CJI
Criminal Justice Institute, Inc.
2 13 Cou rt Str ee t • Midd letown, CT 0 64 57 -33 93 • Ph. (86 0) 70 4-6 40 0 • Fax (8 60 ) 70 4-6 42 0 • www.cji-inc.com
Request for Funding for the Linking Culture and Performance Project
With Anticipated Support through a Cooperative Agreement with the
National Institute of Corrections
September 3, 2007
Over the past seven years, the Criminal Justice Institute, Inc. (CJI) has developed and refined
the Institutional Culture Assessment Protocol (ICAP) under a cooperative agreement (entitled
Assessment of Institutional Culture) with the National Institute of Corrections (NIC). CJI has
completed cultural assessments at several institutions across the United States, providing
experiential training opportunities for trained consultants to develop their skills and become a
part of a national cadre of trained professionals that can be drawn upon for their expertise.
Though examining culture in correctional environments is still a relatively new construct, the
topics of culture assessment and change management in prisons, jails, and community
corrections are emerging as items of great interest to the field. This interest is often exemplified
by the inquiries around the specific issues of sexual misconduct, high staff turnover, sexual
harassment and other problem areas being brought to the attention of National Institute of
Corrections, accompanied by a request for assistance in addressing these issues. According to
what both NIC and CJI has seen over the past few years, the field of corrections has become
more familiar, more interested, and more savvy about these issues of organizational culture
change management - and, more specifically, as they relate to improving organizational
performance.
As a result of this continuing demand from the field and NIC’s desire to further develop and
refine the work that CJI has done to include additional objective measures of performance, NIC
has asked CJI to submit this request in order to: (1) determine and develop the cultural
indicators associated with organizational performance, (2) develop assessment tools and
protocol building on the foundation of NIC’s previous work in this area, which includes a process
for evaluating the presence of the aforementioned performance indicators, (3) test the
instruments and protocol, (4) deliver final draft products to NIC upon conclusion of the project.1
CJI looks forward to a continued relationship with NIC as we collaboratively work on this
important project, ultimately providing the field with instruments and methodologies that may be
applied in both under-performing and satisfactory-performing correctional organizations to
improve their performance and overall operations. Over the past seven years, we have come to
1
Various activities and tasks are associated with accomplishing these four primary objectives, which are
outlined in this proposal.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 1 of 32
understand that culture is an intricate and embedded construct in every prison and jail, and we
have learned a great deal about the challenges and benefits associated with assessing and
understanding different correctional cultures. This next phase will take these lessons learned –
as well as those learned through the various culture change projects under NIC’s Correctional
Culture Initiative – and achieve two goals: (1) to develop products and processes to compliment
and support other change management work being conducted within the states and localities,
and (2) provide correctional leaders and managers within jails, prisons, and community
corrections with resources for moving towards a correctional cultures that focus on
organizational performance and long term public safety outcomes.2
Defining Culture
Culture is herein defined as a system of information composed of ideas, assumptions, values,
beliefs and norms that connect members of a group together. In the course of adapting to
problems posed by the physical and social environments, culture is reflected in the “persistent
and patterned way of thinking about the central tasks of, and human relationships within, an
organization.” As such, culture serves as a set of rules that guide prescriptively and
proscriptively the behavior of members of the organization. NIC’s formal definition of culture
adheres to these principles, as illustrated by the following language provided by NIC:
Culture is a pattern of shared assumptions that have been learned, that are
assumed to be valid, and that reflect the correct way to think and feel in response
to [a given] problem. Culture can be defined as ‘the way we do business around
here,’ and – on it’s most basic level, can be viewed as the sum of an
organizations behaviors and practices over time.
Organizations have a formal culture that is codified in their mission statements, policies and
procedures and embodied in the rules, roles, and operational routines of the institutions. New
staff members begin to be acculturated into the formal system at the academy. This process
continues as they learn their jobs, attend training programs, and read policy materials and
orders. Formally, cultural values are frequently communicated and affirmed through symbols
and ceremonies.
However, no amount of formal documentation can anticipate every contingency that arises in
the day-to-day operations of a prison. Consequently, informal cultures develop that stand
beside and juxtaposed to the formal cultural system. Staff must adapt and devise ways to
respond to the physical and social environments of the institution. Over time, informal ideas,
notions, and values come to be persistent and patterned from these adaptive practices. These
ideals are transmitted among organizational members and to new members through informal
communication and relationships. Cultural elements, such as cohesion, trust, stress, support,
and pride, are defined and embodied within the informal culture. Informally, culture is reflected
in the stories that staff members tell.
2
The proposed work relies on the foundation of background concepts and assumptions developed by NIC for the
Correctional Culture Initiative (CCI). Those concepts and assumptions are oriented around organizational culture
being a major driver of performance within an organization, specifically focusing on the role that managers and
leaders play in helping to shape and lead an organization’s culture towards achieving higher performance and optimal
operations. A summary of NIC’s Background Concepts and Assumptions can be found in Appendix 1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 2 of 32
Operational practices are accomplished within the domains of both the formal and informal
cultures that define the “texture” of institutional life and depend on the unique and interpersonal
styles that members come to use in relating to one another. When the formal and informal
cultures are aligned, they support accomplishment of the organization's mission. However,
when the two are not aligned, staff solidarity declines and organizational performance suffers.
Staff may experience anxiety and alienation. Trust may be lacking. Important information may
not be shared. Fragmentation is likely. Such disconnection may occur between management
and line staff, among functional disciplines, between labor and management or among specific
individuals or groups.
The concept organizational culture alerts us to is the fact that - within rationally designed
organizations - there may exist a variety of unplanned, organically developed and shared
designs for living, and that these may facilitate or impede the attainment of organizational goals.
In prisons, it would seem that the capacity for sub-cultural development is perhaps greater than
in other organizations of comparable size and complexity.
A successful correctional leader, thus, must frame the mission of his/her organization not only in
terms that legitimate it to external constituencies but that also secure the allegiance and
commitment of the organization's varied sub-cultural elements. Further, correctional leaders
must devise strategies that increase the degree of commonality in the taken for granted
assumptions and understandings that guide action within the organization in order to maximize
organizational performance. In doing so, leaders can actively engage their staff (and
themselves) towards creating and sustaining a culture where organizational performance meets
performance expectations and outcomes. For example, such actions could result in:

