Setting aside the issue of the integrity of the needs/risk assessment criteria themselves, the only way needs could be relevant in determining security classification is if they are demonstrably related to the considerations as to which criminalized individuals are likely to pose a risk to the general public. In the adult correctional schemes, especially the federal system, the legislated mandate of the correctional authorities is to conduct security classifications not based on prisoners' needs, but only on their potential to escape, risk to the public if an escape occurs, and the level of supervision and control needed in prison. Although the Correctional Service of Canada has essentially equated needs with risk, there is no demonstrated link between the criteria set out in their needs analysis – which is used as part of the classification process – and the kinds of risks articulated in the Regulations of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which can be read as requiring the assessment of increased security measures.

Youth who are regarded as lacking program motivation, behave in disruptive manner generally or during specific programs, as well as those who are not regarded as having learned anything from the programs in which they have participated, will tend to be negatively judged and therefore have a poor institutional adjustment rating, resulting in a high security designation. This is the reason why many First Nations youth, as well as those with mental and cognitive disabilities, end up with a high risk or maximum security designation.

In fact, overwhelmingly, the staff who work with young women who are classified as maximum security and high risk prisoners tend to describe them as young women who monopolize the staff, intimidate or even "contaminate" the other "girls," are unable to manage their anger/rage, or paranoia and concerns that they are being threatened. They are also described as incredibly needy and thus difficult to manage. In short, the current classification schemes result in women and girls tending to be classified as maximum-security prisoners more because of their risk to themselves, whereas male prisoners are primarily classified up from medium to maximum security as a result of assaults on other prisoners or staff.

Although the Correctional Service of Canada prides itself on the development of risk assessment criteria that are "objective," the current offender intake and assessment/classification process is very subjective. As staff have repeatedly pointed out, they often use a fair degree of discretion in order to interpret answers and questions used in assessment instruments for young people. Prison staff have also indicated that current intake assessment and risk assessment approaches require a great deal of interaction with computers, and relatively little direct contact with the prisoners being assessed and classified.