Gpp.pspp final

MAY 2008

10 Ten Steps Corrections Directors
Can Take to Strengthen Performance

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As part of its assessment
of overall state government
performance, the Pew
Center on the States
conducted hundreds of hours of interviews with a
wide cross section of officials from 45 state
corrections departments in an effort to spotlight
the most effective management practices.

Across the country, innovative policy makers and
corrections managers are joining forces to improve
correctional systems’ performance, transparency Better Information Leads to Better Outcomes
and accountability. We offer the following 2. Develop performance measures that matter.
management practices as a menu of the strategies A number of states have begun implementing
currently under way that can be employed to the uniform performance measures
strengthen prison operations and, ultimately, to cut developed by the Association of State
crime and tame spiraling prison costs. Correctional Administrators, which has
standardized the definitions of key
Get the Agency Mission Right performance measures. More innovative
1. Reevaluate agency mission to include focus states are now using outcome measures that
on reducing recidivism. Leading states have judge the effect of policies on inmates in
completely reevaluated the missions of their order to inform funding decisions.
corrections departments to include
recidivism reduction alongside other crucial 3. Make better use of technology systems.
objectives such as keeping dangerous Cutting-edge states are using modern Web-
offenders off the streets and maintaining safe based applications that feature readily
and secure institutions. accessible key “dashboard” indicators to track

In this 5: Get the Agency 6: Better Information 8: Corrections 9: Re-think the 13: Focus People
brief: Mission Right Leads to Better Infrastructure Money Equation on Performance
Outcomes Matters

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, CONTINUED

Focus People on Performance
performance and adjust management
practices. As a lower-cost stopgap measure, 7. Hold facility managers accountable.
other states have boosted information access The leading correctional systems are
by grafting a Web-based interface onto their reviewing detailed data at the facility level to
mainframe servers. monitor trends and hold key managers
accountable for progress toward targeted
Corrections Infrastructure Matters goals. Some states are going so far as to
4. Build smarter. Some states are targeting new provide financial incentives for facility
construction for certain populations that need performance, based in some cases on facility-
more intensive services, whether by building a level inmate recidivism rates.
new stand-alone facility or an addition to an
existing institution. Adding to existing 8. Pay for security staff on the front end.
facilities can often be more cost-effective than Leading states are addressing correctional
building expensive new facilities—and can officers’ compensation inequities and
help achieve other goals as well. developing career path strategies that can
save money in the long run.
Re-think the Money Equation

5. Seek alternative forms of funding. Some 9. Find nonfinancial ways to improve employee
states are forgoing new prison construction morale. Cash-strapped states are carefully
by allocating resources to substance abuse examining and following up on employee
programs, mental health treatment and morale and quality of life issues to boost
community-based services that ultimately pay performance and reduce turnover. Some
for themselves in cost-avoidance. Creative states have addressed matters ranging from
collaborations with other state agencies and the immediate work environment to housing
other jurisdictions also are streamlining and child care.
services and saving scarce dollars.
10. Develop new leaders. Even in states
6. Develop partners to cut down on medical costs. with interagency leadership academies,
State corrections systems are using a variety of it’s important that corrections agencies
new partnerships—including contracting with develop their own programs to tackle
public university hospitals and other entities—to the unique challenges of managing and
provide cost-effective services, quality control motivating employees in the high-stress
oversight and group purchasing arrangements. prison environment. I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This issue brief was reported and written by Michael Blanding, who served as a consulting editor to the Government Performance Project
focusing on the functioning of state departments of corrections as part of the Project’s Grading the States 2008 report card on state
management. Jake Horowitz, senior associate with the Public Safety Performance Project, was an integral member of the issue brief review
team. The project’s creative direction and communications efforts were guided by Pew Center on the States’ (PCS) Carla Uriona and Janet
Lane, and Jessica Riordan of Pew’s Communications office. We would like to thank 202design for their design and production assistance, and
PCS associate Melissa Maynard for her copy editing skills.

2 Ten Steps Corrections Directors Can Take to Strengthen Performance

FOREWORD

These are challenging times for state departments of corrections. Truth-in-sentencing initiatives, tougher
laws for violent offenders and increased rates of incarceration for drug crimes and female lawbreakers have
sent prison populations soaring. The number of prisoners nationwide has nearly tripled over the past two
decades—from 585,000 to nearly 1.6 million—and many states are still facing projections of double-digit
percentage growth rates well into the future. (See Figure 1 on page 7.) North Carolina is planning for an
additional 1,000 prisoners a year. Pennsylvania is projecting 1,500, Arizona is expecting 2,000 and Florida is
looking at an eye-popping 3,000 extra prisoners or more annually. Overall, corrections costs have grown
even faster, spiking 315 percent in nominal dollars since 1987. (See Figure 2 on page 12.)

Many states have been hard-pressed to keep up with those increases. Legislatures have been right to
complain that budgets for corrections have been soaring; at the same time, corrections agency
directors often have even less money per prisoner to manage their growing populations. With state
budgets stretched especially thin in today’s volatile economic climate, the prospect of spending
millions for new prisons—or, as some see it, money for programs to educate and rehabilitate “bad
guys”—can be a tough sell. As a result, many systems are pushed to the bursting point, with institutions
at 125 or 150 percent of capacity—Alabama is the highest at 200 percent—and less money than ever
for corrections officers, who arguably have one of the toughest jobs in the country.

