Association of

State Correctional Administrators

DEFINING AND MEASURING CORRECTIONS PERFORMANCE

FINAL REPORT

February 2003
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many individuals contributed to this project. Special recognition and thanks to Kevin Wright,

the Lead Consultant, who led the Performance Based Measures Committee through the difficult

process of identifying and defining the performance measures and key indicators.

The members of the ASCA Performance Based Measures Committee gave tirelessly of their time

and expertise to identify and define the performance measures and key indicators. They included:

Joseph D. Lehman, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Washington, Committee Chair;

Ron Angelone, former Director, Department of Corrections, Virginia;

Harold W. Clarke, Director, Department of Correctional Services, Nebraska;

John F. Gorczyk, former Commissioner, Department of Corrections, Vermont;

Michael W. Moore, former Secretary, Department of Corrections, Florida;

Kathleen M. Hawk Sawyer, Ed.D., Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, DC;

A.T. Wall, Director, Department of Corrections, Rhode Island;

Reginald A. Wilkinson, Ed.D., Director, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Ohio;

Richard L. Stalder, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Louisiana; and

Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D., Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.

Other directors who provided input to the Committee included Margaret M. Pugh, former

Commissioner, Department of Corrections, Alaska and Terry L. Stewart former Director,

Department of Corrections, Arizona.

Also important to this process were our subject matter experts who participated in Committee

meetings as representatives for their Directors and provided feedback on the feasibility and

reliability of the indicators. They included:

William Bales, Director of Research, Florida Department of Corrections;

Scott Camp, Director of Research and Evaluation Federal Bureau of Prisons;

Gerry Gaes, former Director of Research and Evaluation, Federal Bureau of Prisons; and

Steve Van Dine, Chief of Research, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

In addition, we would like to acknowledge the respondents to the two assessments of

correctional information system capacity that were conducted as part of this project. Their candor

and patience with our long and tedious questions were extremely helpful.

Critical to this project were the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), National Institute of Justice

(NIJ) and Corrections Program Office (CPO); their financial support and confidence provided a

foundation for this project. We are particularly grateful to Allen Beck, Ph.D., Chief of

Corrections Statistics at BJS, Chris Innes, Chief Justice Systems Research Division at NIJ, and

Robert Greeves at the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Their continued interest and input have been

invaluable to this project. We are also indebted to Laura Maruschak and Lauren Glaze who

served as our Project Monitors at BJS.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

ii

This project also benefited from input from the Correctional Technology Association (CTA); in

particular the participation and input from Donald Price, Ph.D., Director of Information

Technology at the Washington Department of Corrections and Andy Keyser, former Chief

Information Officer at the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ensured that our ideas were

realistic and reflected recent developments and innovations for information system technologies.

We would also like to thank Judy Bisbee and Patricia Hardyman, Ph.D., of the ASCA staff for

their diligent efforts facilitating the work of the Committee.

George and Camille Camp, Executive Directors

Association of State Correctional Administrators

February 2003
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

iii

FOREWORD

Development of outcome-based performance systems of management for correctional agencies

has been an important initiative for the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA)

since the early 1990s. It was envisioned as a means of assessing performance across

jurisdictions, promoting the use of performance-based management by correctional agencies, and

improving the planning and management capacities of correctional organizations across the

nation.

Our specific project objectives were threefold: 1) identify a series of correctional measures that

are considered to be the most crucial aspects of quality incarceration; 2) develop a set of

indicators that reflect the essence of each measure; and, 3) define each indicator to allow for

standard application of the measures across jurisdictions. Recognizing the complexity and scope

of the potential performance measures for correctional agencies, for the purposes of this project,

we focused on measures of public safety, institutional safety, treatment and programming, and

contextual data.

This report describes our work to date, identifies the performance indicators developed by the

subcommittee, summarizes a preliminary assessment of state correctional agencies’ capacity to

participate, and outlines the next steps for continued development of a national performance

measurement system.

It is anticipated that this document will provide correctional administrators, legislators,

researchers, and planners an understanding of not only the complexity and scope of developing

an outcome-based performance system for correctional agencies, but also its critical importance

for timely and sound decision-making by correctional administrators, ensuring public, staff and

offender safety, enhancing the security of our facilities, rehabilitating offenders, and maximizing

the effectiveness and efficiency of our resources.