Attracting and retaining appropriate staff;

Guiding and inspiring employee creativity, decision making, and contributions;

Creating more personal connections between employees and the organization
(loyalty);

Creating a sense of community and encouraging teamwork by aligning
employees with diverse interests around shared goals;

Providing fixed points of reference and stability during periods of change; and

Ensuring that the formal mission of the organization is embodied and exemplified
in the behavior and actions of employees throughout the organization.
Ultimately, the leader must take these varied tacit assumptions and beliefs associated with the
organization’s culture into account in formulating and implementing policy changes in order to
gain buy-in and support throughout the organization.
Goals of Proposed Work
The tasks outlined in the next section (Project Methodology) take the lessons learned from CJI’s
Assessment of Institutional Culture project – as well as those learned through the various other
culture change projects under NIC’s Correctional Culture Initiative – with the intent of achieving
two goals: (1) to develop products and processes to compliment and support other change
management work being conducted within the states and localities, and (2) to provide
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 3 of 32
correctional leaders and managers within jails, prisons, and community corrections with
resources for moving towards a correctional cultures that focus on organizational performance
and long term public safety outcomes.
Project Methodology
The proposed eight tasks and related subtasks work towards the overarching goals of the
project by (1) determining and developing the cultural indicators associated with organizational
performance, (2) developing assessment tools and a protocol that builds on the foundation of
NIC’s previous work in this area, (3) testing the instruments and protocol, and (4) delivering final
draft products to NIC upon conclusion of the project. The eight specific tasks are outlined
below, and followed by a timeline for their anticipated execution.
Upon notification of the availability of funding, CJI will begin work on the tasks outlined in this
proposal (anticipated start date of September 24, 2007).
TASK 1:
Project Kick-Off.
Subtask 1.1
TASK 2:
Review and finalize proposed project plan in collaboration with
NIC.
Conduct a literature review of organizational culture articles and begin
to develop a list of cultural dimensions that may be applied to the
corrections environment.
Subtask 2.1
Identify national thought leaders and correctional practitioners
to act as an Advisory Committee (8 people) throughout the
project.
Subtask 2.2
Review current and relevant articles (both scholarly and
practitioner) related to organizational culture in the workplace
that have been reviewed and summarized under NIC's Norval
Morris Project.
Subtask 2.3
Augment (if necessary) articles summarized under NIC's
Norval Morris Project.
Subtask 2.4
Norval Morris Project staff to write summaries (if necessary) of
additional research/articles.
Subtask 2.5
Submit research articles and summaries to the Advisory
Committee.
Subtask 2.6
Committee members to begin to develop a list of cultural
dimensions that seem most appropriate based upon the
literature, thoughtful discussion, field research, and an agreed
to framework for thinking about organizational culture.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 4 of 32
TASK 3:
Review previous culture assessments conducted by CJI.
Subtask 3.1
Identify core group of experienced culture assessors along
with other researchers or practitioners with content-specific
experience to act as an Expert Culture Assessment Panel
(ECAP) and provide feedback throughout the course of the
project (10 people).
Subtask 3.2
Submit full assessment reports to the ECAP for review.
Subtask 3.4
Convene a 1.5 day meeting of the ECAP (along with NIC, CJI,
and Performance Indicators/Statistics Subject Matter Expert)
to (1) review lessons learned and (2) specify what was
accomplished during each assessment in order to help inform
NIC's Correctional Culture Initiative (CCI), including the
identification of cultural dimensions.
Subtask 3.4
Convene a 1.5 day meeting of the ECAP (along with NIC, CJI,
and Performance Indicators/Statistics Subject Matter Expert)
to (1) review lessons learned and (2) specify what was
accomplished during each assessment in order to help inform
NIC's Correctional Culture Initiative (CCI), including the
identification of cultural dimensions.
Subtask 3.5
TASK 4:
3.4.a
Determine meeting logistics (location, time, etc).
3.4.b
Communicate and coordinate with ECAP members
regarding meeting logistics and their responsibilities.
3.4.c
Develop an agenda in collaboration with NIC.
Summarize key outcomes from the meeting and finalize the
notes.
Conduct a literature review of change management articles and review
culture change work that has occurred under the Correctional Culture
Initiative (CCI).
Subtask 4.1
Review current and relevant articles (both scholarly and
practitioner) related to change management that have been
reviewed and summarized under NIC's Norval Morris Project.
Subtask 4.2
Augment (if necessary) articles summarized under NIC's
Norval Morris Project.
Subtask 4.3
Norval Morris Project staff to write summaries (if necessary) of
additional research/articles.
Subtask 4.4
Submit research articles and summaries to the Advisory
Committee.
Subtask 4.5
Convene a 2-day meeting of the Advisory Committee (along
with NIC, CJI, and Performance Indicators/Statistics Subject
Matter Expert) to (1) define, clarify, and advance the
conceptual underpinnings and practical accessibility of the
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 5 of 32
CCI, (2) discuss the key points in the organizational culture
and change management articles and (3) review and augment
the list of cultural dimensions drafted by the Advisory
Committee and reviewed/augmented by the ECAP.
Subtask 4.5
4.5.a
Determine meeting logistics (location, time, etc).
4.5.b
Communicate and coordinate with Advisory Committee
members regarding meeting logistics and their
responsibilities.
4.5.c
Develop an agenda in collaboration with NIC.
Subtask 4.6
Summarize key outcomes from the meeting and finalize the
notes.
Subtask 4.7
Convene a 1-day meeting of those experienced in
organizational culture change in correctional environments
(along with NIC, CJI, and Performance Indicators/Statistics
Subject Matter Expert) to (1) identify the critical success
factors in organizational culture change, (2) identify which
elements are associated with performance improvements and
the use of Evidence-Based Practices (EBP's), and (3)
development of criteria for measuring success.