Fortunately, the stories from the cellblock aren’t all gloom and doom. In fact, precisely because of these
challenges, corrections directors have a rare opportunity to bring about substantial change. Prison budgets
have reached a point where they can’t be ignored. Many governors—and an increasing number of state
legislators—are beginning to take a leadership role in addressing the problem. The tired old debate about
coddling prisoners with programs versus locking them up and throwing away the key is finally taking a
backseat. In its place are discussions of more pragmatic approaches for dealing with the problem
underlying behind both overcrowding and soaring budgets: the increase in the number of prisoners.

By investing in forward-looking programming, training and motivating effective staff, and seeking out
community and private partners for help, many states are starting to make a determined effort at cutting
recidivism. The overall size of the prison population is more under the control of the legislature, judges
and parole boards—those who make sentencing and release laws and decisions—than those who
manage prisons. But by reducing the chances that a prisoner will commit another crime after release,
corrections agencies are not only improving public safety, they are also helping drive down their prison
populations and, with them, the bill that taxpayers must pay for prison construction and operation.

In the past eight months, as part of its assessment of overall state government performance, the Pew Center
on the States conducted hundreds of hours of interviews with a wide cross section of officials from 45 state
corrections departments in an effort to spotlight the most effective management practices. What we found is
that success is not simply a product of money or other resources. Rather, it depends upon adoption of

Ten Steps Corrections Directors Can Take to Strengthen Performance 3

FOREWORD, CONTINUED

innovative solutions by corrections management, transparency and accountability to determine what works,
and a willingness to transcend finger-pointing politics to invest in those policies and practices.

In all of these areas, corrections department directors are uniquely positioned to have a real impact through
management of the people, money, information and infrastructure that comprise their agencies. They may
also provide invaluable feedback to their governors and legislators to determine the states’ broader law-
and-order policies. Through our interviews and analysis of department documents, we identified 10 practical
steps that creative corrections executives are taking to improve their effectiveness. If emulated by their
colleagues, these practices could go a long way toward cutting crime and the spiraling cost of prisons.

This report focuses on state departments of corrections, agencies that play an extremely important role in
providing public safety. Ten Steps Corrections Directors Can Take to Strengthen Performance is the result
of a collaboration between two initiatives of the Pew Center on the States. In 2008, as part of its 50-state
report card on state government, Grading the States, the Government Performance Project partnered with
the Public Safety Performance Project to conduct an in-depth examination of the management systems
undergirding corrections departments. The result is a compelling picture of how leading states are
redefining the missions of their correctional systems and using performance information to make smarter
policy, budget, human resource and facilities decisions. This report also suggests ways that governors and
legislatures can be better stewards of public safety, supporting their corrections executives with the tools
they need to create safer institutions and communities.

To be clear: We did not “grade” state correctional systems. Rather, we used the information that we
gathered to help inform our analysis of state management systems as a whole. In the analysis, we
focused on the domains of information, infrastructure, people and money to shine a spotlight on
emerging and promising practices in the states. We confined our review to prison operations because all
corrections departments manage prisons but only some include probation and parole functions.

Pew’s leadership in fostering meaningful change through data-driven research and partnership provides
a road map for high performance in all 50 states. Visit www.pewcenteronthestates.org to learn more
about your state’s performance through the Grading the States 2008 report, and the work of the Public
Safety Performance Project.

Neal C. Johnson Adam Gelb
Director Director
Government Performance Project Public Safety Performance Project


in 2003 at eight sites; the initiative is now active at
Get the Agency 18, and will be implemented departmentwide by
Mission Right 2010. “In terms of significant budget savings, we
can fool around with a lot of little things, but the
Defining a public organization’s mission is one
of the most important and challenging only big savings we have left is reducing the
foundations to improving performance. population appropriately and closing prisons,” says
Understandably, employees can lose focus Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC)
when they are caught in a web of sometimes Director Patricia Caruso. To that end, the initiative
conflicting organizational purposes that have
has funded “re-entry centers” that collaborate with
accumulated over years or even decades.
community organizations to help prisoners find job
Nowhere is this more true than in the and program placement to better transition them
corrections policy field. A growing body of to the outside world. It has also completely
evidence and practice suggests that the states
changed the way corrections officers are trained,
that are reexamining the balance between
with an increased focus on preparing prisoners for
reducing recidivism, protecting the public,
maintaining safe and secure institutions and life beyond bars. The department continues to
other crucial objectives are getting it right. work hard at implementation with participating
countries but, as a result of MPRI and other efforts,
Without a doubt, one of the most effective
the prison population trend was a flat line last year.
ways to improve public safety and reduce
prison populations is to marshal resources
toward a primary goal: Once offenders leave Kansas, too, has led the way in this new trend with
state institutions, they don’t come back. a recent shift in its strategic plan to emphasize
proactively managing inmates to reduce the

