Chapter 3 – The Correctional Offender & Special Needs Population

Introduction

Nelson Mandela, who himself once endured incarceration, powerfully reminded the world that education is the most powerful tool for change. His words hold special meaning in the field of corrections, where humane, evidence-based, and rehabilitative practices can truly transform lives. Understanding the correctional client — the people under supervision or custody of correctional systems — is crucial for developing policies and practices that foster personal growth, ensure public safety, and support successful reentry into society.

Globally, correctional systems are responsible for overseeing diverse offender populations with a wide range of risks, needs, and behavioral characteristics (Doucet & Adu-Frimpong, 2025). This chapter examines the complex landscape of correctional clients, exploring the distinctions between male and female offenders, the principles and practices of classification and reclassification, and the challenges faced by both general and special-needs populations.

While the previous chapters introduced correctional history, ideologies, and the judiciary’s role, this chapter shifts focus specifically to the offender population. Over the past thirty years, scholars and practitioners have described correctional offenders in multiple ways: by offense type (misdemeanor or felony), by offense category (violent or property), by custody status (incarcerated or on community supervision), or by specialized categories such as gang-affiliated, terrorist, or habitual offenders. In addition, the term “special needs” offenders captures a growing and diverse subgroup with distinct challenges. For example, the Prison Policy Initiative (2025) reports that offenders with disabilities are overrepresented at every stage of the system, from arrest to probation and parole. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, “disability” includes a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such impairment, or being perceived as having an impairment (Leigey & Smiegocki, 2018). These individuals, whether ambulatory or non-ambulatory, present significant policy and programming challenges — and they represent only one segment of special needs offenders, as discussed later in this chapter.

Chapter 3 begins with an exploration of male and female offenders, who often enter the system with different backgrounds, criminal behaviors, and rehabilitative needs. These differences influence security measures, treatment options, and facility design. The chapter then turns to classification and reclassification processes, which are essential for placing offenders in the right security level, housing, and programming. Accurate classification helps protect staff and inmates, promotes institutional safety, and supports rehabilitation.

Next, the chapter explores special populations within corrections, including juvenile offenders housed in adult facilities, sexual offenders, substance abusers, offenders with disabilities, elderly offenders, pregnant women, LGBTQ+ individuals, veterans, immigrants, and those with mental illness. These groups require specialized services and accommodations to ensure humane treatment, legal protections, and ethical standards. Finally, the chapter highlights the State of Louisiana’s approaches to managing its correctional offender population over time.

Before exploring the details of these offender groups, it is important to first define corrections in regard to the offender population and to understand the scale and growth of the correctional population. First, a working definition of corrections that supports the focus of this chapter comes from Snarr and Wolford (1985) as they defined “corrections is the systematic and organized effort directed by a society to punish and/or treat offenders, protect the public from offenders, manage the offender while under supervision, change offender behavior, and, when possible, compensate victims” (p. 4). While many other definitions exist, this one emphasizes the central role of the offender — the primary focus of Chapter 3.

Second, Kang-Brown and Zhang (2024), from the VERA Research Institute, reported that in Spring 2024 about 1.8 million people were incarcerated in U.S. prisons and local jails — roughly 250,000 fewer than in 2019, representing an 11% decrease. However, this overall trend masks important state-level differences. For example, states like California, Texas, Maine, and South Dakota saw increases of 10% or more from fall 2022 to spring 2024, while 18 other states saw increases of 5% or more. In contrast, some states, like Hawaii, reduced their prison populations by more than 5% since 2019.

The jail population followed similar patterns, with about a 10% decline since 2019, which has remained stable since 2022. Meanwhile, community-based correctional supervision continues to oversee far more individuals than prisons and jails combined. A 2023 Prison Policy Initiative report estimated nearly 3.7 million people on community supervision programs (Reutter, 2024). Kaeble (2024) points out that probation and parole far outnumber incarceration, while other community corrections sentences — such as halfway houses, day reporting centers, and electronic monitoring — also play a growing role (Ruhland, 2024). Community-based options hold people accountable, preserve ties to family and community, reduce costs, and can help lower recidivism rates compared to incarceration (Tonry, 2017; Alexander, 2010; Clear, 2009; Pattillo et al., 2004). Research also shows that individuals may come out of prison worse off than when they entered, with high rates of recidivism (Cullen et al., 2011).

Since the Prison Policy Initiative’s 2024 report, new data for 2025 indicates that nearly 2 million people are confined in over 6,000 correctional facilities operated by thousands of different agencies. Clearly, the correctional offender population is large, diverse, and continuously evolving.

Understanding correctional offenders is critical for several reasons. First, the vast majority of incarcerated individuals will eventually return to the community: over 95% of today’s prison population will be released someday (James, 2015). Second, the economic burden of incarceration is immense — $81 billion annually according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and closer to $182 billion when including broader family and government costs (Wagner & Rabuy, 2017). Third, evidence shows that community supervision can be more effective than incarceration in reducing recidivism (PEW, 2020; Bonta et al., 2008). Fourth, education and knowledge promote greater respect for the dignity of all people. Fifth, despite progress, there is still a lack of research on how to address the needs of special populations in corrections.

For these reasons, learning about correctional offenders is critical for students pursuing criminal justice or corrections careers. It builds knowledge that supports effective offender management, public safety, and preparation for reintegration.

In this chapter, “correctional offenders” or “correctional clients” will be defined broadly, including those housed in incarcerated facilities (jails, prisons, detention centers) and those supervised in community settings (probation, parole, or other reentry programs). Within jails, individuals might be awaiting trial, convicted, detained, or held for protective reasons, and may be referred to as arrestees, inmates, or detainees. Those in prisons are often described as prisoners, inmates, offenders, or “incarcerated individuals.” Juvenile offenders in the system are often labeled “delinquents,” while those committing status offenses are not the focus of this chapter. For adult community-based corrections, the terms probationers, parolees, or releasees apply, as does the increasingly common phrase “formerly incarcerated persons.” For the purposes of this chapter, “offenders” will encompass all these categories.

The correctional population is highly diverse. Men and women tend to present different risks and rehabilitation needs (Clear, Reisig, & Cole, 2021). Juveniles, while younger, may share many of the same offense types and treatment needs as adults, though their developmental and psychological circumstances differ (Mears, 2010). Special populations — including those with mental illness, substance use disorders, chronic medical conditions, and physical or intellectual disabilities — form another crucial subgroup (James & Glaze, 2006). Other groups, such as elderly inmates, LGBTQ+ individuals, veterans, and immigrants, face their own vulnerabilities and require specialized responses (Meyer, 2015; Maschi, Viola, & Koskinen, 2015). Correctional systems address these varied needs through structured interventions such as classification systems, specialized housing, rehabilitative programs, and reentry planning (Latessa & Smith, 2011).

Special populations in corrections are individuals whose unique needs and characteristics demand specialized care, programming, and management strategies. These groups experience challenges that set them apart from the general offender population, requiring tailored approaches to ensure safety, dignity, and rehabilitation (Gideon, 2013; Travis, 2005; Petersilia, 2005). Examples include those with mental illness, substance use disorders, or chronic medical conditions, who need medical and psychological services while incarcerated (James & Glaze, 2006). Elderly offenders face challenges such as mobility limitations and cognitive decline, demanding age-sensitive healthcare and housing (Maschi, Viola, & Koskinen, 2015). LGBTQ+ individuals are at higher risk for harassment and victimization, needing programs that protect their safety and mental health (Meyer, 2015). Veterans may struggle with post-traumatic stress or other combat-related injuries (Na, Schnurr, & Pietrzak, 2023). Immigrants and non-citizens face legal challenges and language barriers that require specialized legal and social support (Masterson & Hall, n.d.).

Correctional systems must provide these groups with accommodations, services, and supports to function effectively within the facility, including assistive devices, specialized housing, and medical treatment (inmateAID, 2024). The American Correctional Association (ACA) helps set standards for correctional health care, but research still points to persistent issues in the delivery of appropriate services (Leigey & Smiegocki, 2018). Jail and prison infirmaries play a vital role in treating and caring for individuals with complex health needs. Ultimately, special populations in corrections require careful, thoughtful management to ensure humane, legal, and effective treatment.

3.1: Landscape of Correctional Clients

Corrections in the United States is tasked with maintaining custody, supervision, and management of individuals who have been arrested, convicted, or sentenced for criminal or delinquent offenses. This responsibility extends across a range of institutions, programs, services, and agencies. It includes secure facilities such as prisons and jails, as well as community corrections programs like probation, parole, and various intermediate sanctions.

The landscape of correctional clients is marked by profound and growing diversity. Offenders in the system present an intricate mix of individual characteristics, backgrounds, health conditions, and social, cultural, or ethnic identities. This diversity challenges correctional agencies to develop thoughtful, responsive management strategies that address different levels of need and risk.

Incarcerated individuals vary greatly by gender, age, race, and ethnicity. These demographic factors influence their chances of coming into contact with the justice system, the nature of their crimes, their sentencing outcomes, and their rehabilitative requirements (Carson, 2020). For example, research has shown that women in correctional facilities are more likely than men to have experienced trauma, mental illness, or caregiving responsibilities, which requires gender-responsive correctional programming (Covington & Bloom, 2007). Similar concerns apply to juvenile offenders, who often require developmentally appropriate interventions (Underwood & Washington, 2016).

