We all know that corrections is a hot topic for the media, the public, the courts, and legislatures. We are scrutinized daily.

See the following examples.

The public knows little about prisons, but most have strong opinions about crime, and respond to information about the prison issue of the day with votes that affect the quality of prison administration.

The media have been known to publish sensational stories about prisons using figures to support sometimes erroneous conclusions that undermine administrators’ efforts. Absence of good data creates a disconnect between “reality and what is reported.”

The absence of good data and research creates a vacuum. Something always moves to fill a vacuum.

In our case, anecdotal stories – over time/jurisdictions -- fill the void. Examples: CSAA, PREA, Senator Webb.

Governors’ Budget Offices press correctional directors unrelentingly for budget justifications, imposing cut after cut to allow more money for schools and other priority projects. Directors often have no standard performance numbers available to demonstrate critical needs.

Legislative bodies research and use data to call administrators to task. For example, “Why does a prisoner’s food cost more in our state than in other states?”

Courts issue orders against corrections that are based on data that might have been erroneous or taken out of context.

Methods for arriving at measures vary among agencies, for example, recidivism rates.

Agencies define terms differently, for example, “assaults.” No one knows what the real thing is.

Without uniformity in defining measures and counting according to the same rules, comparisons of measures among jurisdictions are “apples and oranges” propositions. Consequently, the meaning is lost.

= 0

During the ’90s, these issues were regularly discussed at ASCA meetings and trainings. Everyone agreed that ASCA jurisdictions should come together to develop uniform measures of correctional performance.

Mission: Define uniform standards, measures, key indicators, and counting rules with which to measure agencies’ performance and make comparisons across jurisdictions.

THE PMC set out to develop uniform standards and measures of correctional performance so that review and research of its jurisdictions’ performance could be analyzed with certainty that all participants would be counting and computing rates the same way.

Standards of Performance (areas of performance to be measured, for example, Public Safety)

Measures (for example, Escapes)

Key Indicators of Performance (Ex. number of escapes from secure perimeter, number from outside secure perimeter etc.)

Counting Rules (definition of the indicator and specific rules for counting the events.)

1. Delineating responsibilities for which we are legitimately accountable;

2. Coming to consensus on sound correctional definitions and measures of performance; and

3. Changing our traditional performance indicators and counting rules to conform to uniform standards.

This exercise is hard work, and a difficult paradigm shift.

Discuss issues

Develop improvement wish lists

Set work priorities

Schedule work for coming year

There are currently seven uniform standards of correctional performance. (Two more in progress.)

Public Safety

Institutional Safety

Substance Abuse

Mental Health Services

Justice

Academic Education

Health Care

There are 73 different agency and facility characteristic values for which PMC has created definitions and/or counting rules. They give context to performance measures and allow for meaningful comparisons across agencies and facilities.

An example: the numbers of male/female security staff is defined as “Number of male/female uniformed staff, such as majors, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, cadets and correctional officers employed throughout the agency on the last day of a given month.”

This number can be used to select agencies or facilities with similar security staffing rates or patterns for purposes of comparison.

In 2003, ASCA piloted the new PBMS application in six states, in hopes of eventually sharing measures among all ASCA agencies via the web based application, PBMS.

All participants are equal.

Information is contributed by agencies to one repository.

Information, in turn, is shared among all participants.

ASCA’s Performance Measures Committee (PMC) has launched a three-year initiative to expand PBMS reporting capabilities significantly to provide increasingly valuable reports to PBMS participants.

Our goal is to enhance the PBMS reporting capability to provide ASCA members with quality data for:the public, governors offices,legislatures, media and other interested parties.

Track your agency’s performance on important operational, program and service measures, for examples:

Numbers of inmates needing and accessing health, programs, substance abuse treatment, psychological services, etc.;

Numbers and rates of assault, use of force, high profile diseases (MRSA, TB, HIV);

Population management measures such as agency inmate count compared with number of beds by security level. (under development)

Compare your agency’s performance (e.g. recidivism rates, misconduct rates, etc.)

with other jurisdictions similar to yours,

with all agencies, or

with the national average.

For the project to be effective, all ASCA member agencies must be trained and committed to entering PBMS data each month.

1. Promotes performance accountability and enhanced decision-making capability in your own agency and in the profession nationwide;

2. Produces accurate, consistent, and relevant national reporting of correctional performance;

3. Allows access to performance data from all member agencies; (Best practices.)

4. Promotes fair and healthy comparisons with other departments of corrections;

5. Allows study of trends within your own DOC and among other DOC’s.

6. Allow us to define ourselves and clear up myths/misperceptions about corrections.

1. Enter all required Agency Characteristics

2. Enter all required Facility Characteristics

3. Enter 24 of 48 key agency indicators, with one or more in Public Safety, Substance Abuse, Mental Health, Justice, Academic Education, and Health Care

4. Enter 28 of 56 Facility indicators, with one or more in Public Safety, Institutional Safety, Justice, and Health Care.

Communicate PBMS as a top priority to all divisions in your agency – administrative, operational, programs, MIS, planning and research etc.

Identify a PBMS champion in your agency to oversee inputting, retrieval, and maintenance of data in the system.

Review and revise agency policies, procedures, and measures to conform with PBMS counting rules (most difficult and time consuming).

Allocate sufficient time for staff to participate in PBMS in addition to their other duties.

Monitor participation – are institutional and agency-level data inputted on a timely basis? Are data accurate? (Dashboard being developed.)

Generate reports to compare your Agency with other agencies.

Participate in the Performance Measures Committee and Sub-committee meetings.

Provide feedback to the Performance Measures Committee’s requests for input regarding standards and key indicators.

Put in policy and ”institutionalize” your agency’s participation in PBMS.

Enter monthly data for one or more of the four types of data:

1.Agency characteristics,2.Facility characteristics,3.Agency key indicators, &4.Facility key indicators.

Agencies are trained but working through roadblocks

Jeffrey Beard (PA), ChairRoger Werholtz (KS), Vice Chair

Charles Ryan (AZ) Devon Brown (DC)Harley Lappin (FBOP)Brian Owens (GA)Brent Reinke (ID)Gary Maynard (MD) Bob Houston (NE)

Alvin Keller, (NC) Leann Bertsch (ND) Jon Ozmint (SC) Tim Reisch (SD) Andrew Pallito (VT)Eldon Vail (WA)Robert Lampert (WY)