Risk factors are also used to identify and assess which detainees/prisoners require high security classification. For example, if an individual is assessed as having been the victim of child or spousal abuse or was considered unemployed at the time of arrest, s/ he will be identified as having a "need" in those areas. The greater the number of identified needs, the greater the likelihood that they will be perceived as "risky" and therefore the higher the resulting security classification. Some examples of the criteria used by the Correctional Service of Canada – adopted by many provinces in their correctional approaches to adults and youth – which measure the nature and degree of disadvantage experienced include: low educational level, poor employment history, a childhood that is judged to lack family ties, physical "problems" (i.e., disabilities) especially those which might interfere with work.

Some criteria do not measure disadvantage at all. Rather, they expose explicit as well as implicit biases in the form of middle-class standards of behaviour. Moreover, they attach significance to deviations from such norms. Examples of the types of assessments made under these categories include such assertions as: has no bank account; has no collateral; has no hobbies; does not participate in organized activities; has used social assistance; lacks a skill/trade, profession; resides in a criminogenic area; is unattached to any community groups; residence is poorly maintained. Although these sorts of approaches may be modified to remove or override the ones that are obviously age-biased, the reality is that these sorts of assessments are similarly applied to young people in juvenile correctional systems.

Still other criteria leave open the possibility of an interpretation of need/risk that is racist or homophobic. Examples of assessment criteria that exhibit such discriminatory biases include questions that examine whether: ethnicity is problematic; religion is problematic; there are inappropriate sexual preferences; sexual attitudes are problematic. Overall, many of the assessment criteria require front-line staff who have relatively little to no relevant training to make subjective appraisals of their respective applicability to each prisoner. Consequently, prisoners' individual assessments very much depend upon the judgment, attitudes, and perspectives of staff. The situation of Lisa Neve probably best exemplifies the risk of relying upon actuarial assessment instruments designed by and for men when looking at the situation of sexually abused, young, racialized, lesbians with disabilities who work and live on, and therefore by, the rules of the street.

Dissection of the Designation of Lisa Neve as a Dangerous Offender

On June 29, 1999, the Alberta Court of Appeal released its decision to overturn the November 17, 1994 designation of Lisa Neve as a dangerous offender. Lisa was 21 years of age when she was labelled the most dangerous woman in Canada and sentenced to an indeterminate prison sentence. Previously, the first woman labelled a dangerous offender, Marlene Moore, killed herself in the Prison for Women in Kingston.