Reevaluate agency mission to include a likelihood of recidivism upon release. Using a
1
focus on reducing recidivism. comprehensive risk-assessment instrument, inmates
are given individualized case plans upon entering
“Re-entry” has fast become the hottest prison to ensure they get adequate and
buzzword in prison management, with nearly appropriate programming. Then, a year prior to
every state corrections department now placing release, the department begins working with case
some focus on the concept. However, agencies managers, parole officers and family members to
vary widely in the comprehensiveness and ensure a smooth transition. Both Kansas and
effectiveness of implementation. The best states Michigan have received substantial assistance in
in this regard have completely reevaluated the their re-entry efforts from the JEHT Foundation and
missions of departments to include recidivism the National Institute of Corrections.
reduction alongside other crucial objectives
such as protecting the public and maintaining Similarly, Georgia has developed a forward-looking
safe and secure institutions. 20-year “Transformational Campaign” that includes
a strong emphasis on re-entry. For nonviolent
Michigan, for example, rolled out its Michigan offenders, the Georgia Department of Corrections
Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative (MPRI) as a pilot project incorporates the use of minimum security detention


centers, diversion centers (in which inmates work in corrections managers and policy makers
the community and report back at night), and make better decisions.
transition centers. All of these options are less
expensive than traditional prisons and have A number of states have begun implementing
additional programming to prepare offenders to the uniform performance measures developed
rejoin the community. Eventually, Commissioner Jim by the Association of State Corrections
Donald hopes to house 50 percent of offenders in Administrators (ASCA), which has standardized
these kinds of lower-cost arrangements. “We need the definitions of key measures. Begun with just
to differentiate between those offenders we are six states (Washington, Ohio, Iowa, Louisiana,
‘afraid of’ and those we are just ‘mad at,’” he says. South Carolina and Pennsylvania), this effort
For that second group, he continues, “We need to now includes reporting from 36 jurisdictions on a
see what we can do to manage that population variety of output and outcome measures.
without putting them in prison beds.” Uniform measures help the field define its
standards of performance, compare among
jurisdictions and track progress. Measures gauge
institutional and public safety, through variables
Better Information Leads such as assaults on staff and recidivism;
to Better Outcomes substance abuse; mental health and academic

In both the public and private sectors, assistance, through variables such as needs
advances in information technology are assessment, programming, and participation and
shaping the organizations of the future. completion rates; and contextual information,
including offender profiles.
In the corrections field, the Government
Performance Project team found that the best
efforts in improving performance depend on More innovative states have begun to use
transparent results that show progress toward outcome measures that judge the effect of
specific goals, such as cutting recidivism rates, policies on inmates in order to inform funding
decreasing prisoner assaults on corrections
decisions. Nebraska’s corrections agency, for
officers and reducing staff turnover. Accurate
performance measures—and the technology to example, is a leader in measuring not only overall
assemble comprehensive databases and recidivism but also recidivism of inmates who
analyze them—are critical to help managers have completed different types of risk-reduction
better allocate funds and staff, and secure programs. More importantly, the state has used
funding increases to expand programs that
the measure to influence budget decisions. In
reduce recidivism or increase agency efficiency.
one instance, the state scrapped plans to build a
stand-alone substance abuse treatment center
Develop performance measures when evaluations showed the money would be
2
that matter.
more effectively spent on hiring 40 new
Meaningful performance measures, including substance abuse counselors and integrating them
authentic outcome data, are helping state into separate wings at existing facilities.


Other states—including Washington, Nebraska,
Ohio, Alaska, Wyoming and Iowa—are
producing their own corrections-specific
measurement systems. One of the most
sophisticated is Oregon Accountability Model, a
system currently being developed by Oregon.
The strategic plan has a multi-step process for
evaluating and improving every aspect of the
department through performance measures,
including some mandated by the legislature and
others developed by the department. The
department’s measures are among the most
sophisticated of any state at tracking the factors
that are most likely to lead an offender to
recidivate. For example, rather than just tracking
the recidivism rate, the agency tracks the
percentage of offenders employed 180 days after trends and adjust management is particularly risky
release. Rather than just tracking the percentage in an environment where managers make daily
of inmates completing programs, it tracks the decisions concerning a potentially dangerous
percentage who enter and complete the population. Yet many states are stuck in the 1980s
programs recommended for them in an intake or even 1970s, with mainframe legacy systems
assessment. While the agency is still establishing employing DOS or “green screen” interfaces.
baselines for many of these measures, it hopes to Often this means that wardens and other managers
reap future benefits in reducing recidivism. “We must submit time-consuming requests to their
took a look at the body of research out there and research departments for data reports.
are saying what are the major contributing factors
to an offender’s criminality and focusing all of our States on the cutting edge of technology have
efforts on that,” says Assistant Director of replaced their old systems with modern Web-based
General Services John Koreski. applications with a “dashboard” application that
allows managers to pull up information instantly.
States that have been unable to secure necessary
Develop modern information
3 funding for such upgrades have compromised with a
technology systems.
Web-based interface grafted onto their mainframe
You can’t track performance without having servers, which nonetheless increases the accessibility
technology to support it. While corrections of information. As the emphasis on re-entry and
departments are not the only areas of state community corrections expands, some states that
government with outdated information technology, are upgrading technology are integrating their
the absence of easily accessible data to identify offender management systems for institutions with


