PRISON CLASSIFICATION Barbara Kaban June 2017 CLASSIFICATION IS

PRISON CLASSIFICATION Barbara Kaban June 2017

CLASSIFICATION IS … � Multi-step process that determines prisoner security placement (maximum, medium or minimum) 103 Code Mass. Regs. 420. 01 - 420. 18 � 2002 - Objective Point Base Classification System to improve the consistency and objectivity of the assessment process � Based on objectively defined criteria which are weighed, scored and organized into a valid and reliable instrument � 6 or fewer point qualifies a person for minimum; 12 or more qualifies a prisoner for maximum � www. mass. gov/eopss/doc/malemanual. pdf

NON-DISCRETIONARY RESTRICTIONS AND DISCRETIONARY OVERRIDES �Allow DOC to depart from the scored custody level �Non-discretionary restrictions- when DOC policy prevents a prisoner from placement in lower security regardless of their objective score �Discretionary Overrides – when a scored custody level is changed based on the judgment of DOC staff �The use of discretionary overrides should not exceed 15% 103 CMR 420. 06

CLASSIFICATION – NEXT STEPS �If a review of the objective classification score, restrictions and overrides indicate a need for a change in placement to a higher or lower security level, a hearing is conducted by a three person classification board consisting of institutional employees deemed qualified to make custody level decisions 103 CMR 420. 08(3)(a) �The board decision is a “recommendation” to the commissioner’s designee whose decision is “final” and “cannot be appealed” 103 CMR 420. 08(3)(i)

2014 AMENDMENT G. L. C. 119, 72 B �The department of correction shall not limit access to programming and treatment … If the youthful offender qualifies for placement in a minimum security correctional facility based on objective measures determined by [DOC], the placement shall not be categorically barred based on a life sentence. �Non-discretionary restrictions Code E and F no longer apply to juvenile homicide offenders

DEAL 1 – 475 MASS. 307 (AUG. 2016) � Notwithstanding the new statutory landscape, it remained DOC practice to exclude all juvenile homicide offenders from minimum security placements unless and until s/he received a positive parole vote � Court held that DOC’s “current practice of using discretionary override codes to block objectively qualifying juvenile homicide offenders from placement in minimum security… contravened the language and purpose of 72 B because it forecloses the individualized consideration of an inmate’s suitability for classification in minimum security” Deal 1 at 323. � Discretionary codes R and S

DEAL 2 – SJC 12246 ARGUED APRIL 4, 2017 �Due to the unlawful manner in which qualifying juvenile homicide offenders continue to be classified and denied placement in minimum security facilities – Codes R, T and U �Rationales included “damaging misstatements, half-truths, material omissions, and unwarranted subjective characterizations” �Could not be challenged because there was no tape record of the proceeding, counsel was not allowed to attend

DEAL 3 - SJ 2017 -0212 �On May 17, 2017, the Commissioner’s designee rejected the unanimous classification board recommendation that Deal be sent to a minimum security facility �Ignored the plain language of the duly promulgated DOC regulation 103 CMR 420. 08 (3) (i) which mandates that “[t]he Commissioner or designee shall utilize the scored custody level and any applicable restrictions or overrides to render a final placement decision. ”