Institute
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  

Santa	
  Clara	
  County	
  	
  
Office	
  of	
  the	
  Sheriff	
  
Custody	
  Bureau	
  
Jail	
  Classification	
  System	
  Evaluation	
  
	
  
	
  
Prepared	
  by	
  
	
  
	
  
James	
  Austin	
  	
  
Robin	
  Allen	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
August	
  2016	
  
	
  

Introduction	
  
	
  
The	
   Santa	
   Clara	
   County	
   Office	
   of	
   the	
   Sheriff	
   Custody	
   Bureau	
   operates	
   one	
   of	
   the	
  
largest	
  jail	
  systems	
  in	
  California	
  and	
  the	
  nation.	
  	
  With	
  approximately	
  3,500	
  male	
  and	
  
female	
  inmates	
  in	
  custody	
  at	
  any	
  given	
  time,	
  a	
  primary	
  task	
  for	
  the	
  Sheriff’s	
  Custody	
  
Bureau	
   is	
   to	
   properly	
   and	
   safely	
   house	
   and	
   manage	
   this	
   population	
   on	
   a	
   daily	
   basis.	
  
In	
   order	
   to	
   perform	
   that	
   task,	
   it	
   must	
   have	
   a	
   valid	
   and	
   reliable	
   jail	
   classification	
  
system	
   that	
   ensures	
   people	
   are	
   properly	
   housed	
   in	
   the	
   various	
   jail	
   facilities	
   and	
  
housing	
   units.	
   	
   It	
   is	
   also	
   important	
   that	
   all	
   inmates	
   are	
   re-­‐‑evaluated	
   on	
   a	
   regular	
  
basis	
  to	
  ensure	
  the	
  current	
  classification	
  and	
  housing	
  assignments	
  are	
  proper.	
  	
  
	
  
Although	
   the	
   Sheriff’s	
   Custody	
   Bureau	
   has	
   operated	
   a	
   jail	
   classification	
   system	
   for	
  
many	
   years,	
   there	
   have	
   been	
   some	
   interests	
   to	
   see	
   if	
   the	
   system	
   needed	
   to	
   be	
  
evaluated	
   and	
   revised.	
   	
   The	
   Santa	
   Clara	
   County	
   Executive's	
   Office	
   of	
   Budget	
   and	
  
Analysis	
  contacted	
  the	
  JFA	
  Institute	
  to	
  see	
  if	
  such	
  an	
  evaluation	
  could	
  be	
  completed	
  
in	
  a	
  timely	
  manner.	
  	
  JFA	
  then	
  agreed	
  to	
  perform	
  the	
  work	
  summarized	
  in	
  this	
  report.	
  	
  
	
  
This	
   study	
   could	
   not	
   have	
   been	
   completed	
   as	
   quickly	
   as	
   it	
   was	
   without	
   the	
  
considerable	
   assistance	
   and	
   cooperation	
   of	
   the	
   Custody	
   Bureau’s	
   classification	
   staff.	
  	
  
The	
   authors	
   of	
   this	
   report	
   would	
   like	
   to	
   publically	
   acknowledge	
   their	
   insights	
   and	
  
assistance.	
  	
  
	
  

Review	
  of	
  the	
  Current	
  Jail	
  Classification	
  System	
  
	
  

As noted above, the Custody Bureau has been operating a formal inmate classification
system for many years. One of the first tasks in this study was to assess the current
system as it compares to those that have been successfully implemented in other major
jail systems. In making this comparison, the standards set forth by the U.S. Department of
Justice’s National Institute of Corrections (NIC) were applied to Santa Clara’s system.
These standards include 1) the use of objective criteria that can be scored in a numeric
manner, 2) the use of face to face interviews, 3), an initial and reclassification process,
and 4) the application of over-rides.
The core NIC inmate classification system consists of an initial and reclassification
process that assesses inmates on a number of criminal history, current offense(s), prior
escapes, prior and current institutional conduct and certain demographic factors. Inmates
are scored on these factors to produce a scored custody level usually defined as
Minimum, Medium, and Maximum custody. Note the term custody is used to classify
inmates while security should be used to classify the housing units and beds that are used
to house the classified inmates.
The housing plan is another essential part of a classification system as it guides the actual
placement of inmates within the jail’s facility(s). The goal is to match as much as
possible the inmate’s custody level with the housing unit’s security level. For a variety of
	
  

1	
  

reasons, this is not often possible which results in some level of mixing the custody levels
within a designated housing unit. The essential standard is that Maximum custody
inmates should never be housed with Minimum custody inmates and vice versa.
But in addition to the so called “scoring items”, there are also a number of well defined
over-rides that can be used, with proper checks and balances, to deviate from the scored
custody level. These over-rides are separated into mandatory and discretionary overrides.
Mandatory over-rides are those that restrict inmates who score Minimum custody but
who have an outstanding restriction (e.g., charged with a homicide, outstanding felony
warrant, etc.) that by policy will not allow the person to be placed in a Minimum security
setting.
Discretionary over-rides are those factors that can be imposed at the discretion of the
classification staff to either decrease or increase the inmate’s scored custody.
Classification staff can use a number of pre-set discretionary factors that are approved by
the correctional agency.
The fundamental principle underlying the NIC system is that every inmate’s initial
custody level needs to be reassessed and modified based on the inmate’s most recent incustody behavior on a regular timetable. The initial classification process is expected to
make an informed estimate of the expected inmate’s custody level needs. But since the
vast majority of inmates do not exhibit negative behavior while incarcerated, a wellstructured reclassification process that lowers the custody level for inmates who exhibit
positive behavior and increases the custody level for inmates who do not. In this sense,
the inmate classification system reflects more of a “just deserts” behavioral philosophy as
opposed to a predictive model.
As presently designed, the Santa Clara system meets many of the basic design features of
the NIC core system as described above. It has initial and reclassification processes and it
uses factors that are typically found on the NIC jail classification instruments. Further, it
has a dedicated classification unit and the results of the system recorded in the Sheriff’s
data system. But there are some important limitations to the current system that need to
be addressed:
First, the overall instrument used by the Sheriff’s Department is not a pure numerical
scoring system but a list of “factors” and/or descriptors that may be applied to each
inmate in the form of a matrix. These factors are separated into security level,
behavioral, custody profile, judicial status, and special condition categories with
numerous sub-factors within each broad category. Based on the inmate’s matrix rating,
the inmate is then assigned to the appropriate facility and housing unit. But some of the
factors are somewhat subjective and may not be reliably used by all classification staff.
Its fair to say that the Santa Clara Sheriff’s classification matrix approach is unique in the
field of jail classification systems.

	
  

2	
  

Second, there is no formal set of over-rides that can be applied to the process. There is a
set of restrictions that are part of the matrix and that limit which inmates can be placed in
Minimum, Medium, High Medium or Maximum security, but formal discretionary overrides are not part of the system. It should be added that when the study began, the
Custody Bureau was not allowing pretrial inmates to be housed in the Minimum security
facilities. Such a restriction for Minimum custody is not appropriate based on the NIC
model and the vast majority of other jail classification systems.
Third, there is no formal reclassification instrument or process that would require all
inmates to be formally re-classified on a regularly scheduled basis. There is a process by
which inmates assigned to the higher security of level 3/4 are reviewed every 30 days for
possible housing in a lower custody level. This is problematic as the time frame is too
short to properly evaluate the stability of inmates who may be posing a risk to staff and
inmates. A preferred and more accepted process would consist of reclassifying all
inmates every 60 days to have their current security level reviewed and considered for a
reduced or increased level based on their most recent period of institutional conduct.
This is significant given the fact that many of the current jail population have been in
custody for more than 60 days, which is the standard threshold for completing a
reclassification review for jail classification systems.
In summary, the current classification system has many of the core ingredients of a sound
system. But it also lacks several key components serving to produce some level of error
in the assignment and placement of the inmate population. The direction of this error is
most likely producing some level of over-classification.