Racial and ethnic disparities are another significant concern. Black and Hispanic individuals remain overrepresented in U.S. correctional institutions (Alexander, 2012). Throughout American history, people of color — including African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and others — have faced disproportionately high rates of contact with the justice system. According to the MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge, while Black and Latinx people make up about 30% of the U.S. population, they account for roughly 51% of the jail population (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2022). Similarly, The Sentencing Project (2021) reported that Black men are imprisoned at 5.5 times the rate of White men, while Latinx people are 1.3 times more likely to be incarcerated than non-Latinx whites. Black women, too, are imprisoned at 1.6 times the rate of White women. As women are one of the fastest-growing segments of the prison and jail population, these disparities remain a pressing issue.

Beyond demographic characteristics, correctional clients also face complex and co-occurring health challenges. Many inmates live with untreated or undertreated mental illnesses, substance use disorders, and chronic health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, or infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS (James & Glaze, 2006; Maruschak et al., 2015). These conditions complicate day-to-day management in correctional institutions and create an urgent need for correctional health care reform.

Social identities also intersect with correctional experiences. LGBTQ+ individuals, military veterans, and immigrants often face unique forms of marginalization, stigma, or neglect. LGBTQ+ inmates are at heightened risk of victimization, sexual assault, and mental health challenges, and often lack culturally competent health care and protective housing options (Meyer, 2015; Beck et al., 2014). Veterans may bring with them experiences of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or other service-related challenges, which require specialized therapeutic responses (Tsai, Mares, & Rosenheck, 2012).

Other special populations, such as elderly individuals, those with cognitive or physical disabilities, and those with significant trauma histories, also present unique correctional challenges. The growth of the aging prison population, partly driven by longer sentences and stricter sentencing laws, has increased demand for geriatric care, accessible facilities, and end-of-life services within corrections (Maschi, Viola, & Koskinen, 2015; Williams et al., 2012). These groups often need specialized housing, staff training, and oversight to ensure their humane and ethical treatment.

Recognizing the diversity of correctional clients is not merely an administrative detail — it is central to building effective, evidence-based classification systems, risk assessments, and treatment programs. Tailored strategies that account for these diverse profiles help maintain institutional safety, protect constitutional rights, reduce recidivism, and advance the broader mission of rehabilitation and reintegration (Taxman, Cropsey, Young, & Wexler, 2007). Without acknowledging this complexity, correctional systems risk failing to meet the needs of their populations, ultimately compromising both safety and justice.

As of 2025, nearly 2 million people were incarcerated in the United States across 1,566 state prisons, 98 federal prisons, 3,116 local jails, 1,277 juvenile correctional facilities, 133 immigration detention facilities, and 80 Indian country jails, as well as in military prisons, civil commitment centers, state psychiatric hospitals, and facilities in U.S. territories. These numbers underscore the scale and diversity of the correctional client population today.

The remainder of this chapter will examine these individuals more closely, beginning with a discussion of male and female offender populations.

3.2: Men and Women in Prison: A Gendered Landscape

In spring 2024, approximately 1.8 million people were incarcerated in the United States. The American prison system remains overwhelmingly male-dominated, though there are important differences in the experiences and growth trends of men and women behind bars. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2025), the number of men incarcerated fell by more than 5 percent between 2024 and 2025, while the number of women incarcerated declined by just 0.29 percent over the same period (Prison Policy Initiative, 2025). Although women represent a small fraction of the total incarcerated population, their prison populations have grown much more rapidly than men since 1978 (Prison Policy Initiative, 2025).

This section first examines male offenders, followed by a discussion of female offenders.

Male Offenders

Men make up the vast majority of the incarcerated population in the United States. Historically, men have been more likely to commit crimes — especially violent crimes — than women as shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 below, which illustrates the number and percentage men and women in prison as recent as June 2025.

[INSERT FIGURE 3.1]

[INSERT FIGURE 3.2]

In 2023, approximately 93.5% of those incarcerated in state or federal prisons for sentences of one year or more were men, totaling about 1,124,400 individuals. This figure rose 2% from 2022 (1,103,200). From fall 2022 to spring 2024, the number of people held in state and federal prisons increased by 2.8% to 1,252,600. Although 2025 data is still emerging, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2025) currently estimates that the number of men incarcerated declined by more than 5% between 2024 and 2025. As of June 7, 2025, there were 145,344 men in federal prisons, representing 93.5% of the federal inmate population, consistent with figures from earlier in 2025.

Patterns and Types of Crime Among Incarcerated Men

Research from 2024 and 2025 shows that incarcerated men in the United States are more likely to be involved in violent crimes, drug-related crimes (including possession, sales, or trafficking), and gang-related activity (Prison Policy Initiative, 2025; VERA Institute of Justice, 2024; Council on Criminal Justice, 2024). Although the overall crime rate for men has declined over the past forty years, the types of offenses committed have remained consistent, with violent crimes such as murder, robbery, and assault continuing to dominate.

Men are also more frequently incarcerated for drug offenses, including both use and distribution, and often commit crimes while under the influence of drugs or alcohol (Beck, 1990). Gang involvement is another factor, with men more likely to participate in organized violent and drug-related activity. Poverty and homelessness also place men at greater risk of arrest and incarceration.

Researchers have connected high incarceration rates among men of color to policy changes that criminalize social problems linked to poverty, including homelessness, mental illness, and substance use. Men are also more likely to be incarcerated for property crimes and public order offenses compared to women, with burglary and related crimes more prevalent among men (Prison Policy Initiative, 2025).

Characteristics of Male Offenders

The typical male prisoner in the United States is a young adult, disproportionately a person of color, and often lacks a high school diploma. Many have been convicted of violent or drug-related offenses. As of 2024, men in U.S. prisons were most commonly Black (34.9%), Hispanic (30.7%), or White (29.9%). Men are more frequently involved in drug-related offenses, including drug use or possession, distribution, and trafficking (Prison Policy Initiative, 2025). Studies have also shown that male offenders tend to be committed their crime under the influence of alcohol and drug use (Beck, 1990). Since more men engage in gangs, they are often involved violent activities and drug- experiencing poverty and homelessness may be more vulnerable to criminal activities related activities such as those mentioned above. Men and may be more likely to be arrested and incarcerated.

A large proportion of men in prison are serving sentences for violent crimes such as murder, aggravated assault, or sex offenses, and many have prior criminal histories. Increasingly, a significant share of male inmates are older adults; the average age in federal prisons is about 42, with roughly 22.5% age 50 or older.

Some researchers connect high incarceration rates among men of color to policy changes that criminalized social problems disproportionately affecting those in poverty, such as homelessness, mental illness, and substance use. Other major categories include property crimes and public order offenses. While women can also be involved in property crimes, men are more likely to be arrested for burglary and related offenses (Prison Policy Initiative, 2025). Men and women experience incarceration differently due to distinct psychological, social, and health-related challenges. Male prisoners are more likely to have been convicted of violent crimes or gang-related offenses, and their needs often revolve around managing aggression, providing vocational training, and preparing for reintegration into society.

Female Offenders

Women make up a smaller portion of the incarcerated population, but their rate of imprisonment has grown nearly twice as fast as men’s over recent decades. Globally, the female prison population has increased by 57% since 2000, while the male prison population has grown by 22% in that same time (Prison Policy Initiative, 2025). The United States has the highest number of incarcerated women in the world, with about 174,607 women in prison as of 2025 (World Prison Brief, 2025).

Since 1980, the growth rate for female incarceration in the United States has been twice as high as that of men (Budd, 2024), making women the fastest-growing segment of the prison population. According to The Sentencing Project, the number of incarcerated women increased by more than 585% between 1980 and 2022, rising from 26,326 to 180,684 (Budd, 2024). Although the COVID-19 pandemic led to a substantial downsizing in 2020, this trend reversed with an 18% increase by 2022 (Budd, 2024). Women’s state prison populations alone grew by 834% over nearly 40 years, more than double the pace of male prison population growth (Prison Policy Initiative, 2025). This makes the women offender the fastest growing segment of the U.S. prison population (Prison Policy initiative, 2025).

According to the Bureau of Prison (BOP), of the nearly 152,000 federal offenders, women offenders account for approximately 7 percent of the inmate population. While nationwide, women are a growing correctional population, women in the Federal Bureau of Prison have comprised a steady proportion of the overall population. In contrast, the federal prison population is still predominately males, poorly educated, underemployed, has lived in or on the edge of poverty, is disproportionately young, black and Hispanic in the year 2024 (Pavlo, 2024). Women offenders are more likely than men have a history of trauma and abuse, which poses additional challenges for reentry.

In the jail population, while twice as many men are held in state prisons than are held in local jails, incarcerated women are almost evenly split between state prisons and local jails. Jails play a particularly significant role in women’s incarceration. Sawyer (2028) with the Prison Policy Initiative maintains that a larger proportion of incarcerated women are held in jails, compared to the total incarcerated population because often they cannot afford bail. Some are not yet convicted and some are. The 38,000 women in jails who have been convicted are typically serving sentences of under one year, often for misdemeanors. For these women, staying connected with family can be particularly difficult. Compared to prisons, phone calls are more expensive in jails and in-person visits may be prohibited. Jails often also offer fewer services and opportunities to participate in rehabilitative programming than prisons. women in jails report higher rates of mental health problems compared to men, with 1 in 3 women in jail reporting serious psychological distress.

Patterns and Types of Crime Among Women

Women have historically been less likely to commit violent crimes than men. Their offenses tend to focus on property crimes, drug offenses, and, to a lesser degree, white-collar crimes. From 2000 to 2009, arrests of adult women for serious violent crimes rose only marginally by 3.4% (FBI, 2010). Recent data from 2021 to 2024 suggests this pattern has continued (The Sentencing Project, 2024).