Subtask 4.8
TASK 5:
Convene a 2-day meeting of the Advisory Committee (along
with NIC, CJI, and Performance Indicators/Statistics Subject
Matter Expert) to (1) define, clarify, and advance the
conceptual underpinnings and practical accessibility of the
CCI, (2) discuss the key points in the organizational culture
and change management articles and (3) review and augment
the list of cultural dimensions drafted by the Advisory
Committee and reviewed/augmented by the ECAP.
4.7.a
This meeting would dovetail with the Advisory
Committee meeting, with some members of the
Advisory Committee staying to engage experienced
change agents/advisors.
4.7.b
Communicate and coordinate with the Experienced
Change Agents (change agents/advisors) regarding
meeting logistics and their responsibilities.
4.7.c
Develop an agenda in collaboration with NIC.
Summarize key outcomes from the meeting and finalize the
notes.
Develop a change management approach and related tools that are
focused around aligning organizational culture to performance.
Subtask 5.1
Based on the outcomes from the three (3) meetings (the
Advisory Committee, the ECAP, and the Experienced Change
Agents) collaboratively draft a change management approach
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 6 of 32
that meet the aforementioned criteria. The collaboration would
take place between NIC, CJI, and a nationally recognized
practitioner with experience in empirically linking performance
measures to instrument indicators.
5.1.a
TASK 6:
This would be done during a day-long meeting in DC
with 2-3 representatives from CJI, 2-3 representatives
from NIC, and 1 Subject Matter Expert (nationallyrecognized
practitioner
with
experience
in
organizational
performance
indicators/statistics).
Electronic collaboration between parties to follow the
day-long meeting.
Subtask 5.2
Submit the draft approach to the Advisory Committee for
review.
Subtask 5.3
Conduct a tele- or video-conference with (1) the Advisory
Committee members, (2) select ECAP and Experienced
Change Agents, and (3) the nationally-recognized
performance measures expert to discuss and modify the draft
approach.
Subtask 5.4
Revise the draft approach based on feedback obtained during
the teleconference.
Subtask 5.5
Finalize the draft change management approach, which will
act as the framework for the development of both the culture
assessment and change tools and protocols.
Develop and test an assessment tool/protocol (or tools/protocols) in
correctional environments (jails, prisons, community corrections).
Subtask 6.1
Based on the outcomes of Task 5 (the development of a draft
change management approach), develop one or more
assessment instrument(s) for testing and analysis (suitable for
use in prisons, jails, and community corrections).
Subtask 6.2
Identify two (2) instrument alpha-test sites, drawing from
prisons, jails, and community corrections.
Subtask 6.3
Conduct brief (1-day) alpha-tests of the instrument(s) to
ensure that the instruments pick up on and identify intended
data.
Subtask 6.4
Revise instrument(s) based on the outcomes of the beta-tests.
Subtask 6.5
Identify alpha and beta protocol test sites appropriate to the
needs of the Correctional Culture Initiative (CCI), with
representation from prisons, jails, and community corrections.
Subtask 6.6
Conduct a protocol-training event for the Alpha/Beta Test
Assessors.
6.6.a
Determine training logistics (location, time, etc).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 7 of 32
Subtask 6.7
Subtask 6.8
TASK 7:
TASK 8:
6.6.b
Communicate and coordinate with Alpha/Beta Protocol
Test Assessor Trainees regarding meeting logistics
and their responsibilities.
6.6.c
Develop an agenda
collaboration with NIC.
and
training
materials
in
Conduct BETWEEN six (6) and eight (8) alpha and beta tests
of the instrument(s) and protocol (3-4 short 2-day alpha tests;
3-4 longer 3-day beta tests). These alpha and beta protocol
tests would be conducted with the purpose of identifying
cultural dimensions related to (1) success in meeting
performance objectives, (2) advancement of outcomes related
to risk reduction, and (3) identifying other items of significance
(e.g., readiness for change, leadership effectiveness, etc).
6.7.a
General logistics planning for on-site work (e.g.,
teleconferences with leadership, requesting materials,
preparing briefing books for team, coordination of travel
and lodging, etc).
6.7.b
Conduct informal closeout discussions with facility
leadership at the conclusion of the protocol test.
Revise assessment tool(s) and protocol based on the
outcomes of the alpha and beta tests.
Develop final products to be used by NIC in future Correctional Culture
Initiative (CCI) endeavors.
Subtask 7.1
Prepare a paper for distribution that conveys the purpose and
opportunities associated with assessing and managing culture
and change.
Subtask 7.2
Finalize the assessment tool(s).
Subtask 7.3
Finalize the assessment protocol.
Subtask 7.4
Finalize the draft change management process.
Project Milestones.
Subtask 8.1
Submit organizational culture articles and summaries to
Advisory Committee/NIC.
Subtask 8.2
Submit reports from each
assessments to ECAP/NIC.
Subtask 8.3
Convene a 1.5-day meeting of the Expert Culture Assessment
Panel (ECAP) to review previous assessment work.
Subtask 8.4
Submit culture change management articles and summaries to
Advisory Committee/NIC.
of
CJI's
previous
culture
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 8 of 32
Subtask 8.5
Convene a 2-day meeting of the Advisory Committee (CCI,
culture/change management articles, cultural dimensions).
Subtask 8.6
Convene a 1-day meeting of the Experienced Change Agents
(ECA) to define culture change lessons learned.
Subtask 8.7
Conduct alpha-tests of the instrument(s).
Subtask 8.8
Conduct a training event for the protocol alpha/beta team.
Subtask 8.9
Conduct alpha and beta test(s) of the instrument(s) and
protocol.
Subtask 8.10 Submit final assessment tool(s) to NIC.
Subtask 8.11 Submit final assessment protocol to NIC.
Subtask 8.12 Submit final change management process to NIC.
Subtask 8.13 Submit summary paper conveying purpose/opportunities of
Correctional Culture Initiative to NIC.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 9 of 32
INSERT TIMELINE Page 1 HERE
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 10 of 32
INSERT TIMELINE Page 2 HERE
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 11 of 32
INSERT TIMELINE Page 3 HERE
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 12 of 32
INSERT TIMELINE Page 4 HERE
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 13 of 32
Project Staff
Four CJI staff will be assigned to this initiative, and will dedicate a portion of their time to fulfilling
the project’s goals and objectives. They are:

Shaina Vanek, Project Director

George Camp, Project Administrator

David Marcial, Project Associate

Pat Cluney, Project Assistant
Each of their respective roles is described in detail below.
Project Director Shaina Vanek (CJI Senior Project Manager) will be the primary
liaison to NIC and will (1) direct the overall effort, (2) collaboratively develop the
workplan and methodology with NIC, and (3) coordinate the deliverable products
associated with this initiative. She will be responsible for project communications
with NIC, the Performance Indicators/Statistics Subject Matter Expert, the
Advisory Committee members, the Expert Culture Assessment Panel members,
and the Experienced Change Agents involved with this initiative. Ms. Vanek will
be involved in all of the on-site work (including meetings / trainings) and
instrument/protocol testing throughout the course of this project. She will
coordinate the activities and efforts under this project with other culture initiative
projects, ensuring that the project milestones and deliverables are met.
Project Administrator George Camp (CJI Principal) will supervise the overall
effort, overseeing the project work plan and methodology developed
collaboratively between NIC and CJI. He will be involved – in various capacities
– with both the on-site and off-site work and meetings/trainings. Lastly, he will be
contributing to all of the deliverables associated with this project.
Project Associate David Marcial (CJI Senior Associate) will work in conjunction
with Ms. Vanek, ensuring that project deliverables and milestones associated
with this initiative are met. As one of CJI’s most experienced culture assessors
with a strong operational background after 30 years in the field, he will bring both
his assessment expertise and operational/custody experience to the project and
be involved in the various project meetings, trainings, and instrument/protocol
testing.
Project Assistant Pat Cluney (CJI Office Manager) will serve in a variety of
administrative capacities throughout the course of this project, including – but not
limited to the following: project communications via both email and telephone,
travel arrangements and logistics, photocopying and material preparation, and
review/editing of project deliverables.
Brief biographical summaries for proposed CJI team members (Shaina Vanek, George Camp,
and David Marcial) are included in Appendix 2 of our submission.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 14 of 32
Budget Narrative
The Criminal Justice Institute, Inc. (CJI) requests a sum of $347,167 to conduct three (3) distinct
components of the Linking Culture with Performance project via a cooperative agreement with
the National Institute of Corrections (NIC). The funding will enable CJI to (1) determine and
develop the cultural indicators associated with organizational performance, (2) develop
assessment tools and protocol building on the foundation of NIC’s previous work in this area,
which would include a process for evaluating the presence of the aforementioned performance
indicators, (3) test the instruments and protocol, (4) deliver final draft products to NIC upon
conclusion of the project. Following is a detailed description of costs for the tasks requested by
NIC, for a total budget of $347,167. The budget is broken down by expense category and
project component. This narrative is followed by a detailed budget that provides composite
expenses for the project.
A. Personnel
The project will be managed collaboratively between NIC and CJI. With respect to the CJI
employees who are assigned to the project, their time is broken down according to
estimated percentage of full-time effort over the next sixteen (16) months (September 24,
2007 through January 23, 2009).
CJI EMPLOYEE
George Camp
Pat Cluney
David Marcial
Shaina Vanek
COSTS
TOTAL
10.0%
10.0%
25.0%
45.0%
$92,267
B. Fringe Benefits
Fringe benefits are charged on actual salaries only, at the following rates:
Employer Social Security/Medicare
Health Insurance
Vacation
Holiday
Sick Leave
Workers Compensation
Unemployment Insurance
7.7%
15.0%
4.5%
4.1%
2.6%
2.0%
0.8%
TOTAL
36.7%
Total Fringe Costs:
$33,816
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 15 of 32
C. Travel Expenses
Expert Culture Assessment Panel Meeting
A core group of experienced culture assessors along with other researchers or practitioners
with content-specific experience will meet for 1.5 days to (1) review lessons learned and (2)
specify what was accomplished during each assessment in order to help inform NIC’s
Correctional Culture Initiative (CCI), including the identification of cultural dimensions.
Travel, lodging, and per diem expenses for three (3) CJI staff members are estimated at
$1,300/each. Total: $3,900.
Joint Advisory Committee/Change Agents Meeting
In order to reduce expenses, two meetings will be held back-to-back between a meeting of
the project’s Advisory Committee and the small group of Experienced Culture Change
Agents. The first group (Advisory Committee) will meet for 2.0 days to (1) define, clarify,
and advance the conceptual underpinnings and practical accessibility of the CCI, (2) discuss
the key points in the organizational culture and change management articles, and (3) review
and augment the list of cultural dimensions drafted by the Advisory Committee and
reviewed/augmented by the ECAP. The second group (ECA) will meet directly thereafter at
the same site for 1.0 day to (1) identify the critical success factors in organizational culture
change, (2) identify which elements are associated with performance improvements and the
use of Evidence-Based Practices (EBPs), and (3) development of criteria for measuring
success. Travel, lodging, and per diem expenses for three (3) CJI staff members are
estimated at $1,600/each. Total: $4,800.
Change Management Approach Design Meeting
Based on the outcomes from the three meetings (the Advisory Committee, the Expert
Culture Assessment Panel, and the Experienced Change Agent meetings) CJI and NIC
would participate in a 1.0 day meeting at NIC to collaboratively draft a change management
approach that would meet the criteria of aligning organizational culture to performance.
Travel, lodging, and per diem expenses for two (2) CJI staff members are estimated at
$950/each. Total: $1,900.
Assessment Protocol Training
A core group of experienced culture assessors will meet for 3.0 days to undergo continuing
education in (1) new/revised instrumentation, (2) modified culture assessment protocol, and
(3) data collection methodologies. Travel, lodging, and per diem expenses for three (3) CJI
staffs member are estimated at $1,500/each. Total: $4,500.
Instrument Alpha Test Site Visits
Two (2) one-day site visits will be conducted to complete alpha tests of the assessment
instrument(s), ensuring that the instrument(s) pick up on the intended variables and
measure them appropriately. These visits will be conducted by one (1) CJI staff member
and one (1) NIC staff member, working in collaboration with one another. Travel, lodging,
and per diem expenses for one (1) CJI staff member are estimated at $1,370/site visit.
Total: $2,740.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 16 of 32
Protocol Alpha Test Site Visits
Between three (3) and four (4) two-day site visits (depending on project progression and
resources required) will be conducted to complete alpha tests of the assessment protocol,
ensuring that the data collection methodologies (observations, interviews, focus groups,
instrumentation) pick up on the intended variables and measure them appropriately. These
visits will be conducted by two (2) CJI staff members and one (1) NIC staff member, working
in collaboration with one another. Travel, lodging, and per diem expenses for two (2) CJI
staff members are estimated at $1,330/each, for $2,660/site visit. Total: $10,640.
Protocol Beta Test Site Visits
Between three (3) and four (4) three-day site visits (depending on project progression and
resources required) will be conducted to complete beta tests of the assessment protocol
post revisions from the alpha test phase (further ensuring that the data collection
methodologies – observations, interviews, focus groups, instrumentation – pick up on the