Overview	
  of	
  the	
  Current	
  Santa	
  Clara	
  Jail	
  Population	
  
	
  
As	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  study,	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  data	
  files	
  were	
  quickly	
  assembled	
  by	
  the	
  Custody	
  
Bureau’s	
   very	
   capable	
   information	
   system	
   staff.	
   	
   These	
   data	
   files	
   contained	
   each	
  
inmate’s	
   basic	
   demographic,	
   current	
   offense,	
   housing	
   location	
   and	
   classification	
  
matrix	
   score.	
   	
   In	
   this	
   section,	
   some	
   of	
   the	
   key	
   attributes	
   of	
   the	
   population	
   are	
  
presented.	
  
	
  
As	
   shown	
   in	
   Table	
   1,	
   the	
   jail	
   population	
   as	
   of	
   February	
   2016	
   was	
   predominantly	
  
male	
  and	
  non-­‐‑white.	
  	
  Hispanics	
  constituted	
  54%	
   of	
   the	
   inmate	
   population.	
   	
   Relative	
  
to	
   their	
   charges	
   or	
   convicted	
   crimes,	
   most	
   inmates	
   had	
   multiple	
   charges	
   against	
  
them	
   with	
   an	
   average	
   of	
   eight	
   and	
   a	
   median	
   of	
   four	
   charges.	
   	
   Attempting	
   to	
   sort	
   the	
  
most	
   serious	
   offense	
   is	
   a	
   complicated	
   process	
   but	
   it	
   appears	
   that	
   the	
   dominant	
  
charge	
   was	
   drug	
   related	
   followed	
   by	
   theft-­‐‑fraud.	
   However,	
   about	
   35%	
   of	
   the	
  
population	
  were	
  either	
  charged	
  or	
  convicted	
  of	
  a	
  violent,	
  sex	
  or	
  weapon	
  crime.	
  	
  
	
  
There	
  was	
  a	
  wide	
  array	
  of	
  inmates	
  by	
  age	
  ranging	
  from	
  18	
  years	
  to	
  86	
  years	
  with	
  an	
  
average	
  age	
  of	
  35	
  years	
  and	
  a	
  median	
  age	
  of	
  33	
  years.	
  In	
  terms	
  of	
  legal	
  status,	
  the	
  
majority	
  of	
  the	
  inmates	
  were	
  in	
  pretrial	
  status	
  either	
  for	
  a	
  felony	
  level	
  charge	
  (56%)	
  
or	
  a	
  misdemeanor	
  (8%).	
  	
  
	
  

3	
  

Table	
  1	
  Key	
  Jail	
  Population	
  Attributes	
  –	
  February	
  2016	
  
	
  
Attribute	
  
Inmates	
  
%	
  
Gender	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  Male	
  
3,095	
  
88%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Female	
  
440	
  
12%	
  
Race	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  Black	
  
490	
  
14%	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  White	
  
821	
  
23%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Hispanic	
  
1,908	
  
54%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Asian	
  
242	
  
7%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Other	
  
74	
  
2%	
  
Primary	
  Charge	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  Murder	
  
153	
  
4%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Assault	
  
384	
  
11%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Robbery	
  
151	
  
4%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Domestic	
  Violence	
  
207	
  
6%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Sex	
  Crimes	
  
230	
  
7%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Weapons	
  
112	
  
3%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Drugs	
  
579	
  
16%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Theft-­‐Fraud	
  
517	
  
15%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Traffic	
  Violations	
  
113	
  
3%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Burglary	
  
227	
  
6%	
  
	
  	
  	
  DUI	
  
111	
  
3%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Parole/Probation	
  Violation	
  
93	
  
3%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Other	
  Felonies	
  
331	
  
9%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Other	
  Misd	
  
325	
  
9%	
  
Legal	
  Status	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  	
  	
  Pretrial	
  Felons	
  
1,991	
  
56%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Pretrial	
  Misd	
  
300	
  
8%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Sentenced	
  Felons	
  
302	
  
9%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Sentenced	
  Misd	
  
195	
  
6%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Sentenced	
  1170(h)	
  
240	
  
7%	
  
	
  	
  	
  PRCS	
  
140	
  
4%	
  
	
  	
  	
  US	
  Marshal	
  Hold	
  
102	
  
3%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Other	
  
265	
  
7%	
  
Mean	
  
Median	
  
	
  
Number	
  
Charges	
  	
  
8	
  charges	
   4	
  charges	
  
Average	
  Age	
  
34	
  years	
  
32	
  years	
  
Days	
  in	
  Custody	
  
210	
  days	
  
88	
  days	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

4	
  

There	
   were	
   a	
   significant	
   numbers	
   of	
   inmates	
   who	
   had	
   been	
   locally	
   sentenced	
   either	
  
for	
  a	
  felony	
  (9%),	
  misdemeanor	
  (6%)	
  or	
  under	
  the	
  realignment	
  provisions	
  (7%).	
  	
  
	
  
Finally,	
   the	
   amount	
   of	
   time	
   in	
   custody	
   to	
   date	
   for	
   the	
   inmate	
   population	
   varied	
  
significantly.	
   	
   The	
   average	
   time	
   in	
   custody	
   was	
   210	
   days	
   while	
   the	
   median	
   time	
   was	
  
much	
  lower	
  at	
  88	
  days,	
  which	
  suggested	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  inmates	
  had	
  been	
  in	
  custody	
  
for	
  more	
  than	
  one	
  year.	
  	
  Significantly,	
  17%	
  of	
  the	
  population	
  had	
  been	
  in	
  custody	
  for	
  
a	
  year	
  or	
  longer.	
  
	
  
Relative	
  to	
  the	
  current	
  security	
  level,	
  17%	
  were	
  assigned	
  to	
  Maximum	
  and	
  another	
  
13%	
  to	
  High	
  Medium.	
  	
  The	
  largest	
  portion	
  was	
  in	
  Medium	
  security	
  (51%)	
  while	
  only	
  
18%	
   were	
   assigned	
   to	
   Minimum	
   security.	
   	
   	
   Compared	
   to	
   other	
   large	
   jail	
   and	
   state	
  
prison	
   systems,	
   the	
   number	
   of	
   inmates	
   assigned	
   to	
   Minimum	
   security	
   is	
   relatively	
  
low.	
   Usually,	
   one	
   would	
   expect	
   25-­‐‑35%	
   of	
   the	
   inmates	
   to	
   qualify	
   for	
   Minimum	
  
custody.	
   	
   In	
   three	
   recent	
   studies	
   by	
   JFA,	
   we	
   found	
   that	
   in	
   Los	
   Angeles	
   County	
   had	
  
32%,	
  Sonoma	
  County	
  over	
  40%,	
  and	
  Allegheny	
  County	
  (Pittsburg)	
  29%	
  assigned	
  to	
  
Minimum	
   custody.	
   The	
   low	
   Santa	
   Clara	
   Minimum	
   custody	
   rate	
   is	
   due,	
   in	
   part,	
   to	
   the	
  
current	
   policy	
   of	
   restricting	
   pretrial	
   inmates	
   from	
   Minimum	
   custody	
   and	
   the	
   lack	
   of	
  
a	
  structured	
  reclassification	
  process	
  that	
  rewards	
  inmates	
  for	
  compliant	
  behavior.	
  	
  
	
  
There	
   were	
   differences,	
   as	
   expected,	
   in	
   the	
   security	
   levels	
   by	
   gender,	
   with	
  
significantly	
   higher	
   proportions	
   of	
   women	
   in	
   Minimum	
   custody	
   and	
   somewhat	
  
lower	
  percentages	
  in	
  the	
  higher	
  custody	
  levels.	
  	
  
	
  
Finally,	
  one	
  notes	
  the	
  very	
  small	
  percentage	
  of	
  inmates	
  who	
  had	
  not	
  been	
  formally	
  
classified.	
   This	
   is	
   a	
   bit	
   unusual	
   for	
   a	
   jail	
   system	
   that	
   typically	
   delays	
   a	
   formal	
  
classification	
   process	
   until	
   the	
   inmate	
   has	
   been	
   in	
   custody	
   for	
   1-­‐‑3	
   days.	
   	