Property crimes account for nearly 70% of women’s offenses, compared to around 50% for men. Drug crimes and violent crimes represent a smaller share among women than among men. Women in the justice system also often have complex histories of trauma, mental health issues, and substance use disorders.

Characteristics of Female Offenders

Race remains an important factor among incarcerated women. In 2022, Black women were imprisoned at a rate of 64 per 100,000, 1.6 times higher than white women (40 per 100,000). Latina women were incarcerated at 49 per 100,000, 1.2 times the rate of white women (Budd, 2024). Between 2000 and 2022, the imprisonment rate for Black women declined by 69%, while the rate for white women increased by 18% (Budd, 2024).

Women in prison face unique challenges, including health care needs and parental responsibilities. Nearly 62% of women in state prisons — compared to 51% of men — are parents of children under 18. Women are also more likely than men to have multiple children, and more than 80% of women in jails are mothers.

Pregnancy poses additional challenges: each year, over 12,000 women enter prison while pregnant. Despite evidence that shackling pregnant women is unsafe and degrading, only ten states have banned this practice. In some cases, infants are removed from their mothers at birth and placed with family members or foster care systems, disrupting critical parent-child bonds.

Women in jails — where roughly half of incarcerated women are housed — often face even greater challenges. Many cannot afford bail and remain in jail before trial. Jails typically offer fewer programs and services than prisons, and phone calls and visitation may be more limited or costly. Mental health concerns are also greater among jailed women; one in three reports experiencing serious psychological distress (Sawyer, 2028).

Health and Other Needs

Incarcerated women often experience health concerns related to pregnancy, menstruation, menopause, and a history of trauma. Many correctional systems were designed for men and fail to adequately address women’s distinct health and personal care needs. Professional organizations including the American Medical Association, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the National Commission on Correctional Healthcare have criticized the lack of proper resources for women in prison.

Correctional systems have increasingly adopted gender-responsive strategies to address these differences. For men, programs often emphasize education, vocational training, and aggression management. In women’s facilities, there is a growing focus on trauma-informed care, gender-specific mental health services, and parenting programs. Some prisons have introduced nursery programs that allow mothers to care for their infants, and initiatives such as Dr. Stephanie Covington’s “Helping Women Recover” program target women’s trauma and relational needs (Covington, 2007). Group counseling and mentorship models, like the “pseudo-family” concept, have also been adapted to support women’s adjustment to prison life (Van Voorhis et al., 2010).

Conclusion

In conclusion, men continue to make up about 93.5% of the U.S. prison population, while women account for roughly 6.5%. Men are far more likely to be incarcerated for violent offenses, while women are more often imprisoned for property or drug crimes. These numbers have not changed much in 2025, men (93.5%) and women (6.5%) of the prison population. Incarcerated men are significantly more likely to be convicted of violent crimes compared to women. While women are more likely to be incarcerated for property or drug offenses, men are disproportionately represented in the prison population for violent crimes.

Women face greater challenges with mental health, substance abuse, reproductive health, and maintaining family relationships during incarceration. These differences highlight the need for correctional systems to implement gender-responsive, trauma-informed, and evidence-based programs that support rehabilitation and prepare both men and women for successful reentry into society. The table below highlights the characteristics of male and female offenders.

[INSERT FIGURE 3.3]

3.3: Classification: Offenders and Institution

Classification is a fundamental component of correctional administration. It provides a structured framework for assessing and managing incarcerated individuals, supporting decisions about custody levels, housing assignments, rehabilitative programming, and work details. At its core, classification balances institutional security with rehabilitation by aligning inmates’ risks and needs with available correctional resources (Snarr & Wolford, 1985). The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2020) defines classification as “the placement or allocation of prisoners to one of several custody or supervision levels in order to match the prisoners’ individual risks and needs to correctional resources and the appropriate supervision regime” (p. vii).

According to the National Advisory Commission on Corrections (UNODC, 2020; Moser, 1973), classification serves two primary purposes:

• Assessing the individual needs and circumstances of offenders (offender classification).
• Matching these needs with institutional programs and services (institutional classification).

These two purposes are deeply interconnected. In fact, the classification level assigned to an inmate can have a profound impact on their quality of life behind bars.

Institutional Security Levels

Correctional facilities are generally organized by levels of security. State prisons typically operate with three security levels: minimum, medium, and maximum.

• Minimum-security facilities usually house low-risk, nonviolent inmates, often nearing release. These facilities are characterized by dormitory-style housing, fewer fences, less surveillance, and opportunities for community work or educational programs.
• Medium-security facilities manage inmates with moderate risk. They often feature double fences, more staff supervision, structured programming, and controlled movement within the institution.
• Maximum-security facilities are reserved for high-risk inmates with violent criminal histories or escape attempts. These facilities have reinforced perimeters, high staff-to-inmate ratios, limited inmate movement, and intensive surveillance.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons uses a five-level system: minimum, low, medium, high, and administrative. These levels are distinguished by supervision requirements, security barriers, staff ratios, and inmate freedom of movement.

• Minimum security: Open dormitories, limited perimeter security.
• Low security: Slightly more restrictive but still emphasizing rehabilitation.
• Medium security: More structured supervision and controlled environments.
• High security (maximum): Highly restrictive with intensive monitoring.
• Administrative security: Specialized for inmates with unique needs, including protective custody or mental health issues.

In addition, federal prisons classify their facilities by medical care and mental health care levels. Higher levels of medical classification generally indicate better access to treatment services.

The Classification Process

Classification begins during the intake or reception phase after an individual is sentenced or transferred. At this stage, inmates undergo a thorough evaluation that includes:

• Medical and mental health screenings
• Risk assessment tools considering static (unchanging) and dynamic (changeable) factors
• Reviews of criminal history and prior institutional behavior
• Structured interviews and psychosocial evaluations

Based on this information, inmates are assigned an initial custody level and placed in an appropriate facility. For example, a first-time, nonviolent drug offender might be placed in minimum security, while a repeat violent offender with gang ties could be assigned to maximum security.

Classification decisions affect much more than just housing. They also determine an inmate’s access to vocational programs, educational opportunities, mental health and substance abuse services, and behavioral interventions.

Historical Development of Classification

The origins of classification trace back to the 16th century in Europe, where correctional reformers organized prisoners by age, gender, offense type, and potential for rehabilitation (Sutherland & Cressey, 1966; Wines, 1895). Early American prison systems under the Pennsylvania model emphasized solitary confinement, which reduced the need for classification, while the Auburn model focused on strict discipline and labor without much individual assessment.

By the mid-19th century, the rise of rehabilitation, humanitarian concerns, and more complex prison systems pushed correctional administrators to develop more sophisticated classification practices (Silverman & Vega, 1996; NIC, 1981).

The Dynamic Nature of Classification (Reclassification)

It is important to remember that classification is not a one-time event. It is a continuous process called reclassification, designed to adapt to changes in an inmate’s behavior, risk factors, and participation in programs. Reclassification reviews typically occur every six to twelve months or whenever significant events happen — such as a disciplinary infraction or program completion. These reviews consider the inmate’s institutional record, including participation in educational or vocational programs, disciplinary infractions, and psychological progress. Positive institutional behavior, educational achievement, and low security risk can result in a custody level reduction or transfer to a less restrictive setting. On the other hand, violations of rules, aggressive behavior, or escape attempts may trigger a reclassification to a higher security level.

Reclassification ensures that supervision and services remain appropriate as inmates progress through their sentences, supporting both safety and rehabilitation goals (Hardyman et al., 2004). This dynamic approach allows the system to adapt to the changing profiles of inmates and ensures that supervision and treatment remain appropriate over time. Reclassification decisions may result in:

• Custody reductions for inmates demonstrate consistent compliance, positive institutional behavior, and program engagement.
• Custody increases for individuals with recent disciplinary infractions, violent behavior, or attempts to escape.

This dynamic system ensures that institutional responses remain proportional to current risk levels and behavioral indicators, thus promoting both safety and fairness within the correctional environment.

Juvenile Classification: Modern Developments in Juvenile Classification

Juvenile correctional systems use classification procedures similar to those in adult facilities, but with a stronger emphasis on developmental needs and rehabilitation. Juvenile classification generally includes three components (Baird et al., 1984):

• Assessing the youth’s risk to the community and others
• Determining needs for services and treatment
• Reclassification at regular intervals based on updated assessments

Juvenile facilities tend to be smaller, less formal, and more focused on aftercare, which resembles parole in adult systems. Aftercare planning may begin in a juvenile’s home environment or within an institution, depending on local procedures.

Modern juvenile classification also responds to due process protections, ensuring fair hearings and transparent decisions about placement and treatment.

Today’s classification systems increasingly incorporate:

• Psychological assessments
• Behavioral observations
• Standardized risk assessment tools
• Evidence-based practices

Modern classification hearings are considered quasi-judicial, requiring due process protections because decisions can affect an inmate’s liberty interests, such as parole eligibility, transfer to restrictive housing, or program participation. Modern day classification systems incorporate a range of factors, including psychological assessments, risk evaluation tools, and behavioral observations, to provide a more nuanced understanding of each inmate’s profile.

Ultimately, classification is the backbone of safe, fair, and effective correctional operations, ensuring that correctional facilities can promote rehabilitation, protect public safety, and uphold constitutional rights.