intended variables and measure them appropriately). These visits will be conducted by two
(2) CJI staff members, one (1) trained consultant assessor, and one (1) NIC staff member,
working in collaboration with one another. Travel, lodging, and per diem expenses for two
(2) CJI staff members are estimated at $1,490/each, for $2,980/site visit. Total: $11,920.
D. Equipment
No equipment is requested for this project. Total: $0
E. Supplies
General office supplies and other consumables are estimated for the project at $125 per
month for 16 months. Total: $2,000.
F. Contractual
Performance Indicators/Statistics Subject Matter Expert
A nationally known researcher with experience in (1) statistical analyses and (2) identifying/
linking performance indicators to organizational performance will be involved throughout the
duration of the project as a partner with both NIC and CJI. This person will attend all project
group meetings (the Joint Advisory Committee/Expert Culture Assessment Panel meeting,
and the Experienced Change Agent meeting), as well as the Change Model Development
meeting at NIC. Consultant travel expenses for these meetings are outlined in the
appropriately titled meeting sub-sections that follow, however professional fees are
calculated at $750 per day (higher than the ‘typical’ NIC rate of $350/day due to contentspecific and technical expertise) for a total of $22,500. Total: $22,500.
Joint Panel/Committee Facilitator
In order to maximize the substantive outcomes from the joint meeting of the Advisory
Committee and the Experienced Change Agents, an experienced facilitator will lead the
discussions and group work throughout the meeting. Consultant travel expenses for this
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 17 of 32
joint meeting are outlined in the appropriately titled meeting sub-section below, however
professional fees are calculated at $1,000 per day for a total of $7,000. Total: $7,000.
Expert Culture Assessment Panel Meeting
Consultant travel expenses will support nine (9) experienced culture assessors along with
other researchers or practitioners with content-specific experience to participate in the 1.5day meeting to (1) review lessons learned and (2) specify what was accomplished during
each assessment in order to help inform NIC’s Correctional Culture Initiative (CCI), including
the identification of cultural dimensions ($1,100/consultant = $9,900). These expenses
include air and ground transportation and per diem for lodging and meals. Professional fees
are also calculated at $350 per day for nine (9) consultants (on-site Meeting - 1.5 days/each,
preparation - 3.5 days/each, travel - 1.0 days/each, post meeting consultation - 2.5
days/each), resulting in a total of $26,775.
Additional travel expenses (air/ground transportation and per diem for lodging and meals) is
calculated at $1,100/consultant for the Performance Indicators/Statistics Subject Matter
Expert to participate in the meeting as well. This person’s professional fees are documented
in this section under the “Performance Indicators/Statistics Subject Matter Expert” heading.
Total: $37,775.
Joint Advisory Committee/Change Agents Meeting
In order to reduce expenses, two meetings will be held back-to-back between a meeting of
the project’s Advisory Committee and the small group of Experienced Culture Change
Agents.
Consultant travel expenses will support eight (8) consultants to participate in the two-day
Advisory Committee meeting to (1) define, clarify, and advance the conceptual
underpinnings and practical accessibility of the CCI, (2) discuss the key points in the
organizational culture and change management articles, and (3) review and augment the list
of cultural dimensions drafted by the Advisory Committee and reviewed/augmented by the
ECAP ($1,300/consultant = $10,400). These expenses include air and ground transportation
and per diem for lodging and meals. Professional fees are also calculated at $350 per day
eight (8) consultants (on-site meeting - 2.0 days/each, preparation - 2.0 days/each, travel 1.0 days/each, post meeting consultation - 5.0 days/each), resulting in a total of $28,000.
Additional travel expenses (air/ground transportation and per diem for lodging and meals)
are calculated at $1,300/consultant for two (2) consultants – the Performance Indicators/
Statistics Subject Matter Expert and the Joint Panel/Committee Facilitator – to participate in
the meeting as well ($2,600). Each of these individual’s professional fees are documented in
this section under the “Performance Indicators/Statistics Subject Matter Expert” and “Joint
Panel/Committee Facilitator” headings, respectively.
Advisory Committee Subtotal = $41,000
Consultant travel expenses will support six (6) consultants to participate in the following oneday Experienced Change Agents (ECA) meeting to identify the critical success factors in
organizational culture change, (2) identify which elements are associated with performance
improvements and the use of Evidence-Based Practices (EBP’s), and (3) development of
criteria for measuring success ($1,100/consultant = $6,600). These expenses include air
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 18 of 32
and ground transportation and per diem for lodging and meals. Professional fees are also
calculated at $350 per day six (6) consultants (on-site Meeting - 1.0 day/each, preparation 1.0 day/each, travel - 1.0 day/each, post meeting consultation - 0.5 days/each), resulting in
a total of $7,350.
Additional travel expenses (per diem for lodging and meals only) are calculated at $200/day
per consultant for two (2) consultants – the Performance Indicators/Statistics Subject Matter
Expert and the Joint Panel/Committee Facilitator – to participate in the meeting as well
($400). No transportation expenses are required for either of these two (2) individuals as
both are already on site due to the preceding Advisory Committee meeting. Each of these
individual’s professional fees are documented in this section under the “Performance
Indicators/Statistics Subject Matter Expert” and “Joint Panel/Committee Facilitator”
headings, respectively.
Experienced Change Agents Subtotal = $14,350
Joint Meeting Total: $55,350
Change Management Approach Design Meeting
Consultant travel expenses will support the attendance of the one (1) Performance
Indicators/Statistics Subject Matter Expert in the one-day Change Management Approach
Design meeting at NIC to collaboratively draft a change management approach that would
meet the criteria of aligning organizational culture to performance ($1,200). These expenses
include air and ground transportation and per diem for lodging and meals. This person’s
professional fees associated with this activity are documented in this section under the
“Performance Indicators/Statistics Subject Matter Expert.” Total: $1,200.
Assessment Protocol Training
Consultant travel expenses will support four (4) consultant assessor trainees to participate in
a training event for the assessment protocol and methodologies ($1,500/consultant =
$6,000). These expenses include air and ground transportation and per diem for lodging
and meals. Professional fees are also calculated at $350 per day for a total of $6,300.
Total: $12,300.
Protocol Beta Test Site Visits
Consultant travel expenses will support one (1) consultant assessor team member to
participate in between three (3) and four (4) three-day site visits (depending on project
progression and resources required) focused on beta testing the assessment protocol
($1,290/beta test = $5,160). These expenses include air and ground transportation and per
diem for lodging and meals. Professional fees are also calculated at $350 per day for a total
of $7,000. Total: $12,160.
Part-Time Office Assistant
Part-time Office Assistant funds will support general clerical services related to the project,
estimated at $375 per month for 16 months. Total: $6,000.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 19 of 32
G. Construction
No construction expenses are requested for this project. Total: $0
H. Other
Expenses for office and work support space and materials are estimated, below, on an
average monthly basis. CJI does not charge an administrative rate based upon central
support, nor does it have an approved federal indirect rate.

