In-state and
out-of-state
corrections
numbers were
being used
inappropriately to
describe an
agency’s
correctional
performance.
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.
Agencies define terms
differently, for example,
“assaults.” No one knows
what the real thing is.
Methods for arriving at
measures vary among
agencies, for example,
recidivism rates.
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.)
This exercise is hard work,
and a difficult paradigm shift.
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.

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.
“BE BLUE!” – Eligibility Criteria
1. Enter all Agency Characteristics;
2. Enter all Facility Characteristics:
3. Enter all 48 key agency
indicators re: Public Safety,
Substance Abuse, Mental Health,
Justice, Academic Education, and
Health Care;
AND
4. Enter all 56 Facility indicators.
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), Chair
Roger 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)