   The	
   reason	
  
for	
   this	
   is	
   to	
   avoid	
   conducting	
   a	
   formal	
   and	
   staff	
   intensive	
   classification	
   events	
   for	
  
people	
  who	
  will	
  be	
  quickly	
  released	
  from	
  the	
  jail	
  system.	
  	
  The	
  Custody	
  Bureau	
  has	
  a	
  
policy	
   of	
   formally	
   classifying	
   all	
   inmates	
   as	
   soon	
   as	
   possible	
   after	
   booking.	
   	
   There	
  
were	
   about	
   162	
   inmates	
   who	
   had	
   been	
   in	
   custody	
   for	
   three	
   days	
   or	
   less	
   but	
   had	
  
been	
  formally	
  classified.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
Table	
  2.	
  	
  Current	
  Security	
  Level	
  	
  -­‐‑	
  February	
  2016	
  
	
  
	
  	
  
Females	
  
Males	
  
Total	
  
	
  	
  
Inmates	
   %	
  
Inmates	
   %	
  
Inmates	
   %	
  
Unclassified	
  
0	
  
0%	
  
9	
  
0%	
  
9	
  
0%	
  
Minimum	
  
139	
   32%	
  
510	
   16%	
  
649	
  
18%	
  
Medium	
  
179	
   41%	
  
1,631	
   53%	
  
1,810	
  
51%	
  
High	
  Medium	
  
60	
   14%	
  
390	
   13%	
  
450	
  
13%	
  
Maximum	
  
62	
   14%	
  
555	
   18%	
  
617	
  
17%	
  
Total	
  
440	
   100%	
  
3,095	
   100%	
  
3,535	
  
100%	
  

	
  

	
  

5	
  

In	
  addition	
  to	
  the	
  Custody	
  Bureau’s	
  point	
  system	
  based	
  on	
  static	
  factors,	
  the	
  Custody	
  
Bureau’s	
   classification	
   matrix	
   includes	
   a	
   “Behavioral	
   Factor”	
   that	
   seeks	
   to	
   identify	
  
any	
   special	
   management	
   issues.	
   	
   About	
   half	
   of	
   the	
   inmates	
   were	
   designated	
   as	
   “Low	
  
Risk”	
  and	
  would	
  seem	
  to	
  be	
  good	
  candidates	
  for	
  Minimum	
  custody.	
  	
  	
  A	
  substantial	
  
number	
   of	
   inmates	
   were	
   designated	
   Protective	
   Custody	
   which	
   was	
   well	
   above	
   the	
  
rate	
   for	
   any	
   jail	
   or	
   prison	
   system.	
   The	
   Sheriff’s	
   Department,	
   Custody	
   Bureau,	
  
Classification	
   Unit	
   attributes	
   this	
   high	
   number	
   of	
   inmates	
   in	
   protective	
   custody	
   to	
  
inmates	
  who	
  are	
  1)	
  gang	
  dropouts,	
  2)	
  Southern	
  gang	
  members	
  who	
  are	
  smaller	
  in	
  
number	
  and	
  are	
  at	
  substantial	
  risk	
  of	
  harm	
  if	
  placed	
  on	
  the	
  minimum	
  camp	
  with	
  the	
  
larger	
   population	
   of	
   Northern	
   gang	
   members,	
   and	
   3)	
   inmates	
   who	
   have	
   received	
  
threats	
  of	
  harm	
  because	
  of	
  drug	
  related	
  issues.	
  	
  
	
  	
  
There	
   were	
   also	
   a	
   very	
   large	
   number	
   of	
   inmates	
   who	
   were	
   labeled	
   as	
   “Suspected	
  
Gang”	
   members	
   as	
   compared	
   to	
   only	
   21	
   males	
   listed	
   as	
   “Verified	
   Prison	
   Gang”	
  
members.	
   	
   The	
   Custody	
   Bureau’s	
   gang	
   intelligence	
   unit	
   is	
   responsible	
   for	
   making	
  
this	
   determination.	
   	
   The	
   term	
   “Suspected”	
   is	
   somewhat	
   misleading	
   as	
   the	
   Custody	
  
Bureau	
   is	
   fully	
   confident	
   that	
   these	
   inmates	
   are	
   verified	
   gang	
   members,	
   so	
   in	
   reality	
  
they	
  are	
  known	
  gang	
  members.	
  	
  However,	
  according	
  to	
  the	
  Custody	
  Bureau,	
  they	
  are	
  
unable	
   to	
   validate	
   these	
   suspected	
   prison	
   gang	
   members	
   because	
   the	
   California	
  
Department	
   of	
   Corrections	
   and	
   Rehabilitation	
   is	
   the	
   only	
   entity	
   that	
   currently	
  
validates	
   prison	
   gang	
   members.	
   Thus	
   even	
   though	
   the	
   Custody	
   Bureau	
   has	
  
substantial	
  evidence	
  that	
  they	
  are	
  prison	
  gang	
  members,	
  they	
  are	
  unable	
  to	
  classify	
  
those	
  inmates	
  as	
  “validated	
  gang	
  members”.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
   Sureno	
   gang	
   members	
   represent	
   gang	
   members	
   who	
   were	
  being	
   segregated	
   by	
  
the	
   Custody	
   Bureau	
   in	
   separate	
   housing	
   units	
   for	
   their	
   own	
   protection.	
   	
   It	
   is	
   the	
  
belief	
   of	
   the	
   Custody	
   Bureau	
   that	
   any	
   attempt	
   to	
   mingle	
   Surenos	
   with	
   other	
   gangs	
  
and	
   especially	
   the	
   more	
   numerous	
   Nortenos	
   gang	
   member	
   would	
   result	
   in	
   serous	
  
disturbances.	
  	
  	
  But	
  such	
  a	
  policy	
  greatly	
  restricts	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  classify	
  these	
  inmates	
  
by	
  their	
  risk	
  levels.	
  	
  Virtually	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  Surenos	
  were	
  listed	
  as	
  “Protective	
  Custody”	
  
which	
  adds	
  to	
  the	
  high	
  Protective	
  Custody	
  numbers.	
  The	
  other	
  two	
  large	
  categories	
  
under	
   Protective	
   Custody	
   were	
   “gang	
   dropouts”	
   (426	
   inmates)	
   and	
   “sexual	
   charges”	
  
(243	
  inmates).	
  
	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Table	
  3.	
  Special	
  Populations	
  –	
  February	
  2016	
  
	
  
	
  Management	
  Factor	
  
Females	
  
Males	
  
Total	
  
Special	
  Flags	
  
Inmates	
  
%	
   Inmates	
  
%	
  
Inmates	
  
%	
  
Low	
  Risk	
  
276	
  
63%	
   1,467	
  
47%	
  
1,743	
  
49%	
  
Protective	
  Custody	
  
32	
  
7%	
  
1,000	
  
32%	
  
1,032	
  
29%	
  
Verified	
  Prison	
  Gang	
  
0	
  
0%	
  
21	
  
1%	
  
21	
  
1%	
  
Moderate	
  Custody	
  Problem	
  
83	
  
19%	
  
484	
  
16%	
  
567	
  
16%	
  
Sureno	
  Gang	
  
12	
  
3%	
  
148	
  
5%	
  
160	
  
5%	
  
Suspected	
  Gang	
  
70	
  
16%	
  
658	
  
21%	
  
728	
  
21%	
  
	
  	
  
	
  

6	
  

Table	
  4	
  offers	
  a	
  more	
  detailed	
  analysis	
  of	
  the	
  days	
  in	
  custody	
  to	
  date	
  broken	
  down	
  
by	
  gender,	
  race/ethnicity,	
  and	
  timeframes.	
  	