Printing/Duplicating Materials, and Reports - includes duplicating on-site and
off-site and related document finishing. Estimated at $175 per month for 16
months ($2,800).

Mailings - including postage and courier (e.g., FedEx) expenses. Estimated
at $175 per month for 16 months ($2,800).

Telephone (including facsimile and internet service) - includes long distance
charges. Estimated at $175 per month for 16 months ($2,800).

Middletown (Connecticut) office rental - including utilities and services.
Estimated at $500 per month for 16 months ($8,000).

Meeting room charges – for 3 meetings (Advisory Committee, ECAP, ECA)
and 1 protocol/instrument training event. Costs are estimated at $1,000 per
day for 8 days ($8,000), which includes funds for audio-visual needs ($350),
coffee/tea breaks ($300), as well as the space itself ($350). Total ($8,000).
As noted earlier in this section of our submission, a detailed budget follows on the next
six pages.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 20 of 32
Insert budget detail – Page 1
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 21 of 32
Insert budget detail – Page 2
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 22 of 32
Insert budget detail – Page 3
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 23 of 32
Insert budget detail – Page 4
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 24 of 32
Insert budget detail – Page 5
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 25 of 32
Insert budget detail – Page 6
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 26 of 32
APPENDIX 1:
NIC’S BACKGROUND CONCEPTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
1.
NIC’s definition of culture is as follows: “A pattern of shared assumptions that have been
learned, that are assumed to be valid, and that reflect the correct way to think and feel in
response to the problem.”3 Culture can also be defined as “the way we do business
around here” and, at its most basic level, can be viewed as the sum of an organization’s
behaviors and practices overtime.
2.
Assistance with correctional culture means more than helping leaders and managers weed
out individual, group, and operational malfunctions. Without effective leadership at the top,
existing cultures will continue to encourage well meaning people to behave in ways that
are frequently destructive and undermine organizations’ success.4 Addressing this
phenomenon requires an approach that looks beyond the immediate or most visible
problems towards underlying causes and deliberate and strategic change.
3.
NIC views organizational culture as a major driver of performance. It believes – as the
recent literature suggests – that an important and underutilized link exists between culture
– how work gets done – and performance – what gets done. “Shifting the mindset of
individuals to do something is never because of [changing] systems, strategy or structure.
It is always about changing the behavior of individuals.”5
4.
Based on experience working with the field and conversations with practitioners and
experts, NIC believes that leaders and managers of correctional organizations need
assistance aligning their organizational cultures with appropriate and explicit values and
outcomes.6
5.
For a correctional organization to be successful, there needs to be a successful integration
of culture and performance. A strong culture alone is not the answer. Neither is changing
or improving a culture when there is not a larger context and desired end state for this
work. How we do corrections is not only defined by operational activities or interpersonal
behaviors but by the results that are achieved and the promises delivered.
6.
Unlike default or imbalanced cultures that emerge accidentally or spontaneously – as
many organizational cultures do – value-based and performance-driven cultures are
actively led and managed towards performance expectations and outcomes. Effects of
actively leading and managing an organizational culture include:
3
4
5
6