their systems for probation and parole. This creates The technology is not only used for staff meetings
a seamless network that follows offenders from but also for telemedicine and telepsychiatry for
intake through post-release supervision. inmates and for parole hearings and
communications with family, saving the department
Improving technology doesn’t necessarily mean transportation costs and strengthening prisoners’
spending big bucks on proprietary software. community bonds in preparation for release.
Several years ago, a coalition of Western states led
by Utah, New Mexico and Alaska began
developing an open source management system
that would be free to any state that wanted to use
Corrections Infrastructure
it—as long as that state allows any other state to
Matters
take advantage of any upgrades it made to the Inevitably, prisons are expensive. For decades,
software. Now, a second phase of the software is the country has been on a prison-building
being developed by the corrections agency in boom, spending tens of billions of dollars for
new institutions to house a rapidly growing
Idaho. By creating new modules to coordinate
population. But states have not always received
offender tracking in institutions as well as
the expected return from their investments.
probation and parole, Idaho is producing one of
the most state-of-the-art systems in the industry. Because of political or economic
considerations, institutions sometimes are
sited in rural areas where it’s hard to find
In addition to upgrading the backbone offender
adequate staff or contractors for services, and
management database, several states have transportation costs can skyrocket. In the
pioneered truly innovative technologies that are heart of cities or thriving population centers,
making their agencies more efficient. Indiana has prisons can have difficulty competing with the
developed so-called “smart phones:” small,
private sector for employees.

handheld devices that shift supervisors can carry to
In the corrections field, the Government
quickly input information about incidents. The Performance Project team uncovered
devices are directly tied to the incident reporting especially promising new approaches to
systems which allows officials miles away to get a making decisions about new construction and
facility expansion.
real-time view of what is going on in institutions
and displays “hot spots” of violence or gang
activity. Other states are pioneering a similar 4 Build prisons smarter.
concept for probation officers, outfitting them with
computers in their cars that allow them to input Changes in sentencing and release laws and a focus
information on the go—rather than waiting until on community corrections and re-entry have slowed
the end of the day when they are back in their inmate population growth in some states. But the
offices. And New Mexico, among many other fact remains that many states still will have to build
states, has conquered the vast distances of its state prisons in the upcoming years. While no one can
with regular use of videoconferencing technology. undo past mistakes, corrections departments can


ensure that future facilities help manage prison
populations in the most effective way possible. One
approach states are using is targeting new
Re-think the
construction for certain populations that need more
Money Equation
intensive services—whether as a new stand-alone Financial resources are a critical ingredient of
facility or as additions to current institutions. any state policy, whether the area is
environmental protection, education and
Adding to existing facilities can often be more health or corrections. State fiscal systems are
especially important in navigating today’s
cost-effective than building expensive new
uncertain economic climate.
facilities—and can help achieve other goals as well.
For years, Alaska has had on the drawing board a The Government Performance Project team
new “mega-prison” that would house 2,250 found that leading state corrections systems
are creatively leveraging alternative revenue
prisoners in a remote, rural area. Incoming Director
streams—then using the results to make
Joe Schmidt, however, performed an evaluation better-informed state investment decisions.
upon entering office last year and concluded that it State corrections leaders are also
would be more cost-efficient to build a smaller developing new relationships with other
1,250-bed prison while expanding several regional public agencies and the private sector to
get the most bang for the buck.
prisons. By spreading out the construction, the new
plan increased the agency’s ability to hire adequate
staff—and house prisoners close to their families 5 Seek alternative forms of funding.
and communities, aiding in their eventual transition
back to society. Similar concerns drove the With the increase in prison populations and the
selection of a location for a new prison in South emphasis on new programming to aid re-entry
Dakota. There, prison officials pushed to site a efforts, prison budgets continue to climb. At the
prison in Rapid City because 30 percent of the same time, the national economic picture shows the
state’s inmates came from that area, and the country sliding into recession, squeezing the states’
majority of the state’s jobs are there as well, thus ability to fund corrections and other essential
increasing the future employment prospects for services. Some states, such as Kansas and Texas,
returning offenders. By working with the city’s have found money for substance abuse programs,
mayor, the agency was able to secure a free parcel mental health treatment and community-based
of land in an agreement to co-locate a county sanctions—services that have ultimately paid for
facility and share costs for inmate transportation, themselves by avoiding the need to build costly new
food service and other joint services. prisons. Despite such savings, these programs cost
money up front that not all governors or legislatures
have been willing to provide.

In some cases, states have been successful in
obtaining initial funding from alternative sources,

continued on page 12


How Governors and Legislators Can Help
Strengthen Corrections Performance

Governors and legislators are key players in setting
corrections policy, investing in the right strategies, and
overseeing agency performance. From establishing the
right sentencing and release laws to aligning fiscal
incentives and demanding accountability for
performance, these elected officials can help shape the
right framework to foster a high-performing correctional
system. Here’s how.