  As	
  expected,	
  female	
  inmates	
  had	
  lower	
  
lengths	
   of	
   stay	
   to	
   date	
   as	
   they	
   tend	
   to	
   have	
   less	
   extensive	
   and	
   more	
   moderate	
  
criminal	
   histories	
   which	
   is	
   why	
   there	
   were	
   higher	
   proportions	
   of	
   females	
   in	
   the	
  
lower	
  security	
  levels	
  as	
  noted	
  in	
  Table	
  2.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
There	
   were	
   significant	
   differences	
   by	
   race/ethnicity	
   with	
   Blacks	
   and	
   Hispanics	
  
having	
   longer	
   days	
   in	
   custody	
   than	
   whites.	
   	
   However,	
   if	
   one	
   examines	
   the	
   inmate	
  
security	
   level	
   by	
   race/ethnicity,	
   it	
   was	
   also	
   true	
   that	
   Black	
   and	
   Hispanic	
   inmates	
  
were	
   disproportionately	
   assigned	
   to	
   the	
   higher	
   security	
   levels	
   which	
   also	
   were	
  
associated	
   with	
   the	
   more	
   serious	
   charges	
   and	
   criminal	
   histories	
   of	
   Blacks	
   and	
  
Hispanics	
  (Table	
  5).	
  Thus	
  the	
  higher	
  proportions	
  of	
  Blacks	
  and	
  Hispanics	
  is	
  related	
  
to	
  their	
  more	
  serious	
  criminal	
  records	
  and	
  longer	
  sentences.	
  
	
  
The	
   last	
   observation	
   from	
   Table	
   4	
   is	
   the	
   number	
   of	
   inmates	
   who	
   had	
   been	
   in	
  
custody	
  for	
  60	
  days	
  or	
  more.	
  	
  Under	
  the	
  NIC	
  system,	
  these	
  inmates	
  would	
  be	
  under	
  
the	
   reclassification	
   format.	
   	
   Nearly	
   60%	
   of	
   the	
   jail	
   population	
   met	
   these	
   criteria	
   and	
  
would	
  have	
  a	
  formal	
  reclassification	
  assessment	
  completed	
  on	
  them.	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Finally,	
   the	
   snapshot	
   data	
   file	
   contained	
   information	
   on	
   whether	
   the	
   inmates	
   who	
  
were	
   currently	
   in	
   custody	
   had	
   received	
   a	
   formal	
   disciplinary	
   report.	
   	
   Only	
   13%	
   of	
  
the	
  inmates	
  had	
  at	
  least	
  one	
  formal	
  infraction	
  report	
  filed	
  against	
  them.	
  	
  These	
  474	
  
inmates	
  produced	
  a	
  total	
  of	
  801	
  infractions	
  or	
  an	
  average	
  of	
  1.7	
  formal	
  infractions.	
  	
  
While	
   national	
   data	
   are	
   not	
   available	
   to	
   make	
   direct	
   comparisons	
   with	
   the	
   Santa	
  
Clara	
  data,	
  it	
  is	
  generally	
  the	
  case	
  that	
  the	
  vast	
  majority	
  of	
  jail	
  inmates	
  do	
  not	
  incur	
  
any	
   formal	
   disciplinary	
   sanctions	
   while	
   in	
   custody.	
   	
   This	
   is	
   somewhat	
   due	
   to	
   the	
  
short	
   periods	
   of	
   imprisonment	
   for	
   jail	
   inmates.	
   However, this landscape is rapidly
changing with the advent of the 2011 California Realignment Act and Prop 47 that has
resulted in a jail population that has inmates sentenced to longer periods of confinement.
These two initiatives may have an impact on more gang related, in custody, inmate on
inmate and inmate on staff assaults.
	
  
These	
   infraction	
   rates	
   were	
   applied	
   to	
   the	
   current	
   security	
   level	
   (Table	
   6).	
   	
   There	
  
was	
   a	
   strong	
   and	
   positive	
   relationship	
   between	
   the	
   rates	
   of	
   misconduct	
   for	
  
Minimum,	
   Medium	
   and	
   Maximum	
   security	
   inmates.	
   	
   But,	
   the	
   “High/Medium”	
  
security	
   inmates	
   had	
   a	
   formal	
   disciplinary	
   rate	
   that	
   was	
   below	
   the	
   Medium	
   security	
  
inmates	
  and	
  above	
  the	
  Minimum	
  security	
  inmates.	
  	
  
	
  
These	
   infraction	
   rates	
   were	
   applied	
   to	
   the	
   current	
   security	
   level	
   (Table	
   6).	
   	
   There	
  
was	
   a	
   strong	
   and	
   positive	
   relationship	
   between	
   the	
   rates	
   of	
   misconduct	
   for	
  
Minimum,	
   Medium	
   and	
   Maximum	
   security	
   inmates.	
   	
   But,	
   the	
   “High/Medium”	
  
security	
   inmates	
   had	
   a	
   formal	
   disciplinary	
   rate	
   that	
   was	
   below	
   the	
   Medium	
   security	
  
inmates	
  and	
  above	
  the	
  Minimum	
  security	
  inmates.	
  	
  

	
  

7	
  

	
  

Table	
  4.	
  Days	
  in	
  Custody	
  To	
  Date	
  	
  
Jail	
  Population	
  as	
  of	
  February	
  2016	
  
Attribute	
  
Total	
  Inmates	
  
Gender	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Male	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Female	
  
Race/Ethnicity	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  White	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Black	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Hispanic	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Asian	
  
	
  Special	
  Indicators	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Under	
  60	
  days	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  60+	
  Days	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Under	
  3	
  days	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  More	
  than	
  365	
  
days	
  

Ave	
  Days	
  	
  
210	
  
	
  	
  
221	
  
135	
  
	
  	
  
151	
  
218	
  
235	
  
193	
  
	
  	
  
1,449	
  
2,086	
  
107	
  

Median	
  Days	
  
88	
  
	
  	
  
94	
  
56	
  
	
  	
  
68	
  
80	
  
101	
  
96	
  
	
  	
  
41%	
  
59%	
  
3%	
  

566	
  
16%	
  
	
  
	
  
Table	
  5.	
  	
  Inmate	
  Security	
  Level	
  by	
  Race/Ethnicity	
  	
  
Jail	
  Population	
  as	
  of	
  February	
  2016	
  
	
  
High	
  
Attribute	
  
Minimum	
   Medium	
  
Medium	
  
Maximum	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
Black	
  
13%	
  
46%	
  
21%	
  
20%	
  
Hispanic	
  
17%	
  
51%	
  
12%	
  
20%	
  
White	
  
23%	
  
55%	
  
12%	
  
10%	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
It	
  should	
  also	
  be	
  noted	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  another	
  form	
  of	
  conduct	
  that	
  is	
  reported	
  by	
  staff	
  
on	
  inmates	
  called	
  the	
  Custody	
  Input	
  Reports	
  or	
  CIRs.	
  	
  These	
  are	
  used	
  to	
  record	
  both	
  
positive	
  and	
  negative	
  conduct	
  behavior.	
  	
  Unfortunately,	
  the	
  CIRs	
  are	
  not	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  
Custody	
   Bureau’s	
   database	
   and	
   cannot	
   be	
   analyzed	
   for	
   the	
   entire	
   jail	
   population.	
  	
  
However,	
   as	
   shown	
   later	
   in	
   the	
   report,	
   these	
   data	
   were	
   manually	
   collected	
   for	
   the	
  
pilot	
  test	
  on	
  the	
  inmates	
  who	
  had	
  been	
  in	
  custody	
  for	
  at	
  least	
  60	
  days.	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

8	
  

Table	
  6.	
  Infractions	
  for	
  the	
  Current	
  Population	
  by	
  Current	
  Security	
  Level	
  
Jail	
  Population	
  as	
  of	
  February	
  2016	
  
	
  
	
  
Total	
  DR	
  Infractions	
  
801	
  
Total	
  Inmates	
  Receiving	
  DR	
  	
  
474	
  
%	
  of	
  Population	
  
13%	
  
1.7	
  
Average	
  number	
  of	
  infractions	
  
By	
  Security	
  Level	
  
	
  
	
  	
  	
  Maximum	
  
44%	
  
	
  	
  	
  High	
  Medium	
  
17%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Medium	
  
27%	
  
	
  	
  	
  Minimum	
  
12%	
  
	
  

Pilot	
  Test	
  Results	
  of	
  the	
  New	
  Inmate	
  Classification	
  
System	
  
	
  
The	
  above	
  analysis	
  of	
  the	
  current	
  classification	
  system	
  showed	
  several	
  strengths	
  
and	
  some	
  areas	
  where	
  improvements	
  could	
  be	
  made.	
  	
