A Path Toward Evidence‐Based Classification

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12409
• Author: Zachary Hamilton,Elizabeth K. Drake
• Published date: 01 November 2018
• Date: 01 November 2018

POLICY ESSAY

WITHIN-PRISON SANCTIONING AND

RECIDIVISM

A Path Toward Evidence-Based Classification

Sanctioning Patterns and Inmate Misconduct

Zachary Hamilton

Washington State Institute for Criminal Justice Research

Elizabeth K. Drake

Washington State University

Using a sample of more than 63,000 inmates from Ohio’sprison system, Ian Silver

and Joseph Nedelec (2018: 1005–1035) examine the relationship between the

sanctioning of in-prison misconduct and subsequent recidivism behavior. From

the sample, five subgroups are identified using latent class growth analysis, outlining the

sanctioning patterns of inmate behavior. The findings from the study demonstrate that the

more individuals are exposed to sanctions, the greater their chances of reoffending. Broadly,

we concur with the main policy conclusions reached by the authors. Given the observed

relationship between prison misconduct and recidivism, we agree that in-prison sanctions

should be used cautiously and that graduated sanctioning guidelines should be used to

ensure consistent application. Furthermore, we support Silver and Nedelec’s conclusion that

adhering to the risk, needs, and responsivity (RNR) model and providing opportunities for

individuals to participate in evidence-based programs are important prosocial opportunities

that can improve both infraction behavior in prison and reduce recidivism (French and

Gendreau, 2006; Pompoco, Wooldredge, Lugo, Sullivan, and Latessa, 2017).

In this policy essay, we examine the implications of this study’s findings within the

broader field of inmate custody classification. Silver and Nedelec (2018) have laid important

groundwork for understanding the interactive effects of inmates, infractions, and sanction-

ing. We examine where this work fits within the current context of research and lay out

the next policy steps needed to advance evidence-based custody classification, as well as

identify directions for future research by identifying gaps in the literature. Drawing from

Direct correspondence to Zachary Hamilton, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Washington

State Institute for Criminal Justice, Washington State University, PO Box 1495, Spokane, WA 99210 (e-mail:

zachary.hamilton@wsu.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12409 C2018 American Society of Criminology 1037

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 17 rIssue 4