Conclusion

In conclusion, prisoner classification serves as the operational and philosophical backbone of modern corrections. It enhances institutional safety, ensures appropriate delivery service, and promotes justice through individualized offender management. As correctional systems continue to pivot toward evidence-based and rehabilitative approaches, the role of classification remains indispensable—not only in maintaining institutional order but in advancing the broader goals of correctional reform, reentry success, and public safety.

3.4: Gangs in Prison

Prison gangs, officially called Security Threat Groups (STGs), pose a persistent and complex challenge to correctional facilities and public safety in the United States. The presence of these groups in jails and prisons has a profound impact on institutional life, affecting inmate safety, the prison culture, and daily operations. While jails tend to house individuals for shorter periods, prisons — with their longer sentences — face a more sustained threat from gangs.

In correctional settings, a gang refers to an organized group of inmates engaged in criminal activities, such as drug trafficking, extortion, or violence, both inside and outside prison walls. Because of their coordinated and often violent nature, gangs are formally labeled security threat groups or disruptive groups (Snarr & Wolford, 1985). These groups significantly undermine efforts at rehabilitation, institutional security, and order.

Compared to street gangs, prison gangs have received less research attention from criminologists, sociologists, and psychologists (Gundur, 2020). Yet their impact is considerable. Prison gangs often function as organized criminal enterprises with complex structures, rules, and codes of loyalty. Activities may include drug smuggling, extortion, human trafficking, and even contract killings. Each gang typically maintains its own symbols, mottos, colors, and even a constitution to reinforce loyalty and control (Gundur, 2020; Kristine & Chambliss, 2011).

Prison gangs tend to be more hierarchical and stable than street gangs, with leadership structures that remain intact over long periods. In contrast, street gangs often have more fluid, loosely organized leadership, with shifting alliances and opportunistic crimes (Gundur, 2020). Both types, however, demand absolute loyalty and secrecy from their members. In this sense, prison gangs resemble organized crime networks — though even more sophisticated organized offenders will be discussed later in the chapter.

As of 2023, nearly 20% of incarcerated individuals in the U.S. were affiliated with some form of gang (Zeng, 2025), highlighting the widespread influence of these groups. Their power extends beyond prison walls, with ties to street gangs and telecommunication networks that allow them to recruit, intimidate, and coordinate criminal activities across communities.

Historical Context and Major Prison Gangs

Some of the earliest and most notorious prison gangs developed in California during the civil rights era, when rising racial tensions and inmate safety concerns contributed to gang formation. For example:

• Aryan Brotherhood (AB): Originating in San Quentin in the 1960s, initially organized for racial protection but evolved into a violent crime syndicate involved in drug smuggling, extortion, and murder.
• Black Guerrilla Family (BGF): Also founded in San Quentin in the 1960s, with an ideological Marxist-Leninist mission to combat oppression within the prison system.
• La Nuestra Familia (NF): Formed in the 1960s in Northern California to protect rural and working-class Hispanic inmates, becoming rivals to the Mexican Mafia.
• Mexican Mafia (La Eme): Established in 1957 at Deuel Vocational Institution, this powerful and violent gang controls many Southern California Hispanic street gangs (Sinclair, 2023).

In Texas, several major prison gangs have been identified by the Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), including:

• Texas Syndicate: Originally formed in California but made up largely of Texas inmates, known for strict loyalty rules and involvement in drug smuggling.
• Barrio Azteca: Closely linked with Mexican drug cartels, conducting contract killings and coordinating cross-border crime.
• Tango Blast: Notorious for its loosely organized, city-based network, making it difficult for law enforcement to control. As of 2017, estimates put its membership at over 8,200 (Texas Department of Public Safety, 2017).

The racial and ethnic backgrounds of prison gangs often mirror the communities from which inmates come. As a result, gang networks are reinforced both inside facilities and in their home communities (Kristine & Chambliss, 2011).

Correctional Responses to Prison Gangs

Correctional systems have developed various strategies to respond to the threats posed by prison gangs. These include:

• Intelligence gathering through informants and surveillance
• Isolation strategies such as administrative segregation (solitary confinement)
• Transfer of gang leaders to disrupt organizational structures
• Rehabilitation programs focused on disengaging inmates from gang culture

In Texas, the Security Threat Group Management Office (STGMO) is responsible for identifying and monitoring gang members through investigations and intelligence networks. Once validated as a gang member, an inmate is often moved to administrative segregation to disrupt their influence and protect others.

However, ethical and mental health concerns about prolonged isolation have prompted alternatives. For example, Texas developed the Gang Renouncement and Disassociation (GRAD) process, a phased program including debriefing, counseling, education, and behavior monitoring. Only after completing these steps — including monitored conditions afterward — may participants rejoin the general prison population (TDCJ, 2023). One successful graduate of GRAD, a former Tango Blast member, now mentors other inmates to leave gangs.

Despite these efforts, STGs continue to challenge correctional systems with encrypted communication, external networks, and the potential for violence against informants or defectors. This means controlling prison gangs requires not just correctional interventions but also broader community-based gang prevention programs, partnerships with law enforcement, and intelligence-sharing across agencies.

Gender Differences in Prison Gangs

Prison gangs are overwhelmingly a male phenomenon. Gang membership often requires committing a violent act — such as assault or murder — against another inmate to gain entry. While women in prisons do sometimes engage in violence, their involvement in formal prison gangs is minimal. Instead, women more commonly form pseudo families, informal family-like groups with roles such as “mother,” “father,” “daughter,” or other relatives. These pseudo families serve social and emotional needs rather than engaging in organized violence (Kristine & Chambliss, 2011).

Demographics and the Broader Context

The gang landscape in prisons reflects the broader correctional population, which is overwhelmingly young, poorly educated, unemployed or underemployed, and disproportionately Black or Hispanic. In 1992, Black individuals made up 47% of state prison admissions, compared to 19% for Hispanics (Perks, 1994). According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission (2024), half of those sentenced in fiscal year 2024 were Hispanic, 25% were Black, and 21% were White. The Prison Policy Initiative (2024) confirms that people of color continue to be overrepresented in both carceral and non-carceral punishments.

Conclusion

In conclusion, prison gangs are almost exclusively a male phenomenon. They are violent and pose a persistent and complex problem concerning the security of prison/jail institutions as well as a threat to public safety. For an inmate to belong to a prison gang, violence is often required for membership, with many gangs requiring a violent act such as murder or assault to be performed against another inmate to gain admission. Female prisons or jail rarely have gangs. Kristine and Chambliss (2011), maintain that while there are some female inmates, the violence engaged in are not due to gang membership. More common in female prisons are the formation of pseudo families rather than gangs.

3.5: Types of Offenders in the Corrections

In the previous section, we explored classification systems, which help organize offenders within correctional institutions. Classification considers factors such as risk, treatment needs, and placement in appropriate security levels. While prison classification focuses on facility-level security, offender classification focuses on the personal and behavioral traits of individuals, helping match their needs with services and rehabilitation opportunities.

Understanding the types of offenders is essential to developing effective correctional strategies. Clear, Reisig, and Cole (2021) present a framework that categorizes offenders by their behavior patterns, motivations, and correctional needs. Figure 3.4 below (adapted) summarizes these key offender types, their definitions, core traits, and correctional considerations.

[INSERT FIGURE 3.4]

Situational Offenders

Situational offenders are individuals who offend under unusual circumstances, often without any prior criminal history. Their unlawful behavior is often atypical and emerges from high-stress situations, emotional duress, or reactive provocation. These acts are not characteristic of the individual’s usual conduct but rather reflect circumstantial breakdowns in judgment or impulse control (Clear et al., 2021). According to Haskell and Yablonsky (1974) also described these situational offenders in their book, Crime and Criminality, as a person acting out of temporary stress, provocation, or extreme emotion, and are unlikely to reoffend. For example, someone who commits manslaughter during a sudden fight but has no prior record could be considered a situational offender.

Because they generally present a low risk of recidivism, situational offenders are often candidates for probation, community service, or anger-management programs. Veterans Treatment Courts are an example of specialized systems addressing situational offending among military veterans with PTSD or trauma. This statement does not suggest that all veteran offenders are situational offenders. More about the veteran offenders will be discussed later. It should also be noted that the FBI also uses the term “situational sex offender” to describe certain type of sex offenders, which will be discussed in a later section of this chapter.

Organized Crime Offenders

Organized crime refers to highly coordinated, structured groups with profit as their primary motive. These organized offenders are highly sophisticated, well organized, with large criminal networks, and motivated in conducting their criminal activities due to the large profit involved. These groups can operate nationally or transnationally and may engage in a variety of crimes like drug trafficking, human smuggling, money laundering, cybercrime, or extortion (The Mob Museum, 2025). Unlike prison gangs, discussed earlier, who are loosely structured, although they are better structured than the street gangs, their criminal activities more fragmented and opportunistic. Prison gangs’ level of criminal involvement does not usually go beyond the neighborhood or local. Nonetheless, prison gangs are labeled as organized criminal groups when they function like criminal businesses with well-developed hierarchies and alliances. However, when compared to regular organized offenders the level of sophisticated operations (Barnes, 2021; Gundur, 2020) are more superior and can move around fact due to the network connections. They can be very dangerous due to the wide range of illicit activities they engage in.

They engage in transnational organized crimes, which is big business. Transnational organized crime is estimated to generate $870 billion plus a year (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime-UNODC, 2009). Transnational organized crime networks are especially challenging to the police, often involving international trafficking of goods, people, or money (Kleemans & Koppen, 2020). U.S. law enforcement tools like the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act target these sophisticated syndicates.