  The	
  strengths	
  of	
  the	
  current	
  
Santa	
  Clara	
  classification	
  system	
  are	
  as	
  follows:	
  
	
  
1.   Relies	
  on	
  factors	
  found	
  in	
  the	
  other	
  objective	
  jail	
  classification	
  systems;	
  
2.   Has	
  a	
  formal	
  classification	
  unit	
  that	
  is	
  well	
  trained	
  in	
  the	
  current	
  
classification	
  process;	
  
3.   Has	
  a	
  formal	
  housing	
  plan	
  that	
  guides	
  the	
  placement	
  of	
  inmates	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  
classification	
  criteria;	
  and,	
  
4.   The	
  data	
  used	
  to	
  classify	
  inmates	
  is	
  automated,	
  so	
  the	
  inmate’s	
  basis	
  for	
  
housing	
  can	
  be	
  tracked.	
  
	
  
The	
  areas	
  where	
  improvements	
  can	
  be	
  made	
  are	
  as	
  follows:	
  
	
  
1.   A	
  formal	
  reclassification	
  process	
  where	
  inmates	
  are	
  interviewed	
  and	
  re-­‐‑
assessed	
  is	
  lacking;	
  
2.   There	
  is	
  no	
  separation	
  of	
  the	
  security	
  assessment	
  score	
  by	
  initial	
  and	
  
reclassification	
  instruments;	
  
3.   A	
  large	
  number	
  of	
  initial	
  classifications	
  are	
  performed	
  on	
  inmates	
  who	
  are	
  
subsequently	
  quickly	
  released	
  from	
  custody	
  (same	
  day	
  or	
  within	
  a	
  day	
  or	
  
two);	
  and,	
  
4.   Pretrial	
  inmates	
  who	
  are	
  assessed	
  as	
  Minimum	
  security	
  inmates	
  are	
  
precluded	
  to	
  be	
  housed	
  in	
  Minimum	
  security	
  housing	
  units.	
  	
  
	
  
To	
   address	
   these	
   issues,	
   a	
   prototype	
   system	
   was	
   created	
   and	
   pilot	
   tested	
   on	
   a	
  
random	
   sample	
   of	
   the	
   current	
   inmate	
   population.	
   	
   A	
   total	
   of	
   104	
   females	
   and	
   419	
  

	
  

9	
  

males	
   were	
   sampled.	
   	
   Comparisons	
   were	
   made	
   between	
   the	
   samples	
   and	
   the	
   total	
  
number	
   of	
   inmates	
   in	
   custody	
   on	
   the	
   date	
   of	
   the	
   snapshot.	
   	
   As	
   shown	
   in	
   Table	
   7,	
   the	
  
samples	
  are	
  statistically	
  comparable.	
  
	
  
Initial	
   and	
   Reclassification	
   forms	
   were	
   drafted	
   and	
   reviewed	
   by	
   the	
   Custody	
  
Bureau’s	
   classification	
   staff.	
   	
   Staff	
   were	
   then	
   trained	
   in	
   their	
   use	
   and	
   were	
   given	
   the	
  
task	
  of	
  completing	
  either	
  an	
  initial	
  classification	
  or	
  a	
  reclassification	
  form	
  for	
  each	
  
sampled	
  case.	
  	
  Inmates	
  who	
  had	
  been	
  in	
  custody	
  for	
  less	
  than	
  60	
  days	
  had	
  the	
  initial	
  
classification	
   form	
   completed	
   while	
   those	
   who	
   had	
   been	
   in	
   custody	
   for	
   60	
   days	
   or	
  
more	
   had	
   the	
   reclassification	
   form	
   completed.	
   The	
   objective	
   was	
   to	
   estimate	
   how	
  
the	
   current	
   inmate	
   population	
   would	
   be	
   classified	
   under	
   the	
   new	
   scoring	
   system	
  
and	
  using	
  a	
  formal	
  reclassification	
  form.	
  	
  
	
  
Tables 8 through 10 summarize the results of the pilot test. These results are separated by
the initial and reclassification results and by gender. For both the initial and
reclassification cases, there is a clear pattern of a higher number of inmates being scored
as Minimum custody as compared to the final classification level. The latter takes into
account the mandatory and/or discretionary over-rides that can be applied by the staff.
For example, an inmate’s gang status can be used to increase the inmate’s custody level if
in the opinion of the classification staff such an over-ride was warranted.
The other major observation is that even with the application of the over-rides, the final
custody levels for the sampled cases shows a higher proportion of inmates being
classified for Minimum custody as compared to their current custody levels. Table 11
shows the differences between the current and projected new security levels by gender.
For both groups, there will be a significantly higher proportion of inmates assigned to
Minimum custody and a corresponding lower proportion in the Medium/High group.
	
  
The	
   final	
   step	
   in	
   the	
   pilot	
   test	
   was	
   to	
   determine	
   if	
   adjustments	
   should	
   be	
   made	
   to	
  
the	
   prototype	
   instruments	
   and	
   other	
   aspects	
   of	
   the	
   classification	
   system.	
   In	
  
recognition	
   of	
   the	
   considerable	
   differences	
   between	
   the	
   scored	
   and	
   final	
   custody	
  
levels	
  for	
  the	
  medium	
  and	
  Minimum	
  security	
  groups,	
  the	
  cut-­‐‑off	
  points	
  for	
  the	
  two	
  
groups	
  was	
  re-­‐‑examined	
  for	
  the	
  initial	
  and	
  reclassification	
  instruments.	
  	
  	
  As	
  noted	
  
above	
   the	
   scored	
   classification	
   level	
   can	
   been	
   over-­‐‑ridden	
   by	
   applying	
   either	
   a	
  
mandatory	
  or	
  discretionary	
  over-­‐‑ride.	
  	
  	
  
	
  

	
  

10	
  

	
  

Table	
  7.	
  Comparison	
  of	
  Total	
  and	
  Sample	
  Populations	
  
By	
  Security	
  by	
  Gender	
  
Females	
  

	
  Attribute	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
Unclassified	
  
Min	
  
Med	
  
High	
  Med	
  
Max	
  
	
  	
  
Unclassified	
  
High	
  Assaultive/Escape	
  
Repeat	
  Disruptive	
  
GP	
  RED	
  
Adverse	
  Influence	
  
Low	
  Risk	
  
Special	
  Management	
  
Victim	
  Potential	
  
Protective	
  Custody	
  
Psych	
  Problems	
  
Totals	
  
	
  	
  
Security	
  Level	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  Unclassified	
  
	
  	
  	
  Min	
  
	
  	
  	
  Med	
  
	
  	
  	
  High	
  Med	
  
	
  	
  	
  Max	
  
Behavior	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  High	
  Assaultive/Escape	
  
	
  	
  	
  Repeat	
  Disruptive	
  
	
  	
  	
  GP	
  RED	
  
	
  	
  	
  Adverse	
  Influence	
  
	
  	
  	
  Immediate	
  Escape	
  Risk	
  
	
  	
  	
  Low	
  Risk	
  
	
  	
  	
  Special	
  Management	
  
	
  	
  	
  Unknown	
  
	
  	
  	
  Victim	
  Potential	
  
	
  	
  	
  Protective	
  Custody	
  
	
  	