I Reevaluate Sentencing Laws. Prison populations
in the past two decades have spiked for several
reasons, but more stringent state sentencing and
release laws are chief of among them. Mandatory
minimums, truth-in-sentencing requirements and I Coordinate Agencies on Reducing Recidivism.
tougher enforcement of parole and probation Corrections doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The best
orders have made it more likely that felons will go strategies for reducing recidivism—and helping to
to prison and stay there longer. Some states, such drive down victimization and prison costs—require a
as Mississippi, Nevada and Maryland, have in the collaborative effort among multiple agencies.
past year modified their laws to ensure that prison Leadership by a governor or legislature can make a
cells are available for violent offenders while tremendous difference in persuading agencies to
higher-quality supervision and services are available work together, especially those with different
to lower-risk offenders in the community. philosophies and cultures, such as law enforcement
and social service providers.
Changing sentencing laws does not necessarily
mean cutting terms of incarceration; it can also Oregon has established a “re-entry council” with
mean reconsidering the types of commitment, representatives from corrections as well as
especially for nonviolent offenders. Missouri, for employment, housing, law enforcement and the
example, has recorded a 3 percent drop in its legislature to review policies on returning prisoners
prison population, in part by mandating and coordinate services to cut the state’s 33
presentencing reports that may suggest that percent recidivism rate. Tennessee has established
judges consider nonprison sanctions in low-risk the Tennessee Re-Entry Collaborative (TREC), with
cases. At the same time, the state’s corrections representatives of a dozen state agencies and a
department implemented community supervision similar number of nonprofits, coordinating services
centers with drug treatment and education for released inmates.
programs to help manage the diverted cases.
I Align Local Fiscal Incentives with State Policy.
Many states want to keep low-risk offenders out of
expensive state-funded prison cells, but local courts
often put these offenders in prison because they
believe that probation and community corrections
programs don’t provide sufficient supervision and


How Governors and Legislators Can Help Strengthen Corrections Performance

services. When courts do put offenders on I Weigh the Cost/Benefit of Prison Construction.
probation, caseloads grow but resources to manage Policy makers increasingly are recognizing that they
them usually don’t keep pace. This further weakens can’t build their way to public safety. Before
the courts’ confidence in community supervision and authorizing construction bonds for new prisons, they
leads to even more imprisonment, both for new are taking a hard look at other options to hold
crimes and technical violations of probation. offenders accountable and reduce crime. These
include ensuring that prisons are holding offenders
Some states have found a way to get policy and who pose a real threat to public safety; that the
fiscal incentives in sync through Community parole release valve isn’t clogged by a lack of in-
Corrections Acts and other state-local partnerships prison risk-reduction programs; and that lower-risk
that award additional funding to counties to manage probation and parole violators face a graduated set
low-risk offenders in the community. A recent of sanctions before being sent to prison cells.
example is found in Kansas, where the state offered
$4 million in grants to local community corrections Recently in Texas, for example, legislators worked
programs that agreed to reduce their probation together with state auditors, corrections officials
revocations by 20 percent. and the governor’s office to increase funding for
drug treatment and diversion programs by over
I Analyze Salary Structure for Corrections $200 million while also increasing the parole grant
Officers. There is no question that some rate. Together, the steps cut an anticipated shortfall
corrections officers are paid well, often because of 14,000-17,000 prison beds over the next five
of the influence of powerful unions or ample years to a current projection of zero.
overtime. On the whole, however, officers are
woefully underpaid relative to their counterparts I Demand Accountability For Performance.
in other state and county law enforcement Many states are developing sophisticated
agencies—a factor that helps account for the performance measurement systems to hold agencies
exceptionally high rates of vacancy and turnovers accountable and track the results of programs. States
in the prison system. serious about getting a handle on their prison
populations must look beyond simply measuring the
To maximize retention of corrections officers, and safety of institutions, or even monitoring recidivism
cut down on the expense and inefficiency of a rates, to pinpoint what really works.
revolving door of new recruits, some states have
undertaken comprehensive analysis of their salary States such as Maryland, Oregon and Washington
structure. Georgia, for example, recently brought in are pioneering performance measures that track
a private management consultant to evaluate specific positive outcomes such as inmates who
salaries across state government to ensure that earn education certificates, get jobs upon release,
corrections officers’ pay is in line with competing or overcome substance abuse. As part of their
positions. The legislature also has given the statewide performance management systems,
department authority to offer retention bonuses for these states also are evaluating the impact of
positions in regions experiencing particularly high specific programs on recidivism rates. I
rates of turnover because of competition from
county corrections.