In summary, not to be confused with situational sex offenders, the regular situational offenders are often influence by specific circumstances they find themselves in that led them to commit the crime, rather than having an inherent tendency or desire to engage in criminal behavior. They usually are not repeat offenders. In some cases, depending on the nature of the crimes, these offenders are best suited for community corrections’ sanctions.

Habitual Offenders

Habitual offenders repeatedly engage in crime, usually with one or more crimes not to exceed three (in federal court) prior convictions. The criteria for labeling someone a habitual offender differ by jurisdiction. Although less severe than career criminals, habitual offenders often cycle through the system due to issues like substance use, mental health needs, or poverty. Because a habitual criminal has a criminal record, indicating a tendency to repeat a crime and may be subject to harsher penalties under some state statutes, which vary by state. Laws such as “Three Strikes” policies attempt to incapacitate habitual offenders, but these have drawn criticism for contributing to over-incarceration, especially for nonviolent offenses. When habitual offenders have a pattern of chronic offending, and because of that, they are often referred to as a career offender, which is discussed next. It was criminologist, Walter Reckless, an American criminologist, who first categorized the habitual criminal as ‘career criminals. He was also the first criminologist who developed the concept of career criminal. Some of the essential characteristics of the habitual criminal according to Didwal’s research on Reckless, are:

• Crime is his way of earning a living. He considers crime his main occupation. Since crime is his way of earning a living, he commits mostly property offences.
• He starts as a delinquent child. Not all delinquent children become criminals, but most habitual criminals have had records of juvenile delinquency.
• He makes the best use of his time in prison by learning new methods of criminality.
• He develops an attitude favorable to crime and unfavorable to the police and the larger society.
• He is usually psychologically ‘normal’. There are no special psychological characteristics that distinguish him from the non-criminal (Didwal, 2021, p. 3).

The habitual criminal has chosen crime as his career and develops attitudes supporting his behavior. Under Lombroso’s crime typology, the habitual offender falls under ‘criminaloloids”. He specifically defined a habitual offender as “an individuals who had initially committed minor offenses but gradually became more involved in crime due to repeated exposure to criminal behavior or life circumstances that pushed them toward deviance.” According to Lombroso, the habitual criminal does not suffer from abnormal heredity. Habitual criminals are normal from birth. Several environmental factors, e.g. faulty childhood habits, defective training at school or at home, misery at home, destitution, desertion by parents, bad company or emotional disorder caused in childhood by some unhappy or unfavorable circumstance, may be the causes of his criminality (Lombroso as cited by McKee, n.d.).

In summary, a habitual offender and the career that is being discussed next, are often used interchangeably to refer to someone with a history of more than one or more criminal conviction. Both are repeat offenders with several convictions. However, some sources suggest subtle differences, such as the habitual offender will not have as many convictions as that career offender. The criminal offender may carry a stronger implication of intentional and professionalized criminal behavior, potentially focused on specific types of offenses. The Habitual offender is not chronic but can become chronic and if so, is considered a career offender. Career offenders are a greater challenge for the criminal justice system.

Career Criminals

Career criminals (or chronic offenders or multiple repeats /convictions)) have long histories of crime that begin early in life and persist in adulthood. Someone who has been convicted of multiple criminal offenses, usually similar in nature. This is how they make their living. As mentioned above regarding a habitual offender, a career criminal is a chronic habitual offender. Among some of the more common crimes committed by career criminals are drug trafficking, firearms offenses, robbery, and other violent felonies. They often specialize in violent or drug-related offenses. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission (2023), federal career offenders must have at least two prior felony convictions and commit another qualifying serious offense to trigger enhanced sentencing. Career criminals make up a small portion of the overall offender population but account for a disproportionately large amount of serious crime. Their management typically involves strict sentencing, risk-focused interventions, and intensive supervision upon release.

In summary, A career criminal is someone who engages in criminal activity as a persistent and habitual way of life, often with a long history of convictions for similar types of offenses. They are also known as recidivists, habitual offenders, or repeat offenders. Essentially, criminal activity is their primary means of making a living, and they may lack legitimate employment options or skills. Committing crime is a live style and they tend to be more serious and violent.

Professional Offenders

We just discussed the career offender, who could also be considered professional since career criminals too, are individuals who engage in criminal activity as a significant source of their livelihood. Some sources in the literature suggest that professional offenders may be career criminals, particularly when both types of offenders engage in criminal activity as a significant source of livelihood. White-collar crime, discussed next, is generally committed by business professionals or those in other professional sectors. It is linked to financial or corporate offenses involving deception, fraud, or breach of trust.

Criminologists define professional offenders as individuals who engage in criminal activity as a career, deriving a significant portion or all their income from it and developing specialized skills for their illicit trade. Professional offenders see crime as their occupation and are skilled with knowledge, expertise, and experience to get task/crime done. These individuals use specialized skills, detailed planning, and sophisticated methods to carry out thefts (i.e., recall Professional Theft by Criminologist Edwin Sutherland), frauds, or similar crimes. Historically, professional criminals specialized in pickpocketing, burglary, or fraud, but today’s professional offenders may also include cybercriminals or high-level smugglers (Brackett, 2022).

Characteristic wise, professional criminals possess specialized knowledge or skills related to their illegal activities. Profit Motivation: Professional crimes are primarily driven by financial gain or the pursuit of power. They see themselves as belonging to a criminal network or enterprise since they often operate within organized networks or syndicates. As the work presented in The Professional Thief, Sutherland presented in amazing detail the hard, cold facts about the private lives and professional habits of pickpockets, shoplifters, and conmen, and brings into focus the essential psychological and sociological situations that beget and support professional crime.

In summary, while that are some similar features between some of the Career offenders’ mode of operation, such as crime being a lifestyle, yet there are also some distinct differences, in specialized skills, level of sophistication and expertise, as well as networking enterprises.

White-Collar Offenders

White-collar crime, first described by Edwin Sutherland in 1940, includes nonviolent, financially motivated crimes committed by people in positions of trust. These offenses include fraud (securities, mail, false claims, credit fraud), embezzlement, insider trading, or bribery, etc…. White-collar offenders typically have higher education levels, stable employment, with high status and respectable individuals. Their crimes can cause enormous social harm.

Because of public perceptions, white-collar criminals sometimes receive more lenient sentences than street criminals, even though their financial impacts can devastate entire communities. Even though white-collar crime (WCC) offenders are non-violent, their crimes nonetheless cause considerable societal harm, the economic and psychosocial costs of which exceed those of conventional crime. Despite the impact, it has received scant attention from academic literature, which was why Sutherland encouraged other criminologists to expose these crimes/criminals.

While the definition of WCC is ambiguous and poorly defined in the literature (Holtfreter, 2005; Ragatz & Fremouw, 2010; Simpson, 2019), criminologists must be committed to researching WCC and revealing the ‘illegal or unethical ugliness of this crime. encompasses acts that violate fiduciary responsibility or public trust.

In summary, although white-collar crime (WCC) and considered victimless crime, they are nonetheless, crimes that can destroy companies, wipe out a person’s life savings, cost investors billions of dollars, and erode the public’s trust in institutions as well as people. These crimes are conducted within the commission of one’s work that are often business professionals or those in other professional sectors. It is linked to financial or corporate offenses involving deception, fraud, or breach of trust.

Public Order Offenders

Public order offenses—sometimes called “victimless crimes”— criminal acts that disrupt the peace and order of the community. Criminal acts that disrupt the peace and order of the community. These offences are particularly concerned with behaviors that may not necessarily cause physical harm but have the potential to create significant social unrest and anxiety. They are designed to protect the public from activities that threaten the safety and well-being of individuals and the community as a whole. They are designed to protect the public from activities that threaten the safety and well-being of individuals and the community as a whole.

Offenders of these crime acts like prostitution, public intoxication, or drug use, “crimes against morality” or “crimes of vice that violate community standards. These are often enforced selectively, and they disproportionately affect disadvantaged groups. Repeat offenders and those engaging in more serious crimes can get prison time.

Many public order offenders benefit from diversion programs or community-based services instead of incarceration. Seattle’s Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program, for example, connects offenders with housing, treatment, and job services instead of jail time (Clear et al., 2021).

In summary, public order offenses can be either misdemeanors or felonies, depending on the specific offense and jurisdiction, but they are usually often classified as misdemeanors. When offenders are repeats over and over or they get involves in more serious crimes like drug trafficking, and/or aggravated offenses, these are crime felony crimes that can lead to prison time.

Long-Term Offenders

Long-term offenders serve extended sentences, often 20 years or more, for serious crimes. In five of the six largest state prison systems, inmates sentenced to 20 years or more constitute more than 10 percent of the total prison population, as shown in Figure 3.5 below.

[INSERT FIGURE 3.5]

This group of offenders is not a homogeneous group. They could be any of the type of offenders discussed in this chapter. They include a mix of career criminals, violent offenders, and those serving life sentences. The main difference is that long-term sentences given where they are locked up for most of their lives.

They are young inmates, middle-aged inmates, and frequently career criminals and some are serving life sentences, also known as lifers. They may also be elderly inmates who came to prison young and have grown old in prison. Over time, long-term inmates frequently adjust to prison life, becoming “model prisoners” and taking on institutional responsibilities.