  	
  Psych	
  Problems	
  
Totals	
  

Total	
  
Inmates	
  
3	
  
127	
  
198	
  
58	
  
61	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
3	
  
7	
  
14	
  
13	
  
37	
  
276	
  
55	
  
2	
  
36	
  
4	
  
447	
  

	
  	
  

Sample	
  
%	
  

Inmates	
  

1%	
  
28%	
  
44%	
  
13%	
  
14%	
  

%	
  
0	
  
28	
  
43	
  
14	
  
19	
  

	
  	
  
1%	
  
2%	
  
3%	
  
3%	
  
8%	
  
62%	
  
12%	
  
0%	
  
8%	
  
1%	
  
100%	
  

Males	
  
Total	
  
6	
  
0%	
  
537	
  
17%	
  
1,574	
  
51%	
  
398	
  
13%	
  
554	
  
18%	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
90	
  
3%	
  
27	
  
1%	
  
138	
  
4%	
  
200	
  
7%	
  
2	
  
0%	
  
1,436	
  
47%	
  
127	
  
4%	
  
1	
  
0%	
  
18	
  
1%	
  
1,005	
  
33%	
  
19	
  
1%	
  
3,069	
  
100%	
  

0%	
  
27%	
  
41%	
  
13%	
  
18%	
  
	
  	
  

0	
  
2	
  
3	
  
4	
  
10	
  
62	
  
16	
  
0	
  
6	
  
1	
  
104	
  
Sample	
  
0	
  
82	
  
207	
  
55	
  
75	
  
	
  	
  
9	
  
0	
  
22	
  
24	
  
0	
  
209	
  
19	
  
0	
  
1	
  
132	
  
3	
  
419	
  

0%	
  
2%	
  
3%	
  
4%	
  
10%	
  
60%	
  
15%	
  
0%	
  
6%	
  
1%	
  
100%	
  

0%	
  
19%	
  
49%	
  
13%	
  
18%	
  
2%	
  
0%	
  
5%	
  
6%	
  
0%	
  
50%	
  
5%	
  
0%	
  
0%	
  
31%	
  
1%	
  
100%	
  

	
  

	
  

11	
  

Table	
  8.	
  Pilot	
  Test	
  Results	
  –	
  Initial	
  Classification	
  Sample	
  
	
  
Custody	
  Level	
  
Female	
  
Male	
  
Total	
  
Final	
  	
  
Inmates	
  
%	
  
Inmates	
  
%	
  
Inmates	
  
Totals	
  
60	
   100%	
  
176	
   100%	
  
236	
  
Scored	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Maximum	
  
8	
  
13%	
  
11	
  
6%	
  
19	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Medium	
  
18	
  
30%	
  
72	
  
41%	
  
90	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Minimum	
  
34	
  
57%	
  
93	
  
53%	
  
127	
  
Final	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Maximum	
  
7	
  
12%	
  
22	
  
13%	
  
29	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Medium	
  
24	
  
40%	
  
89	
  
51%	
  
113	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Minimum	
  
29	
  
48%	
  
65	
  
39%	
  
94	
  
	
  
Table	
  9.	
  Pilot	
  Test	
  Results	
  -­‐‑	
  Reclassification	
  Sample	
  
	
  
Custody	
  Level	
  
Female	
  
Male	
  
Total	
  
Final	
  	
  
Inmates	
  
%	
  
Inmates	
  
%	
  
Inmates	
  
Totals	
  
44	
   100%	
  
272	
   100%	
  
316	
  
Scored	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  Maximum	
  
5	
  
11%	
  
50	
  
18%	
  
55	
  
	
  	
  	
  Medium	
  
13	
  
30%	
  
60	
  
22%	
  
73	
  
	
  	
  	
  Minimum	
  
26	
  
59%	
  
162	
  
60%	
  
188	
  
Final	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  Maximum	
  
11	
  
25%	
  
65	
  
24%	
  
76	
  
	
  	
  	
  Medium	
  
10	
  
23%	
  
114	
  
42%	
  
124	
  
	
  	
  	
  Minimum	
  
23	
  
52%	
  
91	
  
34%	
  
114	
  
	
  

	
  

%	
  
100%	
  
	
  	
  
8%	
  
38%	
  
54%	
  
	
  	
  
12%	
  
48%	
  
42%	
  

%	
  
100%	
  
17%	
  
23%	
  
60%	
  
24%	
  
39%	
  
36%	
  

12	
  

Table	
  10.	
  Pilot	
  Tests	
  -­‐‑	
  Grand	
  Totals	
  for	
  Both	
  Samples	
  	
  
	
  
Custody	
  Level	
  
Final	
  	
  
Totals	
  
Scored	
  
	
  	
  	
  Maximum	
  
	
  	
  	
  Medium	
  
	
  	
  	
  Minimum	
  
Final	
  
	
  	
  	
  Maximum	
  
	
  	
  	
  Medium	
  
	
  	
  	
  Minimum	
  

Female	
  
Inmates	
  
%	
  
104	
   100%	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
13	
  
13%	
  
31	
  
30%	
  
60	
  
58%	
  
0	
  
	
  	
  
18	
  
17%	
  
34	
  
33%	
  
52	
  
50%	
  

Male	
  
Inmates	
  
%	
  
448	
   100%	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
61	
  
14%	
  
132	
  
29%	
  
255	
  
57%	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
87	
  
19%	
  
203	
  
45%	
  
156	
  
35%	
  

Total	
  
Inmates	
  
%	
  
552	
   100%	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
74	
  
13%	
  
163	
  
30%	
  
315	
  
57%	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
105	
  
19%	
  
237	
  
43%	
  
208	
  
38%	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Table	
  11.	
  	
  Comparisons	
  Between	
  New	
  and	
  Current	
  Custody/Security	
  Levels	
  	
  
Population	
  
Female	
  
	
  	
  	
  Maximum	
  
	
  	
  	
  Medium	
  
	
  	
  	
  Minimum	
  
Male	
  
	
  	
  	
  Maximum	
  
	
  	
  	
  Medium	
  
	
  	
  	
  Minimum	
  
Total	
  
	
  	
  	
  Maximum	
  
	
  	
  	
  Medium	
  
	
  	
  	
  Minimum	
  

Current	
  

New	
  

	
  
14%	
  
55%	
  
32%	
  
	
  	
  

	
  
17%	
  
33%	
  
50%	
  
	
  	
  

18%	
  
66%	
  
16%	
  
	
  	
  

19%	
  
45%	
  
35%	
  
	
  	
  

17%	
  
64%	
  
18%	
  

19%	
  
43%	
  
38%	
  

	
  
Tables	
  	
  12	
  and	
  13	
  summarize	
  how	
  these	
  over-­‐‑rides	
  are	
  being	
  applied	
  on	
  the	
  initial	
  
and	
   reclassification	
   samples.	
   The	
   initial	
   classification	
   sample	
   had	
   fewer	
   over-­‐‑rides	
  
with	
   	
   7%	
   being	
   mandatory	
   reasons	
   and	
   17%	
   being	
   discretionary.	
   	
   The	
   mandatory	
  
reasons	
   are	
   quite	
   straightforward	
   and	
   appropriate	
   for	
   restricting	
   inmates	
   for	
  
Minimum	
   custody	
   and	
   security	
   placement.	
   The	
   most	
   prevalent	
   discretionary	
  
reasons	
   used	
   were	
   “known	
   management	
   problem”	
   and	
   “gang	
   member”.	
   	