Attracting and retaining appropriate staff.

Guiding and inspiring employee decision making and contributions.
Edgar Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 1992.
John Kotter and James Heskett, Corporate Culture and High Performance, 1992.
John Kotter and James Heskett, Corporate Culture and Performance, 1992.
Jeff Rosenthal and Mary Ann Masarech, High Performance Cultures: How Values Can Drive Business Results,
2003.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 27 of 32

Providing fixed points of reference and stability during periods of great
change or crisis.

Creating more personal connections between employees and the
organization.

Creating a sense of community and encourage teamwork by aligning
employees with diverse interests around shared goals.

Exporting what the organization stands for so that customers and
other outsiders can sense and describe what the organization is
about.
7.
NIC’s culture initiative needs to help leaders and managers build and enhance cultures –
including leadership cultures - that drive the advancement and achievement of long term
public safety goals including those associated with offender risk and recidivism reduction,
offender accountability, and system affordability and value for the community.
8.
An important step in NIC’s work with correctional organizations is to help them identify,
appreciate, and encourage cultural characteristics or dimensions that are most associated
with superior performance within correctional organizations.
9.
An assessment instrument(s) and process(es) can help organizations understand
opportunities for improving their organizational culture. Such an instrument and process
needs to: 1) accurately describe an organization’s current culture including operating
behaviors (the as-is culture), and 2) show how the organization “scores” in comparison
with cultures associated with superior performance (the “to be” or aspired culture). This “as
is” profile combined with a picture of the gap between “as is” and aspired culture can help
organizations formulate a change strategy based on the current culture and performance
but directed toward a strategic, preferred state of culture and performance.
10.
In order to provide leaders and managers with accurate information as to those cultural
dimensions associated with superior performance, NIC will need to identify and assess
those correctional organizations that meet the definition of superior performers and
compare the resulting assessments with those of organizations that are not superior.
11.
This initiative must provide practical and accessible ideas, tools, and materials that make
sense, that help address real problems, and that are based on a strong conceptual
foundation.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 28 of 32
APPENDIX 2:
PROPOSED CJI TEAM MEMBER BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARIES
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 29 of 32
George M. Camp
George M. Camp, a principal of the Criminal Justice Institute, has over 40 years experience in
correctional management and consulting. He served the public sector from 1962 to 1977 in a
variety of positions that included Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections, First
Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, Assistant
Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction, Associate Warden of the Federal
Correctional Institution at Lompoc, CA and the U.S. Penitentiary at Marion, IL, and Program
Analyst in the Central Office of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Mr. Camp has conducted and directed various master planning projects, operational audits,
needs assessments, management studies, and strategic planning efforts throughout the
country. Among others, his work included some done for the Philadelphia Prison System,
where an operational audit of all its facilities was conducted, using Pennsylvania Jail Standards,
court agreed to standards, and ACA standards as benchmarks against which assessments
were made. Staffing analyses of every aspect of each facility were also completed, along with
recommendations and cost implications for implementing those recommendations. Similar work
was completed for a number of other jurisdictions, including Arizona, Connecticut, Florida,
Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, New York, Rhode Island, Utah, and Washington (state).
Mr. Camp assisted the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction in formulating the
“Back to Basics” or “B2B” approach to correctional management.
Mr. Camp has completed a variety of projects funded by and published by the National Institute
of Corrections and the National Institute of Justice including a manual on Correctional
Contracting: A Guide to Successful Experiences, and a report on Private Sector Involvement in
Prison Services and Operations. Additional studies he worked on include the Management of
Crowded Prisons; Prison Employees: Corrections Most Valuable Resource; and Resolution of
Prison Riots. He is also the author of The Real Cost of Corrections. He is co-author of the
Corrections Yearbook, an annual publication of the Criminal Justice Institute that was produced
from 1978 - 2002, which presented national data on privately operated prisons and jails. He has
worked extensively in and studied privatization, contracting, strategic planning, and facilitating
and gaining consensus with correctional work groups.
Mr. Camp also has considerable experience in organizational culture assessment, having
participated and overseen organizational culture assessments in jails and prisons across the
country as a part of CJI’s Assessment of Institutional Culture project, supported by the National
Institute of Corrections (NIC). Mr. Camp has participated in or led six organizational culture
assessments in jails and prisons across the country, and provided input and expertise in
nineteen additional assessments (all of which utilize a standardized process and
instrumentation designed specifically to assess an organization’s culture, with qualitative and
quantitative results presented in detail). He has also worked with institutional staff and
leadership to develop and support successful organizational change strategies.
Mr. Camp holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Middlebury College, a Master of Arts degree in
Criminology and Corrections from Florida State University, and a Doctorate in Sociology from
Yale University.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 30 of 32
David Marcial
David Marcial is currently a Senior Associate of the Criminal Justice Institute, Inc. (CJI) of
Middletown, Connecticut, and has also worked as an independent criminal justice consultant.
As a Senior Associate at CJI, Mr. Marcial is involved with a variety of collaborative initiatives
between the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) and the Bureau of justice