In 2023, about 96% of the U.S. prison population was serving a sentence of over one year, with one in eleven women serving life. Approximately 1,124,400 or 93 percent were men, 85,900 or 7 percent were females. While the male population with longer sentences increased slightly (2%) from 2022 to 2023, it saw a significant decrease (21%) since 2013. Similarly, the female population with longer sentences increased by 4% in 2023 but decreased by 18% compared to 2013. Racial disparities remain significant among lifers, with Black individuals overrepresented in life-without-parole sentences (Nellis & Barry, 2025).

Maghan (1996) maintains that the “American penal system traditionally has not paid particular attention to long-term offenders” (p. 9). Maghan also states that there is no direct causal relationship between long-term inmates and dangerousness. On the contrary, over time most long-term inmates appear to make a satisfactory adjustment to the prison routine (Flanagan, 1991). That is perhaps because most of these long timers became socialized into the prison’s routine and institutional order.

Long-term confinement brings unique psychological stresses, including depression, anxiety, and “prisonization.” Flanagan (1985) argued these inmates need “sentence planning,” addressing issues like health care, food quality, and staff-inmate communication. MacKenzie and Goodstein (1985) conducted a study examining the effects of long-term (i.e., more than six years) incarceration on offender outcomes. Their results indicated inmates in the first three years of their sentence reported significantly more anxiety, depression, psychosomatic illness, and lower self-esteem compared to inmates who served more than six years. Research with female prison inmates indicated female prisoners also experienced elevated levels of anxiety and depression upon initial incarceration, but within a short period of time (i.e., three weeks) psychiatric symptoms significantly declined (Islam-Zwart et al., 2007).

In summary, long-termers are serving many years being locked in prisons, usually maximum-security institutions. Most will spend the rest of their lives there. Maghan maintains that while the crimes committed by long-term offenders are serious in nature, they usually do not pose any danger to the prison operation. Flanagan also saw no direct causal relationship between long-term inmates and dangerousness when researching this group.

Death Row Offenders

Death-row inmates are those sentenced to execution for capital crimes. As of 2024, there were approximately 2,213 people on death row in the United States, with an overwhelming majority being men, as shown in the figure below.

[INSERT FIGURE 3.6]

These prisoners are typically held in extreme isolation, with very limited human contact, contributing to declining mental health (ACLU, 2013).

Many death-row inmates have histories of trauma, substance abuse, or intellectual disabilities, further complicating their confinement. Research indicates that social isolation, extended appeals, and harsh conditions can result in psychological deterioration before execution (Cunningham & Vigen, 2002).

3.6: Offenders with Special Needs in the Corrections

In the modern correctional system, the number of offenders with special needs has increased dramatically due to laws such as mandatory minimums, three-strikes laws, truth-in-sentencing policies, and the abolishment of parole in many states. These policies, along with “get-tough-on-crime” attitudes, have left the courts and corrections administrators with fewer options for non-incarceration, even for populations with unique needs. Today, correctional systems must address the challenges of managing diverse groups, including juveniles, sexual offenders, substance-abusing offenders, individuals with mental illness, offenders with disabilities, elderly prisoners, pregnant women, LGBTQ+ populations, veterans, and immigrants.

Figure 3.7 below summarizes these key groups, their characteristics, and special correctional considerations.

[INSERT FIGURE 3.7]

Juvenile Offenders

Juvenile offenders remain a significant part of the special-needs offender population. Historically, the juvenile justice system developed to “save” young people through treatment, but in recent decades, policy has fluctuated between treatment and punishment. Juveniles may be classified as:

• Delinquent offenders: Youth who commit acts that would be crimes for adults.
• Status offenders: Youth who commit acts illegal solely due to age, like truancy or running away.
• Dependent/neglected children: Youth mistreated or abandoned by parents/guardians.
• At-risk youth: Youth with multiple life stressors likely to lead to delinquency.

Normally, if a juvenile is accused of a crime, whether a status offense or a delinquent act, their case is handled in the juvenile justice system, which focuses more on rehabilitation than punishment. Key legal landmark cases like re Gault, Kent v. United States, re Winship, McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, to name a few, as well as the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (1974), have helped protect juveniles from harsh treatment for non-criminal acts. However, in cases involving serious or chronic offending, juveniles may be waived to adult courts.

These are usually delinquent youth who are adjudicated transferred to the adult criminal court system either by judicial waiver, statutory exclusion, and/or direct file (Weston, 2016; Zane, Welsh, and Mears, 2016), and are behind bars in adult institutions. These are the juvenile offenders that are the focus of this section in chapter 3. Since the establishment of the juvenile justice system, unfortunately, there are some youths that have not been amenable to the treatment of the juvenile system. These are hard core youths that need a firmer approach, like the adult criminal justice system. At the time this chapter was being written all 50 plus states have laws on the books allowing juveniles to be tried as adults. Over the past 2 years, 42 states have toughened those laws. In the State of Texas, a juvenile is defined as a person at least 10 years of age but younger than 17. The State of Louisiana, children as young as 14 can be charged as adults under specific circumstances, depending on the nature and severity of the alleged. More is discussed in the Louisiana section toward the end of the chapter.

By 2021 there were 87% of juveniles in adult local jails and 13% were held in prisons, compared to 66% in local jails and 34% in prisons in 2002 (Zeng, 2023). The crimes committed by juvenile offenders range from violent felonies like murder, sexual assault, and robbery, as well as property crimes, drug offenses, and weapon-related offenses (FBI, 2023). More than half of all children in adult prisons were held in just five states: Florida, Connecticut, Ohio, Mississippi, and Arizona (OJJDP Website). Children housed in adult jails/prisons are 36 times more likely to commit suicide than those placed in juvenile facilities (Equal Justice Initiative, n.d.).

The Sentencing Project maintains that the children that remain exposed to the adult criminal legal system are overwhelmingly youth of color. The children that remain exposed to the adult criminal legal system are overwhelmingly youth of color, compared to white youth who commit similar offenses. The vast majority serve short sentences in adult jail or prison and return home on their 21st birthdays. This disparity is also present for Native American and Latino youth, though to a lesser degree (Mistrett & Espinoza, 2021).

Despite declining overall rates of youth incarceration—down 75% from 2000 to 2022 according to The Sentencing Project reports that racial and ethnic disparities persist. Black youth are disproportionately overrepresented, incarcerated at rates nearly five times higher than their white peers. In 2022, Black youth were detained at a rate of 228 per 100,000, compared to 49 per 100,000 for white youth, and 13 per 100,000 for Asian American youth. White youth were significantly more likely to have their cases diverted or receive informal sanctions, while Black youth were more likely to face detention and incarceration. These disparities reflect not only systemic bias but also the cumulative disadvantage experienced by youth of color throughout the juvenile justice process (Rovner, 2024).

Those of us who are experts in the fields (i.e., criminal justice, criminology, psychology, sociology, social work, and juvenile justice, children advocates, etc.—the related sciences) we know that to be the case no matter how much we wish it was not the fact. Sadly, the reports continue to come in illustrating the point. In 2023, the FBI reported a rise in suspects under eighteen accused of violent crimes, increasing from 31,302 in 2022 to 34,413 in year. In 2024, serious and chronic juvenile crime in the United States reflects a mixed picture. While violent crime rates, including those involving juveniles, have generally decreased in recent years, there are specific areas of concern like homicides committed by juveniles and firearm-related offenses, being on the increase. So, the trend of juvenile offending (youth under age 18) has been the subject of significant local and national discourse over the last several decades because they continue to account for a notable share of crime committed in America each year.

In summary, those of us who work with juveniles know that they are different from adults. For instance, they are more vulnerable, emotional, and impulsive, and they cannot get themselves out of unsafe homes or communities or trouble at times. They are children and they do have the means to always change their situations. The lessons of history have not taught us much when we opt to reunite adults and juveniles once again in the same prison system. With early interventions, these juveniles are more likely to change as they grow up. Nonetheless, the law is the law, for those youth wavered and transferred into the criminal justice system.

Sex Offenders (Adults and Juveniles)

Sexual offenders include people convicted of crimes such as rape, child sexual abuse, or possession of child pornography. There is no single profile of a sex offenders, so characteristics vary. They come from diverse backgrounds and exhibit a range of characteristics-age, gender, socioeconomic and education backgrounds. They are males, females and juveniles.

Another common reality faced by sexual offenders during their incarceration, whether adult males, women or juveniles is that they are consider by other inmates to be at low inmate-status. As such, they are often harassed, ridiculed, and even sexually victimized by other inmates particularly of their crime involved that of a child (Palermo, 2005). They require specialized treatment and prevention through their incarceration. With states and federal law requiring registration and community notification, it threatens their safety and complicates their reintegration. Their reentry and treatment being difficulty to achieve.

The FBI categorizes situational sex offenders into subgroups, including regressed offenders, morally indiscriminate offenders, sexually indiscriminate offenders, and inadequate offenders. Treatment is challenging, especially for offenders trying to hide their crimes due to stigma. Cognitive-behavioral therapy is common, showing promising outcomes for both adult and juvenile offenders (Ikomi, Harris-Wyatt, Doucet, & Rodney (2009).

In summary, the limitations that exist with the sexual offender knowledge is the lack of research on women sexual offenders. Sex offending is generally regarded as a typically male phenomenon, but there are females sex offenders. Because of that the academic literature on sex offending is almost exclusively on male sex offending, while the female perpetrators of sex offenses have been mostly ignored (Grayston & De Luca, 1999). An explanation given for this is that the number of adult female sex offenders is too small to justify research (Finkelhor, 1984; Johnson & Shrier, 1987). Hopefully that will change.

