINUING IN THE
PROGRAMME.
A review is to be undertaken at each institution to
ensure that any inmate, who is now eligible for
consideration for Day Leave and whose previous applications
were either not approved or deferred, is given the
opportunity to reapply.
Sponsorship
The Commission is particularly concerned with the
sponsorship of day leave and has previously emphasised
the special responsibilities of Superintendents in this
area.

In order to ensure uniform application of these important

responsibilities the following steps are to be implemented:
(i) sponsors are to be personally
interviewed by the Superintendent' or a senior
officer to whom responsibility for this task
has been delegated.
(ii) Prospective sponsors are to be given, in advance,
a copy of the Day Leave conditions (DL2) with
which they will be required to comply.
(iii) Prospective sponsors are then to complete
declaration (DLB) - Copy attached to this
Circular.
(iv) If considered necessary by th'e Superintendent
(or by the Programmes Review Committee prior
(v l
to making a recommendation to the Superintendent)
a "home visit" is to be made by a Probation and
Parole, Welfare or other appropriate officer.
All available documentation is to be forwarded
with any application, particularly when a
sponsor has been rejected.
(vi) Telephone numbers and/or points of contact are
to be supplied so that regular checks can be
made if considered necessary.
83
Admini st.rative Procedures
A. The inmate is to make an application on the prescribed
forlJI, and all questions on the form must be answered.
B. The application is to be considered by the Programmes
Review committee (or other leeal committee formed
for that purpose) and a recommendation made. The
committee is to ensure that the form clearly records
the prisoner's classification, date of classification,
any limitations .regarding the prisoner's 110vements
while on leave, and whether leave, if granted,
represents the first, second, third or subsequent
occasion on which Day Leave applies to the inmate.
c. The form and all correspondence concerning Day Leave
are then to be submitted to the Superintendent for
recommendation, and, following consideration by the
superintendent, to be forwarded to the Executive
Officer (Establishments) in sufficient time to ensure
that it will reach that officer not later than
fourteen days before the scheduled day of leave.
The "Declaration by Prospective Sponsor" (DLB) is
to accompany the submission. That officer is also
responsible for processing all applications including
those which require raference to the Indeterminate
sentence Committee or a submission to the Commission.
Please note that this applies even where Day Leave
is not recommended by the Programmes Review Committee
or Super intepdent,,
D. Where the recommendation is approved, an order in
terms of Section 29 of. the Prisons Act will be
forwarded to the institution from Head Office and
will be signed by an officer authorised by the
Commission, i.e., a member of the Commission,
, the Chief
Administrative Officer, the Directorof Establishments,
the Executive Officer (Establishments) or, in respect
of work Release Programmes, the Director of those
programmes.
However, where an inmate has already had day leave
from his institution (and has not been taken off
the programme) the Superintendent, in accordance
with his delegation from the Commission, may issue
subsequent Day Leave orders subject to the criteria
of the Programme.
E. Where it is necessary, due to unforeseen circumstances,
to make alteration to a Section 29 order (for
e x ~ n p l e , a change of day from Saturday to Sunday)
the officer who signed the order must be informed
so that the order can oe l1gally aftered, or
reissued.
F. Where the leave is not taken, the order must be
returned to the issuing officer for cancellation
clearly endorsed as to the exact reason why the
leave was not taken.
'
1
I .

-4-
84
G. Prior to a prisoner proceeding on approved Day Leave:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
"Orders in respect of Day Leave" are to be
read to the prisoner by an officer.
the prisoner is to sign the "Orders" in the
space provided and the officer issuing the
order will complete the certificate at the
bottom of the form.
the original of the "Orders" is to be
retained by the Superintendent, one copy
to be handed to the prisoner and one to the
prisoner's sponsor.
the sponsor will sign the form "Acknowledgement
of sponsor of Inmate". This form will be
retained by the Superintendent.
CONDITIONS RELATING TO OTHER LEAVE
Compassionate Leave
Notwithstanding the above criteria for Day Leave, an
inmate may apply for the granting of leave on
compassionate grounds under the same general conditions

Granting of this type of leave will only be for those

exceptional cases where the grounds are of a nature
beyond the "normal circumstances" applying to the
stress and strain upon family relationships which
result from a person's imprisonment.
>vithout attempting to categorise these, such instances
as terminal illnesses of close relatives and temporary
availability of overseas relatives are the most
realistic examples.
The following guidelines will apply:
1. application to be made on the day leave form
with heading suitably amended;
2. inmate to attach a statement setting out, in
detail, the special circumstances;
3. local investigation be made (involvement of
Welfare Officer, Probation and Parole Officer
or appropriate officer); and
4. any other supporting documents (letters, medical
certificates, etc.,) to be forwarded with
application.
Pre-Release Leave
Pre-release leave is granted to enable an inmate to
attend employment interviews and arrange accommodation.
It should only be granted in cases where the prisoners'
personal attendance is essential prior to the approved
release date.
85
This leave is to be within the last few weeks prior
to release, and except in the rarest of circumstances,
should be confined to one occasion only.
The applications should be processed on the form
provided and in the same way as Day Leave in general
in respect of sponsors and administrative procedures.
The most important aspect is that a competent authority
(ideally a Probation and Parole Officer) should plan
the appointments and itinerary so that contact can be
maintained when and if necessary.
General
The Commission carefully considered certain other
proposals including a progressive form of Weekend
leave but has decided that further extension of External
Programmes would be inappropriate at present.
However, it is intended that such programmes will be
kept under review and submissions from interested
parties should be forwarded, at any time, to the
Executive Officer (Establishments).
Additional copies of this circular are being forwarded
to all establishments. Superintendents are requested
to ensure that copies are placed on Notice Boards for
the information of. prisoners or otherwise communicated
to inmates through the usual channels.
P.F. CROMBIE,
Chief Administrative Officer.
1
'