Reginald A. Wilkinson, Ed.D., President

Association of State Correctional Administrators

February 2003
iv

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements................................................................................................................i

Foreword................................................................................................................................iii

Table of Contents...................................................................................................................iv

Executive Summary...............................................................................................................v

Section I. Performance-Based Management.........................................................................1

Introduction ...............................................................................................................1

Performance Management .........................................................................................2

Performance-Based Management in Corrections ......................................................4

Performance-Based Management across Jurisdictions..............................................5

Section II. Project Overview.................................................................................................8

History........................................................................................................................8

Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................11

Section III. Methodology And Process.................................................................................12

Section IV. ASCA Performance Standards And Key Indicators..........................................33

Section V. An Assessment Of Capacity ...............................................................................40

Capacity .....................................................................................................................40

Purpose of Assessment ..............................................................................................42

Methodology..............................................................................................................44

Procedure .......................................................................................................44

Sample............................................................................................................45

Analyses.........................................................................................................46

Findings......................................................................................................................46

Quantitative Assessment................................................................................46

Qualitative Assessments ................................................................................54

Conclusions................................................................................................................60

Section VI. Next Steps..........................................................................................................62

National Data Platform ..............................................................................................63

Capacity Development...............................................................................................65

Analysis of Performance............................................................................................67

Develop New Performance Indicators.......................................................................67

Appendix A: States Responding To Performance-Based Measures Surveys

Appendix B: ASCA Performance Standards Key Indicators: Glossary of Terms

Appendix C: Key Indicators Of ASCA Performance Standards (With Counting Rules)
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

v

DEFINING AND MEASURING CORRECTIONS PERFORMANCE

Executive Summary

The Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) undertook an initiative to

develop an outcome-based performance measures system to improve performance, increase

accountability, and improve the planning capacity of correctional agencies. This required

identification of measures that reflect the most crucial aspects of correctional management;

development of indicators to assess each measure; and specification of the operational definitions

for each indicator to allow for comparisons across jurisdictions. This report describes the history

of the project; delineates the selected measures, indicators, and measures; reviews a survey of

selected prison systems’ capacity for participating in a national reporting program; and outlines

the necessary future steps of the outcome-based performance measurement system.

While the task of developing an outcome-based performance system is relatively

complex, our approach was rather simple and straightforward. The ASCA Executive Committee

designated a Subcommittee to oversee the project, assigned the day-to-day coordination of the

project to the ASCA staff, and worked with a consultant for the development of a performance

indicator system. As needed, subject matter experts were consulted to “identify optimal

approaches for the selection of measures, indicators and data elements.”

Based upon an extensive review of the literature and correctional experience, we

identified eight performance measures. From this list, the Subcommittee selected four

performance measures – public safety, institutional safety, treatment and programming, and

offender profile – and specified the key indicators and data elements for the respective

measures. After detailed discussion of the indicators and their respective counting rules by the

Subcommittee, subject matter experts reviewed the performance measures to identify optimal

approaches for the automation of the data elements.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

vi

Important steps in the development process were two assessments of the capacity of

correctional agencies to participate in the performance measures system. The first assessment

was a simple questionnaire that was faxed to the ASCA membership (60 jurisdictions). First, the

survey asked whether the department had a performance indicator system or was in the process

of developing one. The department was then asked if data were maintained on 28 specific

performance measures. If so, the respondent was asked if the data were automated.

As of October 2001, 62 percent of the 39 responding agencies indicated that they

maintain some type of a performance indicator system. Of the 15 jurisdictions that did not

operate a performance indicator system, four (26.7%) were in the process of developing one.

The data regarding the specified performance indicators suggested that although most agencies

consider the key indicators identified by the Subcommittee as performance measures within their

systems, the data were not always stored on their information systems. Based on these data, the

measures and key indicators were further refined.

Once the ASCA performance measures model was fully designed, the remaining task of

this project was to determine to what extent correctional agencies are prepared and able to

provide information regarding the specific performance measures identified by the

Subcommittee. It was anticipated that most correctional systems would be using some, but not

all, of the counting rules for most indicators. During the spring and summer of 2002, telephone

interviews were conducted with the information system, planning, and/or research staff from 25

state and federal correctional agencies to determine:

1. Are correctional agencies currently collecting data on the key indicators as specified by

the ASCA definitions and counting rules?

2. If not, what would be involved in collecting the required information?

3. Are the data automated? If not, what would be involved in automating the information?
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

vii

The data suggested that most agencies were collecting information about the prisoner

population. However, data on the actual substantive indicators were less encouraging. For only

four key indicators were more than half of the departments currently measuring the indicator as

specified—returns to prison, prisoner-on-prisoner homicides, prisoner suicides, and positive drug

screenings. Approximately half of the departments lacked automated data about: victims of

prisoner-on-prisoner assaults; prisoner-on-staff assaults; prisoner-on-prisoner sexual assaults;

prisoner-on-staff sexual assaults, staff sexual misconduct, staff homicides, and disturbances.

Even fewer departments collect and automate information as to the number of staff hours of

treatment and assessment for the mental health and substance abuse. Based on the results of this

survey, the Subcommittee revised the key indicators for mental health and substance abuse.