such as the federal government or grants from for example, the corrections department agreed to a
private foundations. The trick is being able to budget cut in order to give funds to social service
then show the effectiveness of programs in ways agencies to aid in community corrections efforts.
that lead to ongoing funding from the state. Under the governor’s leadership, corrections gave
Illinois, like many states, has been hard hit by an up funds to the Department of Health and Human
increase in offenders incarcerated for Services for substance abuse treatment, and to the
methamphetamine-related crimes. The state used Department of Public Safety to build more halfway
a federal grant to implement a methamphetamine houses. The result benefitted all of those agencies—
treatment program that state officials cite as one and was a departure from the usual approach of
of the main contributors to a drop in recidivism for competing over a limited piece of the pie. “We are
the first time in a decade. Because of its success, not interested in building an empire,” says
the state began funding the program this year corrections CFO Karl Spiecker. “If we can fund
despite a difficult financial climate. programs in other agencies that reduce our inmate
population, that’s just good policy.” In another
Federal and private dollars aren’t the only places to example, Iowa’s department has partnered with
look to leverage money for programs. county jails to fund an in-jail substance abuse
Collaborations among different agencies within a treatment program. It addresses the big increase in
state also can help provide efficiencies. In Colorado, inmates sentenced for methamphetamine offenses
(many of whom are females with non-violent
histories), relieves overcrowding in the prisons,
provides a revenue stream for underutilized county
jails, and costs the state half as much per inmate
($30 per day compared to $60).

Develop partners to cut down on
6
medical costs.

Medical care is a leading contributor to rising
inmate costs, and some prison systems have been
slapped with lawsuits and resulting consent
decrees because of the poor care they provide
prisoners. While all state agencies face budget
increases due to the increase in health insurance
premiums, corrections departments are
particularly hard hit because they provide care to
thousands of offenders. Many inmates did not
have adequate medical care before prison, or
have special needs such as mental illness. And


with an increase in the length of sentences, the
prison population has been aging, causing even
greater increases in medical treatment costs.
Focus People
on Performance
Thankfully, corrections departments don’t have to People form the living core of any
exist in a vacuum. Some states have been very organization, and nowhere is that more true
successful at leveraging state-funded hospitals to than in state correctional systems. Given the
help provide medical care. Kentucky and challenges of an aging workforce, new
expectations of younger workers and
Connecticut, for example, have contracted out
competition for top performers with the
inmate medical services to their state universities, private and not-for-profit sectors, how a
enabling them to get all of the benefits of a state deals with its employees is crucial to
university hospital system while leveraging costs how well that state serves the public.
on medical procedures and taking advantage of
During this year’s “Grading the States”
purchasing power to cut the cost of drugs. Rhode analysis, the Government Performance Project
Island, similarly, has been working on a mental team found a wealth of creative new
health screening partnership with a local hospital. approaches to helping public safety systems
meet their goals. They ranged from
performance incentives for facility managers
Even in corrections agencies that contract out for
to data-based reviews of compensation scales
medical services, states can play a role. In for corrections officers, as well as nonfinancial
Delaware, for example, the department has been morale-boosters and comprehensive
working to overcome poor medical care that led to approaches to leadership development.
a consent decree in 2006. One of the ways it has
improved services is by partnering with the Hold facility managers accountable.
7
Delaware Medical Society to perform regular
quality review of contractor services. “It’s a The 1990s-era turnaround in New York City’s fight
significant benefit to the state,” says Commissioner on crime arguably began with the implementation
Carl Danberg. “They provide a high level of of the Compstat system, a process by which
expertise, and it is not costing the state a penny.” officials kept meticulous track of statistics,
identified trends and held precinct captains
In addition to working with other agencies within responsible in departmentwide meetings, where
a state, some states are banding together to they were publicly called to account for their
leverage the economies of scale that come with progress. Some corrections officials have led the
strength in numbers. North Carolina and way in applying a similar approach to prison
Minnesota, for example, have banded together management. After all, the best system of
in a multi-state consortium to make bulk performance measurement is useless without
purchases of pharmaceuticals, negotiating lower some mechanism to ensure that managers are
costs for drugs and positively impacting the held accountable for progress toward the set
bottom line of each state. goals. While many agency officials will say they


hold meetings with facility managers, there is a Because offenders often move through several
big difference between doing so on an ad-hoc institutions while in the prison system, it’s not
basis and implementing a more formal, regularly easy to tie recidivism rates to one institution—
scheduled process. much less one manager. Even so, some
corrections directors are working toward pay for
The best example is in Maryland, where the state performance systems that tie facility managers’
recently has implemented a StateStat system that is performance back to their annual reviews. Iowa
directly inspired by Compstat. The crux of the has instituted performance evaluations for
system consists of small StateStat teams that have wardens that include several factors that affect
been systematically analyzing performance recidivism rates, including the percentage of
information from state agencies. Several times, the medium- and high-risk offenders receiving
agency has had live audits in which officials from evidence-based interventions, the percentage
across the state identify trends and come up with whose risk-assessment levels drop significantly
strategies to improve performance. and the percentage who return to prison within
three years. “Our focus is not just on
Where no statewide system is in place, some recidivism,” says Human Resources Director
corrections agencies are developing their own Mary Murray, “but also on how we can help
internal methods to keep managers accountable. offenders while we have them.”
After collating the data from its “smart phone”
incident reporting system, Indiana conducts
8 Pay for security staff on the front end.
quarterly meetings at each facility to review
incident trends face to face. In South Dakota, There is no question that corrections officers have
the department holds monthly “metrics very difficult jobs. In some states they are fairly well
meetings,” in which data is compiled into a compensated for the daily risks they face at work.
briefing report given by the director and key Still, in far too many cases, they are paid much less
managers, and managers are held accountable than other state and local law enforcement officers
for progress toward targeted goals. Georgia and private security guards. The low pay can lead
produces a monthly report that has to crippling rates of vacancy and turnover for
comprehensive statistics for each facility on corrections officers, impairing all agency functions.
incidents as well as program completion rates, so
top managers can hold wardens accountable by For these reasons, Michigan has consistently paid
name for their progress. corrections officers at a higher rate than many
states, including some neighboring states, despite
Some states are going beyond holding facility facing severe budget problems. In spite of
managers accountable at meetings providing increasing pressure from some legislators, the
financial incentives based on the performance agency has held fast on salaries and defended the
of their institutions and the recidivism rates for union that is responsible for negotiating the
inmates who leave them. The practice is tricky: salaries and benefits of its officers.


