After a great deal of study, I have concluded that the classification system, now embodied by DCR 100-1, is not only fundamentally sensible, but a marked improvement over what came before it. For one thing, all inmates are supposed to be classified according to clear, objective criteria. Some people may remember when your "class" depended on prejudices of one or two employees. A single adjustment could put you from medium to maximum for years. Or the say so of one person could keep you in maximum for unknown or personal rea- sons. There are many other positive aspects of the system, but those are ones that are probably the best understood.
The system described in DCR 100-1 is an adaptation of a system used in 38 states, D.C., and the federal prisons. DOC deliberately designed it so that it could be changed, and DOC fully expected when they put it in operation that they would be learning as they went along. Thus the DCR 100-1 of today is not the DCR 100-1 that will be in effect two or three years from now.
No program of this size, in any organization or company or government, is without "start up" problems, and one year is not a long time to measure such an effort. Solving the "problem" of DCR 100-1 requires an understanding of the problems it was intended to solve and the problems now surrounding it. Some examples:
One problem DOC was trying to deal with when it decided to go ahead with a new classification system was that 95% of new inmates were "medium". Yet there was quite a lot of difference among MHC, MCTC, MCIH or MCIJ, to name a few, so that developing programs realistically (if any) was next to impossible.
A very big obstacle to a new system was the fact that DOC didn't used to have a computer information system capable of keeping track of anything, much less particulars about particular inmates. Along with the new classification system, DOC also had to develop a computer system and network. Since DOC is a huge organization and they were practically starting from scratch, I personally feel they have accomplished an awful lot in a year or two, relatively speaking.
Another obstacle, which still hasn't been totally worked out, is that DOC had to train all the counselors, computer operators, and any other employee to use the new system. Since some people didn't like the system or didn't like the change in their jobs, this created extra problems.
The biggest problem of all is that DOC just did not (and still does not) have proper housing space to go with the system they were trying to put in place. Some people should remember the dozens of snafus with ECI (left over from Harry Hughes). To keep it short: it takes years to build new prison space including going to the legislature to appropriate money, finding a site (nobody wants a prison), making contracts and getting it constructed properly. Being under a number of court orders, DOC had to deal not only with the number of "beds" needed, but the beds they already had required extensive and expensive repair or outright replacement.
Now, after a year's experience, all of us have learned that the point system fails because it is aimed mainly at "risk assessment", where "risk" means risk of escape and risk of infraction. These alone may be very valid goals, especially in view of the chaos DOC has been in over the last few years, but these alone are no way to run a prison system whose avowed "mis- sion" includes programs of "treatment, training, education and work release" (see DCR 10-1).
Also after a year's experience, DOC is just finding out who exactly they have in the system (ages, sentences, crimes), how much time is outstanding, how many people have drug or alcohol history, etc. This enables them for the first time to plan and make decisions based on reality. This, relatively speaking, is a tremendous accomplishment, and such information can be used to change DCR 100-1 for the better.
Members of the NAACP, its outside support committee and other citizens should focus their efforts not so much on the details of DCR 100-1, but on the "missing elements" with the goal of restructuring this DCR in accordance with the Division's purpose expressed in DCR 10-1. The following are areas of strategy which should be explored:
DCR 100-1 should not be changed to artificially fit present conditions, but to meet and grow for the future and the Building Plan which wants to tear down the Pen and MHC in a very few years.
Nancy Moran
Prisoners Aid Association
Member, NAACP Prison Support