Assistance (BJA). One of the projects that he is overseeing involves developing a national
clearinghouse of grant and policy-related information in order to provide a sole source of
information for correctional jurisdictions. Another project that he is contributing to is the
implementation of national performance standards for the field of corrections, enabling all states
and major metropolitan agencies to compare and contrast correctional performance data
utilizing the same definitions, variables, and criteria.
In his role as a national consultant, Mr. Marcial has worked with the National Institute of
Corrections as a subject matter expert in the areas of operational practices and genderresponsive programming in women’s prisons, as well as in policy development and staff
training. He has been a technical assistance provider for national Prisoner Rape and
Elimination Act (PREA)-related initiatives, and has served as a security and policy consultant for
juvenile justice services at the Connecticut Juvenile Training School.
Mr. Marcial has an extensive background in correctional operations and management, having
worked in a variety of positions for the Connecticut Department of Correction over his twenty-six
year career. He retired from the department in 2003, after having served as a warden for
eleven years and implementing and augmenting facility programs related to relapse prevention,
sex offenders, victim empathy, and parenting/fatherhood.
Beginning his career in 1974, Mr. Marcial worked with both male and female pre-trial detainees
with mental health issues, pending competency evaluations. He later worked for the Connecticut
Department of Correction, rising up through the custody ranks, holding the positions of
Correctional Officer, Lieutenant, Captain, and Major, as well as prominent roles with
investigations (internal affairs) and developing gang intervention initiatives. He also served as a
Regional Director for the state, overseeing the operation of six correctional facilities and
supervising the expansion of one of the state’s female facilities. He also oversaw the opening
and activation of two correctional institutions: a women’s facility and a large male pretrial facility.
Mr. Marcial has trained correctional staff and administrators on issues of sexual misconduct.
Also, during his time as department investigator and as Chief of Security at the state’s women’s
prison – coupled with his years as a warden - Mr. Marcial has had a great deal of experience
investigating and resolving instances and allegations of sexual misconduct.
Mr. Marcial has considerable experience in organizational culture assessment, having
participated in seven organizational culture assessments in jails and prisons across the country
and become one of CJI’s most experienced assessors. He has been trained in the application
of the Institutional Culture Assessment Protocol (ICAP) and has successfully applied it in a
variety of correctional settings. He has also worked with institutional staff and leadership to
develop and support successful organizational change strategies.
Mr. Marcial holds an Associate of Science degree in Criminal Justice and a Bachelor of Science
degree in Human Services, and is also bi-lingual and bi-literate.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 31 of 32
Shaina Vanek
Shaina Vanek is a Senior Project Manager with the Criminal Justice Institute, Inc. Ms. Vanek is
working on a number of high-profile national projects for both the Bureau of Justice Assistance
(BJA), the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT), and the National Institute of
Corrections (NIC). For BJA, she is assisting in the development of a national clearinghouse of
grant and policy-related information, designed to provide a sole source of information for
correctional jurisdictions and a forum for the exchange of ideas and experiences.
For the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT), Ms. Vanek worked on the project team
charged with developing a Detention Monitoring Instrument to be used by the U.S. Marshals
Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to monitor contracted non-federal detention
facilities holding their prisoners. The monitoring instrument incorporates the PerformanceBased Detention Standards and measures performance in nine key functional areas including:
Administration and Management; Health Care; Security and Control; Food Service;
Staff/Detainee Communication; Safety and Sanitation; Services and Programs; Workforce
Integrity; and Detainee Discrimination. A “Users Guide” was also developed to train contract
monitors on the use of the monitoring instrument. The tools were field-tested and several
facilities throughout the country with only a few modifications being required.
For NIC, Ms. Vanek oversees cooperative agreements for both the Assessment of Institutional
Culture project and the related Leading and Sustaining Change project. These projects are on
the forefront of cutting-edge research in organizational development in the field of corrections,
intended to (1) assist correctional facilities – both prisons and jails – in identifying the underlying
causes for problems that seem resistant to traditional means of intervention (e.g., training,
policies, etc.) and (2) providing tools to assist institutions in developing long-term strategies for
culture change. She is a seasoned assessor, having engaged in all types of fieldwork and lead
or participated in nineteen assessments of institutional culture across the country. Ms. Vanek
has lead focus group meetings, conducting numerous one-on-one interviews with both
institutional staff and inmates, and engaged in post-visit data analysis and report-writing.
Ms. Vanek is responsible not only for on-site assessment work and grant administration, but
also supervises the work of six national consultants as they engage in culture change activities
under the Leading and Sustaining Change project. The work that Ms. Vanek has done in
relation to both of these projects has had significant contributions to the field of corrections,
providing institutional leaders and staff with tools necessary to implement organizational
change.
In addition to her work within institutions, Ms. Vanek has also coordinated and delivered training
sessions at two national training events on the Assessment of Institutional Culture. Operating
under NIC Training Academy guidelines, thirty-two participants were trained in the techniques
and philosophy associated with assessing institutional culture in correctional environments.
Ms. Vanek earned her Bachelor of Arts in the fields of sociology and psychology from the
University of Vermont, and her Master of Science degree in Criminal Justice Counseling from
Central Connecticut State University. Ms. Vanek periodically serves as a Visiting Guest Lecturer
in the psychology department at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Linking Culture and Performance – Project Plan
Page 32 of 32