Substance-Abusing Offenders

Substance abuse is a major driver of incarceration, with around 63% of jail inmates and 58% of prison inmates meeting criteria for substance use disorder. Approximately 60% of individuals arrested for most types of crimes test positive for illegal drugs at arrest. Both their original and rearrest offenses are frequently linked to drug or alcohol dependence.

A significant number of substance-abuse offenders are young adults between the ages 18 to 25, marijuana was the most common illicit drug used, while alcohol use was also prevalent. In 2024, a significant portion of women in U.S. prisons were incarcerated for drug offenses, with estimates being over 25% of women in prison convicted of crimes. This is compared to 12% of incarcerated men. Overall, men had a higher prevalence (20%) than women (14.3%).

The most common charge, involving a minor caught knowingly possessing controlled substances, including illegal drugs like marijuana and cocaine, as well as prescription drugs without a valid prescription. The severity depends on the type and quantity of the drug. The focus for juveniles’ arrest for drugs is on rehabilitation. Drug trafficking and distribution are more serious offenses, and the penalties are significantly harsher.

Alexander and Pratsinak (2002) identified six indicators for juveniles who abuse drugs, which are: 1) exhibit problem behaviors rather than signs of drug abuse, 2) progress from use to dependency quicker than adults, 3) abuse more than one substance, 4) remain in the denial phase longer than adults, 5) receive reinforcement from peers, and 6) have slowed development and impaired abstract thinking (Gideon, 2013, p. 33).

Treatment-based alternatives, including drug courts and therapeutic communities, have shown greater success than punitive measures. Programs that combine counseling, medication, and judicial supervision are essential to breaking the cycle of addiction and crime (Gideon, 2013).

In summary, substance abuse is a major driver of incarceration, with around 63% of jail inmates and 58% of prison inmates meeting criteria for substance use disorder. Treatment-based alternatives — including drug courts and therapeutic communities — have shown greater success than punitive measures. Programs that combine counseling, medication, and judicial supervision are essential to breaking the cycle of addiction and crime.

Mentally Ill Offenders

Correctional systems house a disproportionate number of people with mental illnesses. Jails and prisons have, by default, become “de-facto mental health institutions,” even though they were never designed for this role. About 37% of prisoners in state and federal facilities have a diagnosed mental illness, and nearly 44% in local jails. The lack of community mental health resources has pushed these individuals into the correctional system, where their needs often go unmet.

A mental ill offender refers to individuals within the criminal justice system who have been diagnosed with a mental disorder that affects their behavior, decision-making, or ability to comply with legal standards. These individuals may have conditions like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression, and their symptoms can lead to interactions with the law, sometimes resulting in arrest or conviction.

Nearly 2 in 5 people who are incarcerated have a history of mental illness. An estimated 37 percent are in state and federal prisons and 44 percent are held in local jails) according to the National Alliance on Mental illness-NAMI. Another source, the Prison Policy Initiative (2025) reports nearly the same numbers except for the federal prison. They report that over 43 percent of people in state prisons have been diagnosed with a mental disorder compared to over 44 percent in local jails, and over 66 percent of offenders in federal prisons (all of whom reporting that they did not receive any mental health care while incarcerated.

The mental health of women prisoners is compounded by the fact that they receive far less vocational and educational opportunities compared to men, which adds to their stress of how they can reenter society in the future. Given these figures, it does look like jails and prisons have become America’s de-facto mental health facilities, and unfortunately, they are not doing a good job (Prison Policy Initiative, 2025).

In summary, mental ill offenders often encounter the criminal justice system, whether it is confinement or non-confinement corrections for a combination of reasons homelessness, drug use or misuse. The lack of community mental health resources has pushed these individuals into the correctional system, where their needs often go unmet.

Disabled Offenders

Disabled individuals in prison face severe challenges. These offenders are also disproportionately incarcerated in state and federal prisons. According to the Center for American Progress, offenders in state and federal prisons are three times more likely than the general population to report having at least one disability. The Prison Policy Initiative (2016) maintains that approximately two-thirds of state and federal prison inmates report having a disability. Another more recent study by Bixby, Bevan, & Boen (2022) they found that approximately 66 percent of incarcerated offenders self-reported a disability (both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric) with Black, Hispanic, and multiracial disabled men especially overrepresented.

Cognitive impairments, mobility issues, vision and hearing impairments, and sensory disabilities are the more common disabilities reported, making navigation of the correctional environment difficult. To help with their safety, these individuals may be placed in protective custody (or segregation) but still suffer isolation, poor accessibility, and limited programming. Segregation and solitary confinement have also been reported to be used as discipline means in prison against the disabled offenders, particularly those inmates with mental illnesses. Such practices have been linked to suicide and other forms of self-harm.

Targeted support, including specialized housing, simplified communication, and rehabilitative services, are critical. Medical care for these conditions is inconsistent.

Elderly or Geriatric Offenders

The U.S. prison population is aging, largely due to lengthy sentences imposed during the “tough on crime” era. Elderly prisoners (typically age 50 or 55+) have unique medical needs, including chronic illnesses, dementia, and mobility limitations. The definition of elderly offenders has presented some problems to criminologists and prison officials due to an inability to consistently agree on a single definition. Nonetheless, this group is often referred to as “older”, “elderly”, and “mature.” The cutoff age has ranged from forty-five to sixty-five with most authors deciding to use ages fifty or fifty-five. Several authors (Morton, 1992; Flynn, 1992; Dugger, 1988) classified elderly offenders into three groups based on their incarceration history. For instance, Teller and Howell (1981) delineate into two groups: 1) first-incarcerated elderly and 2) multiple-incarcerated elderly. Teller and Howell describes the first incarcerated elderly as those who are experiencing their first incarceration as an older person, and the multiple being incarcerated for a second time or more.

Metzler (1981) on the other hand, identify three types of elderly offenders:1) first-incarcerated elderly, 2) long-term-incarcerated elderly, and 3) multiple or serial-incarcerated elderly. Like Teller and Howell, the first-incarcerated is the first-time conviction older person. The long-time-incarcerated elderly (also called long-termers or long-term offender-LOT) who grew old in prison. The multiple or serial-incarcerated elderly are the habitual or career criminals) who are recidivists who are being reincarcerated as an older person. Though Metzler’s sample size (126 participants) was far too small to generalize reliably from, his findings do, however his findings were consistent with those of Teller and Howell.

In both studies, the sample of first-incarcerated and long termers showed a high proportion of crime against persons (76.5 percent for first-incarcerated offenders and 83.3 percent for long termers), while the multiple-incarcerated offenders yield a comparative small proportion, 33.3 percent) of violent crime (Goetting, 1983, 292; Vito et al., 1985, p.20).

The first-incarcerated elderly usually commit their crime after age fifty. These elderly offenders’ crimes often involve murder, manslaughter, rape, or other sexual crimes. Usually, they do not see themselves as criminals (Teller & Howell, 1981). As new commers to prisons, they are naive to the prison subculture and way of life, which makes them easy prey. They find adjustment to prison life difficult. A subcategory of this group is mentally disoriented, suffering from various mental illnesses, and frequent frustration (Silverman & Vega, 1996). A positive note about this group is that they do have community ties, which could make for easier placement back into the community upon release than the other two groups.

Many elderly inmates were incarcerated decades earlier during the “tough on crime” era. Aging inmates often require specialized medical care, mobility assistance, and hospice services (Clear et al., 2021). Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola operates a licensed prison hospice program due to the high number of aging inmates serving life sentences. Many prison facilities have introduced geriatric care units or compassionate release options, for elderly inmates who pose little risk to public safety and have significant health challenges. For those who must remain locked up many older still struggle to adapt to prison routines.

Pregnant and Motherhood Offenders

Pregnant incarcerated women represent a unique correctional challenge. Facilities must address prenatal care, labor and delivery policies, and the trauma of separation from newborns. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, on a single day in 2023, there were 328 pregnant people in state (0.5%) and federal (0.3%) prisons, representing a total of 0.5% of all women in prison. This is much lower than the 2016 Pregnancy in Prison Statistics (PIPS) data, which found there were 350 pregnant people in just the smaller group of state (0.7%) and federal (0.3%) prisons surveyed, for a total of 0.6% of the combined prison population. The actual number of pregnant incarcerated offenders was higher in the PIPS report that covered half as many state prison systems (22 states) than the Bureau of Justice Statistics report. It is unclear what accounts for this substantial difference in the datasets.

While most prison facilities allow pregnant inmates to carry their pregnancies to terms, they typically do not allow infants to remain in custody. Moreover, it is not uncommon that incarcerated pregnant women have their newborn immediately taken away from them at birth. Some states have developed alternatives to incarceration to better address the complex needs of pregnant and postpartum people and their families. Alternatives to incarceration can occur at various points in the criminal legal system (Connecticut General Assembly, 2002). There are even a few correctional institutions that offer programs that permit biological mothers to live with their babies, avoiding separation from their newborn at a critical period in the life-course (Zhang et al., 2024).

Given these various options for pregnant women in correctional facilities, pregnancy care is not uniformly safe or health-promoting. Some practices can be immoral and physically and emotionally harmful to both birthing mother and their infants – such as shackling and separating mothers from their newborns (Equal Justice Initiative, 2020). So, it is fair to say that women in prison are a high-risk heath issues and for pregnant women in prisons and jails, the maternal health is a greater risk. Additionally, these women more likely to have a medical problem (such as diabetes, hypertension, epilepsy, or cardiac disease) that could negatively impact their pregnancy outcome, yet they are less likely to receive antenatal care (Knight. & Plugge, 2006).