86
DJ;CLAIU\'I'fON DY l'IWSJ>EC'fTV SPONSOR
. . . . . . . . . . ....... . . ................................................ .
of .........................................................................
thtijrc to he coutddcn!d a.s a fiponuor for duy Jcuve for

0 o o 0 o o .. I o 0 o 0 I o 0 I 0 o 0 o I t 0 0 I I 0 t o t t t 0 I 0 I nt present in , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0 0 o t 0 o 0 0 o t 0 I f I I I o t 0 0 f t t 0 f 0 t 0 f I t t I t I t I I f 1 I t t t f I t I t t f I t t f f I t t I t I t 0 t I t I 0 I I I
My exact relationship to him/her is t t t 1 t I t I t I t t I t I I t t I I I I I I t I t o t I I I t I t I I I
This h1.1 a uxtcndcd over , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , years,
Orlicr .!<tails (II' frtend/worlunate or not blood relative) I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I t 0
..........................................................................
, ............................................................. .
A. lo;1vc not lucn convicted of any Jn nny State or country.
II, '"""' hc>.>n convicted of following offtmccs:
IIA'I'Ic OFFENCE l'INE/Sf.NTNCI!:
.........................................................................
. ....................................................................... .
.........................................................................
1 l v" L<:cn utvcn a copy of the Day Leave ll1ilea and _condiriona, and am prepared
t.o abJJc by them ;uld un!iure
1
to the bnst of roy ability, that , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
................................. wUl similarly abide by all auch rule and

Du,- iug l lw Uay it is propoHed to rwuain ilt , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,,,.,,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I 0 0 I f f 0 0 0 t f t t I t I f f 0 t I (1'elt!pllone Number , , , , , , , , , )
t t t o t I t I t t t t .. 0 t I t f f f t t 0 t t I t t I
(Signed)
.......... , ..
(Oat")
Any funlwr documents such as Medical Certificates, Welfare Reports, etc.,
m.ty LJc L ,_,,ehcJ,
87
CIRCULAR NO: 84/11
Departm2nt of Corrective
Roden Cutler House,
24 Campbell Street,
SYDNEY 2QOO 00
Reference: John Griffin 217-83fl
File No: 81/365
Date: 4th July, 1984
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR ENTRY INTO THE WORK
RELEASE PROGRAY,i'\E
In order to ensure that the work Release is
complementary to the Probation and Parole Act, 1983, the
Corrective Services Commission has approved cert;;.in
modifications to eligibJlity criteria.
The provisions of Circular No. 84/5 dated 12th April, 1984,
are hereby cancelled. The present Circular includes all the
relevant eligibility criteria and covers those imprisoned
before the new legislation as well as after.
to Apply for Work Release
This is an administrative programme for selected prisoners
which permits them to work in normal jobs in the community
whilst serving the remainder of their ientences in minimum
conditions at the Silvenvater Complex (menj and the Norma
Parker Centre (women).
Who Bay Apply?
A. Period Prisoners - (Section 5, Probation and
Parole Act, 1983)
Prisoners convicted of any type of
minimum period of imprisonment may
provided they have:-
offence and Eerving a
apply for Work Release
1. been given a C3 security rating;
2. a recorrunenaation from a Probation and Parole
Officer that circumstances warrant consideration
for work Releaae.
B.
0
iOn-Parole Peri.od tSection 19, Probation and
Parole hct, 1983!.
All prisoners including those serving where no .. 2/
'
--------------- ----------------- ---- - ----------- -----
88
2
non-parole period has been specified, may apply for
Work Release provided they have:-
1. been given a C3 security rating;
2. not more than 12 moriths remaining before
release by way of parole/remission; and
3. preference will be given to prisoners who will
have a minimu;n of six months on the Programme
\including pre-work release) before being released.
C. Life Sentence Prisoners
Life Sentence Prisoners in respect of whom:-
An official from the Release on
License Board has been made for a period to be
spent in the \'i'ork Release Programme (usually not
exceeding twelve months)
D. Governor's Pleasure Detainees
Governor's Pleasure Detainees in respect of whom:-
An official recommendation from the Release on
License Board has been made for a period to be
spent in the Work Release Programme \Usually not
exceeding twelve months).
E. Prisoners Serving a Sentence Prior to the Implementation
of the Probation and Parole Act, 1983. (Excluding Life
Sentence Prisoners and Governor's Pleasure Detainees)
All prisoners in the above category may apply for
Work Release provided they meet the eligibility
criteria specified in B (1), (2J and (3), above.
How to Apply?
Eligible applicants should fill in a special green form:-
"Prisoners application for entry into a Work Release
This form is available at all institutions and should be
forwarded through the Superintendent to the ChairperEon,
Programme Review Committee.
Please Note:
1. The entry into Work Release of any prisoner (including
all British Subjects) who is not an Australian or
New Zealand citizen is subject to an approval to engage
in employment being granted by the Department of
Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.
. ... 3/
36S. b'O Oj'Cj'
NEW
I
3
2. Eligibility to apply for entry into the Release
Programr.1e is not the same as suitability. Suitability
is assessed by the Work Release Selection Committee
when it decides \'lhether to approve or not to approve
entry into the Programme.
PL.). Ce' .
. I .
P. w. cross ey
Actinq ChJ.ef Administrative Officer
I