   	
   Most	
   of	
  
these	
   gang	
   member	
   inmates	
   and	
   known	
   management	
   problems	
   were	
   scored	
   as	
  
Minimum	
  but	
  were	
  over-­‐‑ridden	
  to	
  Medium	
  custody.	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

13	
  

	
  
	
  

Table	
  12.	
  Initial	
  Classification	
  Sample	
  Over-­‐‑Rides	
  
Over-­‐ride	
  type	
  
Female	
  
Male	
  
Mandatory	
  
3	
  
Discretionary	
  
7	
  
Mandatory	
  Reasons	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Detainer	
  
3	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Murder	
  
0	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  
0	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  US	
  Marshall	
  Hold	
  
0	
  
Discretionary	
  Reasons	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Gang	
  Member	
  
2	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Known	
  Management	
  
7	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Mental	
  Status	
  
0	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Offense	
  More	
  Severe	
  
0	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Offense	
  Not	
  Severe	
  
2	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Prior	
  Good	
  Conduct	
  
1	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Prior	
  Record	
  Less	
  Severe	
  
0	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Prior	
  Record	
  More	
  Severe	
  
0	
  

Total	
  
14	
  
33	
  

%	
  
17	
  
40	
  

7%	
  
17%	
  

4	
  
3	
  
6	
  
4	
  
0	
  
11	
  
18	
  
3	
  
3	
  
6	
  
2	
  
1	
  
1	
  

2%	
  	
  
1%	
  
3%	
  
2%	
  
0%	
  
5%	
  
8%	
  
1%	
  
1%	
  
3%	
  
1%	
  
0%	
  
0%	
  

	
  	
  
1	
  
3	
  
6	
  
4	
  
9	
  
11	
  
3	
  
3	
  
4	
  
1	
  
1	
  
1	
  

	
  
	
  
The	
   same	
   pattern	
   exists	
   for	
   the	
   reclassification	
   cases	
   although	
   the	
   use	
   of	
  
discretionary	
  over-­‐‑rides	
  is	
  more	
  frequent	
  (23%).	
  For	
  example	
  there	
  were	
  18	
  cases	
  
that	
   were	
   over-­‐‑ridden	
   from	
   Minimum	
   to	
   Medium	
   custody	
   for	
   being	
   a	
   “Known	
  
Management	
   Problem	
   “	
   but	
   ten	
   of	
   the	
   cases	
   had	
   no	
   disciplinary	
   infractions	
   of	
   any	
  
kind.	
  	
  The	
  concern	
  here	
  is	
  why	
  are	
  these	
  inmates	
  labeled	
  as	
  “special	
  management	
  “	
  
problems	
  when	
  they	
  have	
  no	
  misconducts?	
  It	
  could	
  be	
  that	
  their	
  prior	
  behavior	
  was	
  
so	
  serious	
  in	
  nature	
  that	
  even	
  positive	
  behavior	
  over	
  an	
  extended	
  period	
  of	
  time	
  is	
  
not	
  sufficient	
  to	
  address	
  the	
  concerns	
  of	
  classification	
  staff.	
  
	
  
Of	
   the	
   20	
   cases	
   with	
   a	
   gang	
   member	
   over-­‐‑ride,	
   13	
   were	
   scored	
   as	
   Minimum	
   and	
   ten	
  
were	
  over-­‐‑ridden	
  to	
  Medium	
  and	
  another	
  three	
  to	
  Maximum.	
  	
  All	
  seven	
  cases	
  scored	
  
as	
  medium	
  were	
  elevated	
  to	
  Maximum.	
  	
  However,	
  only	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  20	
  cases	
  had	
  a	
  DR	
  
or	
  CIR	
  infraction.	
  

	
  

14	
  

Table	
  13.	
  Reclassification	
  Sample	
  Over-­‐‑Rides	
  

	
  

Type	
  of	
  Over-­‐Ride	
  
Mandatory	
  Over-­‐Rides	
  
Discretionary	
  Over-­‐Rides	
  
Mandatory	
  Reasons	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Arson	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Detainer	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Murder	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  CDCR	
  Sentenced	
  –	
  Awaiting	
  Transfer	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  
	
  	
  	
  US	
  Marshall	
  
Discretionary	
  Reasons	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Escape	
  Threat	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Gang	
  Member	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Isolated	
  Prior	
  Misconduct	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Known	
  Management	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Mental	
  Status	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Offense	
  More	
  Severe	
  as	
  Scored	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Offense	
  Not	
  Severe	
  as	
  Scored	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Prior	
  Good	
  Conduct	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Prior	
  Record	
  Less	
  Severe	
  than	
  Scored	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Prior	
  Record	
  More	
  Severe	
  than	
  Scored	
  

Females	
   Males	
  
3	
  
39	
  
9	
  
77	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
0	
  
2	
  
0	
  
2	
  
3	
  
10	
  
0	
  
2	
  
0	
  
15	
  
0	
  
8	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
0	
  
1	
  
0	
  
20	
  
0	
  
8	
  
7	
  
11	
  
0	
  
5	
  
0	
  
9	
  
0	
  
6	
  
1	
  
8	
  
1	
  
1	
  
0	
  
1	
  

%	
  	
  of	
  
Total	
   Sample	
  
42	
  
11%	
  
86	
  
23%	
  
2	
  	
  
2	
  
13	
  
2	
  
15	
  
8	
  

1%	
  	
  
1%	
  
3%	
  
1%	
  
4%	
  
2%	
  

1	
  	
  
20	
  
8	
  
18	
  
5	
  
9	
  
6	
  
9	
  
2	
  
1	
  

0%	
  	
  
5%	
  
2%	
  
5%	
  
1%	
  
2%	
  
2%	
  
2%	
  
1%	
  
0%	
  

For	
   the	
   reclassification	
   sample,	
   both	
   the	
   formal	
   DRs	
   that	
   were	
   reported	
   and	
   the	
  
more	
  informal	
  CIRs	
  were	
  recorded	
  	
  A	
  pooled	
  “Total	
  DR/CIS”	
  variable	
  was	
  created	
  to	
  
gain	
  a	
  broader	
  look	
  at	
  the	
  overall	
  conduct	
  of	
  inmates	
  who	
  have	
  been	
  in	
  custody	
  for	
  
at	
  least	
  60	
  days.	
  
	
  
Table	
   14	
   summarizes	
   these	
   rates	
   (percent	
   with	
   a	
   DR	
   or	
   CIR,	
   and,	
   the	
   average	
  
number	
   of	
   DRs	
   and	
   CIRs)	
   by	
   gender,	
   scored	
   custody	
   level	
   and	
   final	
   custody	
   level.	
  	
  
Somewhat	
  surprising,	
  female	
  inmates	
  have	
  higher	
  	
  misconduct	
  rates	
  than	
  their	
  male	
  
counterparts.	
  	
  So,	
  at	
  this	
  time	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  factual	
  basis	
  to	
  develop	
  a	
  separate	
  scale	
  for	
  
the	
  female	
  inmates.	
  	
  Women	
  are	
  being	
  assigned	
  to	
  	
  lower	
  custody	
  levels	
  due	
  to	
  less	
  
serious	
   criminal	
   records	
   and	
   other	
   risk	
   factors	
   embedded	
   in	
   the	
   classification	
  
process.	
  	
  
	
  
But,	
  there	
  are	
  very	
  important	
  differences	
  between	
  the	
  custody	
  levels	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  
scoring	
   process,	
   the	
   final	
   custody	
   level	
   with	
   over-­‐‑rides	
   applied,	
   and	
   	
   the	
   inmate’s	
  
current	
  security	
  level	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  current	
  security	
  rating	
  process.	
  	
  Clearly,	
  the	
  new	
  
scored	
   custody	
   level	
   performs	
   much	
   better	
   than	
   the	
   other	
   two	
   procedures.	
   	