In 2019, Sufrin, Clarke, Jones, & Mosher conducted a study on the pregnancy outcomes in US prisons from 2016–2017. They published the first prospective study to collect data on pregnancy rates and outcomes in US prisons. Approximately, 22 state prisons, showed that 4% of women were pregnant upon admission and that 0.3% became pregnant during incarceration. Other studies show a slightly higher percentage— between 3% and 10% of women admitted to correctional facilities are pregnant. These studies also reinforced that many of the incarcerated pregnant women come with mental health conditions and substance use disorders and psychiatric diagnoses (i.e., high stress and anxiety levels). The trauma of separating from their newborns is a significant concern.

The Sufrin et al., (2019) study further showed that a significant proportion of these incarcerated pregnant women experience unfavorable pregnancy outcomes, including miscarriages, preterm births, stillbirths, newborn deaths, and ectopic pregnancies. In a 1999 report published by Amnesty International about the use of shackles and restraints with pregnant incarcerated women in the United States revealed mechanical device (e.g., ankle cuffs, belly chains, soft restraint, hard metal handcuffs) that is used to limit the movement of an inmate (U.S. Department of Justice, 2012). According to Amnesty International (1999), the argues that the use of restraints with pregnant incarcerated women is a cruel and inhumane practice.

It is a violation of a woman’s civil rights and is potentially harmful to the woman and her fetus. In 2016, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the United States stated, “Shackling while in labor offends contemporary standards of human decency such that the practice violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain . . . it poses a substantial risk for serious harm” (Mendiola Martinez v. Arpaio, 2016, p. 24). Shackling during pregnancy and childbirth is medically unsafe, emotionally traumatizing, and unnecessary (Clarke & Simon, 2013)

Studies have shown that early and routine prenatal care during the imprisonment of pregnant women has shown to have positive effects on babies’ birth weight and gestational age at birth (; Baker, 2019). However, late and insufficient care leads to poor perinatal outcomes (e.g., pre-term birth, low birth weight, mental illness, and increased hospital admissions and mortality (Baldwin et al., 2020; Walker et al., 2014; Dowell et al., 2018; Mukherjee et al., 2014).

In summary, mothers’ experiences indicated that the correctional system and policies, which were predominantly designed for men, do not adequately address the varied and complex needs of pregnant women, mothers, and their young children (Sapkota et al., 2022). Research has shown that shackling during labor is inhumane and dangerous, yet it persists in some jurisdictions. Access to comprehensive medical services and family support can improve outcomes for these mothers and their children.

LGBTQ+ Offenders

LGBTQ+ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning. The “+” represents non-cisgender and non-straight identities that are not contained in the acronym. In the language of penology, which is the study of prison management and criminal rehabilitation, LGBTQ+ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other individuals who identify with diverse sexual orientations and gender identities within the prison system.

Researchers estimate that 20% of youth in the juvenile justice system are lesbian, gay, bisexual, questioning, gender nonconforming, or transgender compared with 4-6% of youth in the general population. The same research shows that 40% of girls (who were assigned female at birth) in the juvenile justice system identify as LBQ and/or gender nonconforming. Due to the potential negative backlash that youth face, LGBTQ youth are pushed towards criminalized behaviors such as drug sales, theft, or survival sex, which increase their risk of arrest and confinement (Jones, 2021). Other crimes generally committed by the LGBQT+ offenders are usually domestic violence (particularly trans persons of color), sex work or loitering for the purpose of prostitution and/or panhandling, and other low-level offenses (e.g., loitering, sleeping outside).

Today, the data show that LGBTQ+ offenders are overrepresented at every stage of the criminal legal system, starting with juvenile justice system involvement. They are arrested, incarcerated, and subjected to community supervision at significantly higher rates than straight and cisgender people. Also, LGBTQ+ youth’s representation among the incarcerated population is double their share of the general population (Ghandnoosh & Stammen, 2022). LGBTQ+ adults are incarcerated at three times the rate of the total adult population.

Once incarcerated, they face extremely high risks of harassment, assault, and discrimination, with transgender inmates especially vulnerable. Transgender inmates often struggle to access necessary gender-affirming medical care, like hormone therapy or surgery. Many transgender individuals are housed according to their sex assigned at birth rather than their gender identity, increasing their risk of harm. Studies show that LGBTQ+ American prisoners remain at a heightened risk for sexual assault and violent victimization. They face higher rates of physical and sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination from both other inmates and correctional staff (Kang-Brown & Zhang with VERA Institute, 2024; Prison Policy Initiative, 2021). Such activity with LGBTQ+ offenders generally leads to placement in solitary confinement as a form of discipline. Solitary confinement is also frequently used, sometimes under the pretense of protection, though it leads to serious mental health harm. Empirical studies show that solitary confinement can cause severe psychological distress (Sentencing Project, VERA, Prison Policy Initiative, 2021).

Harsh treatment of this offender group is not a new thing. Death Penalty Information Center (2025) reports that as early as 1636, the American colonies passed laws punishing queer sex with the death penalty. It was not until 1873 that the last state, South Carolina, removed the death penal­ty as a pun­ish­ment for sodomy. Today, twelve countries around the world have laws on the books authorizing the death penalty for queer sexual activity.

In summary, LGBTQ+ individuals are overrepresented at every stage of the criminal legal system. Once incarcerated, they face extremely high risks of harassment, assault, and discrimination, with transgender inmates especially vulnerable. Solitary confinement is frequently used, sometimes under the pretense of protection, though it leads to serious mental health harm. Gender-affirming care and anti-discrimination policies are needed to support this population.

Veteran Offenders

In a 2021 published report, the Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that there were more than 19 million Americans who are veterans. Over 10,000 veteran offenders were in custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the end of 2019, accounting for almost six percent of all BOP inmates. The U.S. Census Bureau (2021) and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (2019) reported that the military experience and associated risk factors (economic hardship, homelessness, unemployment, PSTD, drug, to name a few) may lead to adverse life outcomes of veteran offenders. The most specific common crime committed by veteran offenders overall was drug trafficking (25.0% and 37.6%, respectively). Veteran offenders, also, committed child pornography offenses more than four times as often as citizen offenders overall, 11.6 percent compared to 2.7 percent, and sex abuse offenses more than twice as often, 6.7 percent compared to 2.4 percent.

Other empirical studies also suggest that the transition from military service to civilian life can be overwhelming, especially when faced with unemployment or underemployment, homelessness, and relationship strain (Orak, 2023). For instance, homelessness was found to be a significant risk factor for criminal justice involvement. Studies (Tsai et al., 2024) show that approximately 30 percent of incarcerated veterans have a history of homelessness, double the percentage of homelessness among the general incarcerated population (15 percent).

Orak (2023) reports that the relationship between military service and criminal justice involvement among veterans is multifaceted and can be attributed to a wide range of risk factors that exist before, during, and after military service. Orak’s research briefly summarizes association between military service and criminal justice involvement into three categories as shown in Figure 3.8 below:

• veteran characteristics (individual-level risk factors),
• veteran experiences during or related to military service (service-related risk factors),
• veteran experiences following military service (post-service risk factors).

While Orak’s research does provide correlation between military service and criminal justice involvement, this research topic is still in an exploratory or infancy phase. Methodologically, the research literature on veterans and criminal justice involvement is based on data gathered at one point in time rather than tracking outcomes over longer periods that entail the use of the most rigorous causal research methods is strongly recommended for future research. Orak’s research contribution to literature is certainly a good place to start understanding the issues of the incarcerated veterans.

[INSERT FIGURE 3.8]

In summary, veterans face unique challenges linked to PTSD, traumatic brain injury, substance use disorders, and difficulties transitioning back to civilian life. About 6% of federal inmates are veterans, many of whom struggle with trauma-related conditions. The most common crime committed by veteran offenders overall was drug trafficking (25.0% and 37.6%, respectively). Veteran courts and specialized reentry programs have emerged to help address these issues.

Immigrant Offenders

Immigrant offenders, both documented and undocumented, may be incarcerated for immigration-related offenses or other crimes. Immigrant offenders refer to individuals who enter the United States with existing criminal records or those who commit crimes after their arrival. Historically, immigrants deemed as criminals often faced harsh treatment, with societal perceptions frequently painting them as threats to national security. Immigrant offenders can be both legal residents and undocumented immigrants. In legal terms, an immigrant is an alien who has been granted the legal right to reside permanently in a country, typically through the acquisition of a visa or other formal authorization, and who intends to live there permanently.

Most criminal offenses committed by immigrants are related to illegal entry, there are other crimes that are related to immigration status or motivated by lack of immigration status, such as driving without a license, using a false Social Security Number (SSN) are two examples of criminal violations. However, according to the results of decades of research, immigrants are less prone to commit crimes than are the native born, and they are less likely to be incarcerated (Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, 2018).

Sociologists and demographers are not sure why immigration would be associated with lower crime but have noted that immigrant communities tend to have stronger families, cultural, and religious beliefs that tend to buffer them against crime. Another explanation can be inferred from the motivation most immigrants come to the United States, which is to work and create a better life for their children. Getting into trouble with the law risks all that hard work (Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, 2018).

In summary, immigrant offenders can be both legal residents and undocumented immigrants. They often face language barriers, cultural disconnection, and fear of deportation. They are less prone to committing crimes than are the native born, despite some false facts on the matter. Correctional systems must adapt to provide culturally competent care and respect due process rights, while also collaborating with immigration authorities when appropriate.

The State of Louisiana: The handling of its’ Offender Population