Says MDOC Director Patricia Caruso, who is
unapologetic about the pay scale for her officers:
“I need to have corrections officers who look at
this as a career, who have been here long enough
to see pretty much anything that can happen and
know how to respond to it. That saves lives. When
you pay corrections officers as if they work at the
local fast food joint you don’t get that. You get a
revolving door of inexperienced staff and a
dangerous prison system where the prisoners are
in control.” And if she gets any pushback, she
points to the example of a former private prison in
the state that didn’t compensate officers well.
Turnover ranged as high as 75 percent, even in
one of the poorest counties in the state. used that study to secure a commitment from the
legislature for a $5,000 raise over the next three
In past years several other states, including years. (As it turns out, only $2,000 of it went
Delaware, Louisiana, North Dakota, Vermont, through this year, and it did not cover the most
Virginia and West Virginia, have pushed through recent, most underpaid hires, a situation that the
raises for corrections officers to bring them more in department hopes to rectify in the future.)
line with the private sector and other law
enforcement agencies. Delaware, for example,
Find nonfinancial ways to improve
pushed through an 18 percent raise for corrections 9
employee morale.
officers in 2006. Since then, the vacancy rate has
fallen to its lowest level in five years. Despite the importance of salary to employees,
money isn’t everything. The flip side of the
In some states, corrections department directors compensation debate is that corrections officials
have played a role in demonstrating to the sometimes miss the other quality-of-life factors that
legislature how shortchanging officers is “penny can go a long way toward increasing employee
wise, and pound foolish.” Their argument is that happiness and decreasing turnover. States such as
high vacancy rates can lead to increased spending Virginia, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and
on overtime, while high turnover can boost Arkansas are formalizing this process with
recruiting and training costs. systematic culture assessments in institutions to
identify the little things that can make a big
In West Virginia, for example, the agency difference in employee satisfaction. “We believe
produced a salary study that demonstrated the that money, while important, is not a satisfier,” says
real costs of high turnover, which it estimated at Virginia Department of Corrections’ (VDOC)
$20,000 per new hire for recruiting and training. It Human Resources Director Paul Broughton.


“People connect with their jobs because they find address morale at that institution by offering real
them a rewarding place to work.” perks that are important to employees. These range
from tuition benefits for higher education to prime
During the past several years, a team from parking spaces for employees of the month. In
VDOC’s HR staff has gone to facilities to pick addition, the department has subsidized employee
employees’ brains about changes that could housing to tackle high housing costs—and has even
improve their workplace. In one facility, for entered the day care business, subsidizing local
example, the team received information that the child care centers in exchange for lower fees for
radios were constantly on the blink, causing employees. Most importantly, it has formed a
untold frustrations for staff. Replacing radios was committee to monitor employee satisfaction.
relatively easy. Crucially, however, the team went Recent results are encouraging. On a recent survey
back a year later for a follow-up visit, and found with a scale of 0 to 7, most employees rated their
that staff were again unhappy—this time because work experience between 5 and 6.
the radios were working too well, and there was
too much cross-chatter on the system. New
10 Develop new leaders.
protocols were developed to deal with the issue
and morale improved. State governments face a deluge of retirements by
baby boomers over the next several years. In
As that example shows, follow-ups to an initial corrections, this is already happening. Upper
assessment are vital. Pennsylvania has changed its managers who were hired during the prison
employee assessment program to include follow- building boom in the 1980s and 1990s are starting
ups, and the state also has guaranteed anonymity to retire, encouraged by a lower retirement age
to staff to ensure that they speak up. than officials in other state agencies. For that
reason, every state corrections agency must make
This focus on morale boosting is even more preparing the next generation of leaders a high
essential in states where tight budgets prohibit priority. Even lower-level managers can benefit from
adequate raises. For example, in some states the an increased focus on leadership development. In
employee benefit structure is so costly that the exit surveys, employees often cite their relationship
legislature may balk at raising salaries because of with their supervisor as the number one reason that
the long-term costs to the state. In others, they leave, suggesting that a good leader can
competing industries may pay so much that it’s mitigate problems an employee might have with
impossible for corrections to keep pace. Such is the compensation or work environment.
case in Wyoming, where entry-level jobs in the oil
and gas industry pay workers $60,000, compared to Although corrections departments often have
$30,000 for a corrections officer at its main prison— rigorous training academies for officers and other
which is located near the oil and gas fields. To employees, one area rarely emphasized is
tackle the issue head on, Wyoming’s Department of leadership development. One outgoing
Corrections has produced a “master plan” to corrections director affectionately refers to his