   While	
  
the	
  application	
  of	
  over-­‐‑rides	
  is	
  an	
  essential	
  part	
  of	
  any	
  classification	
  system,	
  these	
  	
  
	
  

15	
  

Table	
  14	
  	
  DR/CIR	
  Rates	
  by	
  Gender,	
  Scored	
  Custody,	
  Final	
  Custody	
  and	
  Current	
  
Security	
  Levels	
  

	
  

Attribute	
  
Gender	
  
	
  	
  	
  Males	
  
	
  	
  	
  Females	
  
Scored	
  Custody	
  Level	
  
	
  	
  	
  Max	
  
	
  	
  	
  Medium	
  
	
  	
  	
  Minimum	
  
Final	
  	
  Custody	
  Level	
  
	
  	
  	
  Max	
  
	
  	
  	
  Medium	
  
	
  	
  	
  Minimum	
  
Current	
  Security	
  Level	
  
	
  	
  	
  Max	
  
	
  	
  	
  Medium/High	
  Medium	
  
	
  	
  	
  Minimum	
  

%	
  DR/CIR	
  
	
  	
  
24%	
  
36%	
  
	
  	
  
64%	
  
39%	
  
13%	
  
	
  	
  
37%	
  
33%	
  
16%	
  
	
  	
  
31%	
  
30%	
  
20%	
  

Average	
  
DR/CIR	
  
	
  	
  
0.58	
  
1.11	
  
	
  	
  
2.16	
  
0.77	
  
0.16	
  
	
  	
  
1.04	
  
0.83	
  
0.2	
  
	
  	
  
0.88	
  
0.72	
  
0.28	
  

	
  
data	
   suggest	
   there	
   is	
   a	
   need	
   to	
   ensure	
   there	
   is	
   not	
   some	
   level	
   of	
   excessive	
   use	
   of	
  
over-­‐‑rides.	
  	
  
	
  
Finally,	
  analysis	
  was	
  done	
  to	
  determine	
  if	
  the	
  cut-­‐‑off	
  points	
  for	
  the	
  reclassification	
  
instrument	
  should	
  be	
  modified.	
  It	
  was	
  found	
  that	
  inmates	
  with	
  a	
  total	
  point	
  score	
  of	
  
four	
  or	
  less	
  had	
  substantially	
  lower	
  rates	
  of	
  misconduct.	
  Adjusting	
  the	
  scale	
  so	
  that	
  
inmates	
  scoring	
  four	
  or	
  less	
  points	
  on	
  the	
  reclassification	
  instrument	
  would	
  serve	
  to	
  
ensure	
  inmates	
  who	
  score	
  as	
  Minimum	
  custody	
  would	
  pose	
  minimal	
  risk	
  to	
  staff	
  and	
  
inmates.	
  

	
  
Summary	
  

	
  
1.   There	
   are	
   many	
   positive	
   aspects	
   of	
   the	
   current	
   classification	
   system	
   that	
  
should	
   be	
   retained.	
   Specifically,	
   the	
   initial	
   classification	
   process	
   is	
   very	
  
comprehensive,	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  core	
  of	
  dedicated	
  and	
  well-­‐‑trained	
  staff	
  assigned	
  to	
  
the	
   unit,	
   and	
   many	
   of	
   the	
   factors	
   used	
   to	
   assess	
   an	
   inmate’s	
   custody	
   level	
  
meet	
  industry	
  standards.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
2.   The	
  major	
  weaknesses	
  lie	
  in	
  1)	
  computing	
  the	
  current	
  security	
  rating	
  which	
  
is	
   not	
   as	
   structured	
   and	
   defined	
   as	
   it	
   should	
   be	
   and	
   2)	
   conducting	
   a	
  
structured	
  reclassification	
  assessment	
  for	
  all	
  inmates	
  every	
  60	
  days.	
  	
  That	
  re-­‐‑

	
  

16	
  

	
  

classification	
   assessment	
   should	
   place	
   greater	
   emphasis	
   on	
   the	
   inmate’s	
  
conduct	
  as	
  opposed	
  to	
  the	
  inmate’s	
  criminal	
  record	
  and	
  current	
  charge(s).	
  
3.   The	
   current	
   security	
   rating	
   assessment	
   methods	
   should	
   be	
   replaced	
   by	
   the	
  
pilot	
   tested	
   initial	
   and	
   reclassification	
   instruments	
   which	
   will	
   increase	
   the	
  
number	
   of	
   Minimum	
   custody	
   inmates	
   and	
   reduce	
   the	
   number	
   of	
   Medium	
  
custody	
   inmates.	
   	
   The	
   number	
   of	
   Maximum	
   custody	
   inmates	
   will	
   remain	
  
largely	
   the	
   same.	
   	
   These	
   changes	
   would	
   take	
   into	
   account	
   the	
   over-­‐‑rides	
  
recommended	
  by	
  the	
  classification	
  staff.	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

4.   An	
   essential	
   part	
   of	
   the	
   NIC	
   system	
   is	
   the	
   reclassification	
   process	
   which	
  
requires	
   a	
   formal	
   re-­‐‑assessment	
   of	
   all	
   inmates	
   every	
   60	
   days.	
   	
   Such	
   a	
   re-­‐‑
assessment	
  also	
  entails	
  a	
  formal	
  confidential	
  interview	
  with	
  the	
  inmate	
  and	
  a	
  
full	
  explanation	
  of	
  the	
  basis	
  for	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  classification	
  rating.	
  
5.   In	
   order	
   to	
   implement	
   the	
   new	
   system,	
   sufficient	
   staff	
   will	
   be	
   required	
   to	
  
properly	
   conduct	
   the	
   reclassification	
   interviews.	
   	
   While	
   it	
   is	
   the	
   strong	
  
recommendation	
   that	
   all	
   inmates	
   be	
   interviewed,	
   it	
   would	
   be	
   acceptable	
   to	
  
only	
  interview	
  inmates	
  who	
  are	
  current	
  assigned	
  to	
  Maximum	
  and	
  Medium	
  
custody.	
  	
  
6.   It	
   is	
   also	
   recommended	
   that	
   the	
   process	
   of	
   reclassifying	
   Level	
   3/4	
   inmates	
  
every	
   30	
   days	
   be	
   discontinued	
   unless	
   there	
   are	
   special	
   circumstances	
  
warranting	
  such	
  an	
  early	
  review.	
  	
  

	
  

	
  

7.   Given	
   the	
   importance	
   of	
   the	
   classification	
   process,	
   it	
   is	
   also	
   recommended	
  
that	
   a	
   Captain	
   position	
   be	
   created	
   whose	
   sole	
   duty	
   is	
   to	
   manage	
   the	
  
classification	
   system.	
   	
   Currently,	
   the	
   Captain	
   now	
   assigned	
   to	
   classification	
  
has	
   too	
   many	
   other	
   important	
   duties	
   that	
   do	
   not	
   allow	
   her	
   to	
   focus	
   on	
  
managing	
  the	
  classification	
  system.	
  	
  	
  
8.   The	
   new	
   classification	
   scoring	
   system	
   will	
   need	
   to	
   be	
   fully	
   automated.	
   	
   The	
  
Custody	
   Bureau	
   has	
   already	
   begun	
   the	
   process	
   of	
   modifying	
   the	
   current	
   data	
  
base	
  to	
  meet	
  this	
  need.	
  

	
  
9.   The	
   use	
   of	
   “known	
   management	
   problem”	
   and	
   “gang	
   member”	
   over-­‐‑rides	
  
will	
   need	
   to	
   be	
   re-­‐‑evaluated	
   for	
   inmates	
   who	
   are	
   not	
   demonstrating	
   any	
  
negative	
   behavior	
   or	
   conduct.	
   There	
   must	
   be	
   some	
   evidences	
   that	
   such	
  
inmates	
  pose	
  a	
  threat	
  to	
  other	
  inmates	
  and	
  staff.	
  	
  
	
  
10.  The	
   scale	
   for	
   the	
   reclassification	
   instrument	
   should	
   be	
   modified	
   so	
   that	
  
inmates	
  scoring	
  4	
  points	
  or	
  less	
  are	
  designated	
  for	
  Minimum	
  custody.	
  
	
  
11.  There	
   is	
   no	
   need	
   to	
   create	
   a	
   separate	
   instrument	
   for	
   the	
   female	
   inmates.	
   The	
  
proposed	
  system	
  uses	
  objective	
  factors	
  that	
  apply	
  equally	
  to	
  male	
  and	
  female	
  
inmates.	
  	
  	
  
	
  

17	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  

18