Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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&..::
)>-....
'"'