agency’s leadership development program as National Institute of Corrections (NIC). Delaware’s
“promote and pray.” Another says, “We either corrections department recently reached out to NIC
sink or swim on our own. We either survive or we for help designing a supervisor training program for
don’t.” Even in states with interagency leadership 30 middle managers. The department also enrolled
academies, it’s important that agencies develop four senior managers in the program so that they
their own programs to tackle the unique could institutionalize it within the department.
challenges of managing and motivating
employees in the high-stress prison environment. While leadership development is part of the
solution to succession planning, it’s not the only
Some states are developing excellent programs element. Some states are doing even more to
that address all levels of agency management. prepare employees for future leadership. In
Arkansas, for example, recently implemented Louisiana, for example, some positions are
individualized development plans for each double-booked for a period of time before the
employee, a career blueprint that includes financial current manager retires, so that the incoming
incentives for meeting requirements for manager can learn on the job while the outgoing
promotions. The crux of the system is a four-level boss is still in place. In Connecticut, the
management training program with myriad corrections department has collaborated with
elements to groom future leaders, including job other state agencies to develop a true
shadowing, mentoring and educational incentives; knowledge management system. Departing
manager candidates must also tackle a real, officials are invited to record videotapes
pressing issue in the department. Programs in explaining their jobs and accumulated
other states such as Oklahoma and Connecticut experience, which are then archived on the
include a 360-degree assessment of managers to company intranet system to serve as a training
determine gaps in their competencies, which are tool and resource for future employees.
then addressed through formal classes and
mentoring. In Nebraska, the leadership
development program has a strong job shadowing
component, where leadership candidates spend
several hours a week working alongside superiors
to learn the ins and outs of their jobs. Oregon
offers job rotations to allow employees to work six
months to a year in another department or even
another state agency to gain additional experience.

While the best leadership development programs
have at least some elements in-house, some
agencies also have benefited from programs run by
national corrections organizations, such as the


Better Management,
Stronger Institutions,
Safer Communities
In the end, there is no magic bullet for fixing
the nation’s burgeoning prison crisis, which
has been decades in the making. Each state
has unique challenges and must develop its
own strategy to best address its prison system
in accordance with its particular political and
criminal justice landscape.

These 10 action steps, however, are not only
rooted in sound management theory, they
have been proven effective by states that
have used them in a real-world corrections
environment. By following the examples set
by pioneering states and adapting these
practices to their own circumstances, states
can build upon the successes of others.

What are the potential results? Better-run and
more cost-efficient institutions, a more
satisfied workforce and safer communities.


How We Graded the States:
Inside the Government Performance Project

The Government Performance Project’s Grading the States 2008 report, developed in partnership with
Governing magazine, is a vital component of Pew’s efforts to foster effective solutions to some of
America’s most pressing challenges—including corrections policy, which was a particular focus of the
2008 analysis. The report examines and measures four key areas—people, information, money and
infrastructure—that are critical to ensuring that states deliver results. This year, the report’s findings
were drawn from extensive interviews and surveys of state-level managers and opinion leaders.

To evaluate state performance in information management, the Government Performance Project
team examined how well state officials deploy technology and the information it produces. The
team examined how information is used to measure the resource effectiveness and results
produced by state programs, make budget and other management decisions, and communicate
with one another as well as with the public.

To assess how well a state is managing its infrastructure, the Government Performance Project
Team factored in the degree to which a state has transparent and effective capital planning and
project monitoring processes, maintains its assets, and coordinates this work within the state and
with other jurisdictions.

To gauge how well a state is functioning in the money category, the Government Performance
Project team evaluated the degree to which a state takes a long-term perspective on fiscal matters,
the timeliness and transparency of the budget process, the balance between revenues and
expenditures, and the effectiveness of a state’s contracting, purchasing, financial controls and
reporting mechanisms.

To assess state performance in the category on people, the Government Performance Project team
examined how well a state manages its employees. Among many other factors, the team reviewed
how state human resource systems handle hiring, retaining, developing and rewarding high-
performing employees.


The Pew Charitable Trusts applies the power of knowledge to solve today’s most
challenging problems. Pew’s Center on the States identifies and advances effective
policy approaches to critical issues facing states. The Public Safety Performance
Project and the Government Performance Projects are initiatives of the Center.

The Public Safety Performance Project helps states advance fiscally sound,
data-driven policies and practices in sentencing and corrections that protect
public safety, hold offenders accountable, and control corrections costs.

The Government Performance Project improves service to the public by
strengthening government policy and performance. The Project evaluates how
well states manage employees, budgets and finance, information and
infrastructure. A focus on these critical areas helps ensure that states’ policy
decisions and practices actually deliver their intended outcomes.

www.pewcenteronthestates.org

Gpp.pspp final

More Related Content

Similar to Gpp.pspp final (20)

More from sevans-idaho (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Gpp.pspp final