One institute's study asserts raising accountability and basing funds on performance can improve the corrections industry.
 
Earlier this week the MTC Institute, an organization focused on promoting innovate practices in job training and corrections, released a report on improving the effectiveness of correctional facilities.  Based on the concern that the American corrections industry is in a state of crisis, and that a passive approach by officials and legislatures will only worsen the situation, MTCI has proposed a series of accountability benchmarks facilities should be required to meet.

With the nation's correctional population growing 3.2 percent annually, jails and prisons are facing, among other things, over-crowding issues, requiring additional resources and funds. About 97 percent of offenders sent to state and federal facilities return to their community two years from their incarceration date. This triggers new public safety concerns about how to effectively rehabilitate them before release.  A 67 percent recidivism rate does not help matters either. Add to this, public calls for decreased spending, and officials are faced with fewer funds and resources to manage this continually growing challenge.

Institute executive director Carl Nink says these challenges should concern public policy makers enough to make the necessary changes to the system.

“There are serious deficiencies in correctional systems across the United States. So, what is being done with the men and women behind bars to help insure they won't return?  Our research indicates very little,” says Nink, whose organization is run by Management in Training Corporation, which operates privatized correctional facilities internationally, operates 25 Job Corps centers in 20 states for the U.S. Department of Labor.

Nink believes using corrections as a “warehousing of people” is a political agenda that has failed and is not an effective means of rehabilitating offenders and reducing recidivism.  Currently, the  systems serves more as a revolving door for those more likely to return to prison than to succeed in their communities, which forces officials to direct limited resources to manage this problem. As a result, more treatment and education programs are being cut, which says Nink is “the most expensive strategies imaginable in the world of corrections.” These problems are costing taxpayers money that could be better spent on schools and roads.

“The cornerstone of the reinvention of the correctional system is the use of performance- based budgeting,” he explains. “We have to pay attention to the resources out there that work, and what reduces recidivism. Only then can we really know what's successful, and then emulate those strategies in other settings. Then, all facilities and assigned staff should be held accountable for their success.”

The institute's study, Measuring Success: Improving the Effectiveness of Correctional Facilities, argues that all U.S. correctional facilities should follow similar success measurements that private businesses incorporate.  Relevant benchmarks for corrections should include; safety and security, quality of life, re-entry preparation, and management.
Since these “dimensions” are not unique, every facility should be able to review relevant data to rate its performance. The study says a facility's success can be measured by reviewing records detailing information like classification, infirmary visits, incidents, grievances, offender work, disciplinary, education, and mental health.

It also recommends conducting offenders and staff surveys, much like a census, to assess attitudes towards a wide variety of correctional facility issues.

Complete facility success depends on how closely it follows MTCI's guidelines.

Success in safety and security, for example, would require the utmost safety of both offenders and staff. While seemingly obvious, steps more difficult to manage also fall under this category; “There should be no murders, no hostage situations, few assaults on either offenders or staff, and a small number of racial disorders or gang related incidents.” 

A ‘quality of life benchmark' suggests “offenders should be housed in decent conditions; correctional facilities can be evaluated on the basis of crowding, population density, cleanliness, light, air quality, and sanitation.”

It also urges increased offender family contact since this promotes a connection to normalcy and remains an important factor in rehabilitation.

Re-entry preparation touches on offenders working in meaningful career building experiences, and encourages engaging private industry to build factories behind the fences that provide training, wage earning, and products that can be sold unrestricted on the open market.

“When offender programming is implemented effectively, recidivism is reduced. Successful
facilities (and systems) are those that reduce recidivism.”

Its last set of strategies focuses on management, “the most important ingredient in a successful facility. A safe, secure, and industrious facility depends on its staff. High turnover can be indicative of poor morale, which can lead to operational problems. A successful facility is one with “low” employee turnover and high levels of employee satisfaction.”

Nink says the study's success depends on the public holding correctional institutions and all those involved responsible for their actions.

“Obviously the continuing challenge of the corrections profession will be implementing the outcome standards. But this should hopefully lead us to more effective facility operations and management. Our report focuses on the real issues of achieving specific outcomes, and it reflects an effective corrections system that taxpayers are calling for,” he says.

In addition to accountability, the study recommends including performance-based budgeting, which allocates funds based on results instead of political favoritism or arbitrary adjustments to previous budget requests.

“It ties appropriations to outcomes so that agencies spend tax dollars on the programs or activities that produce the highest level of outcomes or achieve the most ‘bang for the buck,” Nink adds.

That responsibility falls on policy-makers, since they have a public responsibility to establish clear expectations for performance, and to hold accountable those not measuring up.

While the study urges what can be seen as an entire overhaul of the corrections system, it is realistic in acknowledging that change cannot happen overnight. The institute also understands the complex machine that is corrections.

“Hundreds of thousands of offenders flow through this country's prison and jails, and correctional administrators are at the mercy of the systems that shuffle around individuals who end up in the correctional web and strapped fiscal budgets. Correctional organizations exist in a larger complex environment heavily influenced by public opinion, the media and political activity.”

But by urging more accountability and promoting a budget system tied to performance, MTCI hopes to encourage those in power to move the industry in the right direction.

The good news is forward thinking officials nationwide have been doing what the institute's study is trying to accomplish, even before it became available. Indiana Department of Corrections Commissioner, J. David Donahue, and his self-funded Prison Industries program where inmates work with local manufacturers, comes to mind. As does, Washington, DC's DOC Director Devon Brown with his push for a comprehensive inmate health care plan that extends beyond prison life. They have made the steps necessary to improve the system. Through their example, and perhaps with prodding from those who support this study, more will follow.

Click here to Read the entire MTCI report: “Measuring Success: Improving the Effectiveness of Correctional Facilities” released May 15, 2006.