The Functions of Classification and Assessment Models in Correctional Treatment

  • Peter C. Kratcoski


Classification systems have been used in the field of corrections in the United States for purposes of control and punishment for many years. In the penitentiaries, inmates were separated on the basis of the level of security needed to control them. During the Reformatory Era, inmates were placed into different categories on the basis of security needed and progress made toward being rehabilitated. For example, in the Elmira Reformatory for young offenders, inmates moved from the lowest level to the prerelease level. More privileges were given with each level. During the 1960s and 1970s, classification models were developed and used to separate inmates for security and treatment needs, and several classification systems were also developed for supervising probationers and parolees. In the latter part of the twentieth century and up to the present time, the emphasis is on using evidence-based instruments to assess offenders’ potential for recidivating as well as to assess what types of treatment would be likely to assist the offender to make the desired changes in behavior and lifestyle.


Classification Risk assessment Needs assessment Probationers Parolee Case management models Responsivity principle Criminogenic need Clinical approach to classification Actuarial approach to classification Structured professional judgment approach to assessment Unit management 


  1. Clements, C., McKee, J., & Jones, S. (2010). Offender needs and assessment: Models and approaches. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. Grant #Eq-8.Google Scholar
  2. Cohen, T., & VanBenschoten, S. (2014). Does the risk of recidivism for supervised offenders improve over time? Examining changes in the dynamic risk characteristics for offenders under federal supervision. Federal Probation, 78, 41–56.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, T., Cook, D., & Lowenkamp, C. (2016). The supervision of low-risk federal offenders: How the low-risk policy has changed federal supervision practices without compromising community safety. Federal Probation, 80, 3–21.Google Scholar
  4. Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA). (2016). Risk and needs assessment (Vol. 1, p. 1). Retrieved September 14, 2016, from
  5. Crooks, C. (2000). The case management system experience in Ohio. In P. Kratcoski (Ed.), Correctional counseling and treatment (4th ed., pp. 250–290). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Eaglin, J., & Lombard, P. (1982). A validation and comparative evaluation of four predictive devices for classifying federal probation caseloads. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
  7. Flynn, E. (1978). Classification systems. In Handbook of correctional classification. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  8. Gill, H. (1970). A new prison discipline: Implementing the declaration of principles of 1870. Federal Probation, 34(3), 31–38.Google Scholar
  9. IBM Business Consulting Services. (2004). Strategic assessment: Federal probation and pretrial services system. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  10. Kratcoski, P. (2004). The functions of classification models in probation and parole: Control or treatment-rehabilitation? In P. Kratcoski (Ed.), Correctional counseling and treatment (5th ed., pp. 213–237). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2016). Risk/needs assessments for youth (pp. 1–10). Retrieved September 14, 2016, from
  12. Ohio House Bill 86. (2015). Retrieved from
  13. Phillips, R., & Roberts, J. (2000). Correctional administration. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Seiter, R. (2002). Correctional administration. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  15. The PEW Center of the States. (2011). Risk/needs assessment 101: Science reveals new tools to manage offenders (pp. 1–8). Retrieved September 14, 2016, from
  16. University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute. (2016). Offender assessment (pp. 1–3). Retrieved September 14, 2016, from
  17. Watcher, A. (2014). Statewide risk assessment in juvenile probation. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. JJGPS StateScan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter C. Kratcoski
    • 1
  1. 1.Kent State UniversityKentUSA

Personalised recommendations