The survey also suggested that correctional departments’ ability to quickly and easily

report key indicators was linked to whether they had integrated information systems. Most

agencies have relatively well-developed databases for inmate records. Consequently, they can

provide information about the denominators of the key indicators—prisoner population on a

particular day, number of male and female prisoners, and prisoners population housed in secure

facilities on a particular day. Departments can also provide information about the characteristics

of the prisoner population, i.e., the current offense, sentence, gender, race, age, etc. Departments

with non-integrated data systems, however, face the greatest difficulty with the substantive areas,

institutional safety, substance abuse, and mental health because their incident-based databases

cannot be queried to produce the data for the indicators as specified by ASCA

Continued development of a national outcome-based performance measurement system

for correctional agencies will necessarily be multifaceted. On the one hand, ASCA plans to

proceed with the development of a data platform in which departments will report performance
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

viii

data. However, in developing such a platform, ASCA must consider the correctional agencies’

abilities to participate. ASCA will also need to develop the infrastructure that will allow for

cross-jurisdictional comparisons, analyses of performance data, and support other current

ASCA/Correctional Technology Association projects.

The easiest of the next steps may be the development of a platform, i.e., a secure internet

website, into which departments can report data. Software and hardware development will be

required for this task. Once the website has been developed, a field test of the performance

measurement system will be conducted. After the system has been field tested, the website can

be opened for all departments to begin reporting.

Capacity development involves more than the ability to generate the data required for the

ASCA key indicators. It assumes a strategic management style that includes analyzing current

conditions impacting the organization, evaluating alternative courses of actions, devising

strategies for performance improvement, taking risks, being creative and sustaining a continuous

process that accumulates experience and redirects practice and decision-making in light of future

goals. In order to develop the capacity for correctional agencies to generate and utilize the

performance measurement system data, ASCA must work closely with correctional

administrators, information system staff, and researchers to develop the necessary skills and

ensure success. While the strategy for this initiative was to develop a limited number of

performance indicators in order to establish a performance measurement system, ASCA foresees

additional measures as the system evolves. In the future, ASCA plans to develop key indicators

in the areas of programming, institutional discipline and grievances processes, personnel (i.e.,

staffing, affirmative action, grievances, training, promotions, etc.) and medical treatment for the

prisoner population.
DRAFT

PBM Measurement Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

1

SECTION I. PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT

Introduction

During the 1990s, several departments of corrections across the nation embarked upon

the development of outcome-based performance systems of management. In doing so, these

agencies undertook the process of translating their missions into a set of measurable outcomes.

Once these outcomes were identified, these departments redesigned their information systems to

allow for continual performance monitoring. This newly developed infrastructure provided a

tool for assessing, managing and improving correctional practice and success. Agencies were

able to begin to shift from a prescriptive, audit- and compliance-based oversight to futureoriented strategic management systems.

The success of these new management practices and systems at the intra-agency level led

several members of the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) to advocate for

the development of an outcome-based performance measurement system at the national level.

The development of such a system would not only allow for assessment of performance across

jurisdictions, but would also promote the use of performance-based management among

correctional agencies across the nation.

The purpose of this project was threefold: 1) identify a series of correctional measures

that are considered to be the most crucial aspects of quality incarceration; 2) develop a set of

indicators that reflect the essence of each measure; 3) and write a set of definitions for

operationalizing each indicator that would allow for application across jurisdictions. ASCA

believed that the development of outcome-based measures would serve to improve program

performance, increase accountability, and improve the planning capacity of correctional

organizations.
DRAFT

PBM Measurement Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

2

Performance Management

The term, performance measurement, is a label that has been used to describe a variety of

efforts to document the results of organizational activities. Assessment of organizational

outcomes is not a newly invented practice; program evaluation came into vogue in the 1960s.

However, “linking the measures, or indicators, to program mission; setting performance targets;

and regularly reporting on the achievement of target levels of performance” represents a new

facet of government accountability (Newcomer, 1997: 5). A variety of terms have been used to

describe this orientation, “results-driven government, performance-based management, outcomeoriented management, reinventing government, the new public management, the new

managerialism, and marketization (Behn, 2001: 1). All these terms imply a process to assess

performance, direction and accomplishment to improve products and services in the future.

Performance-based management serves to promote public accountability in two ways. First,

performance data allow for the evaluation of whether public resources have been well spent.

Secondly, they provide information about how to improve operations (Newcomer, 1997: 8).

The history of performance-based management dates back to the early 1980s with the

introduction of such tools as Management By Objectives (MBO), Total Quality Management

(TQM) and strategic planning. In the early 1990s, several state legislatures, led by Texas and

Oregon and shortly followed by Florida and Minnesota, began to require performance data as

part of the appropriations process. Similar trends occurred internationally as such countries as

Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain began to rely heavily on performance measurement

(Hatry, 1997: 32-33). The United States federal government embarked upon a performancebased system of management and resource allocation with the passage of Government

Performance and Results Act in 1993. The Act asserted that federal government officials,
DRAFT

PBM Measurement Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

3

through planning and performance measurement, could “improve the confidence of the

American people in the capability of the federal government by systematically holding federal

agencies accountable for achieving program results, and... improve federal program effectiveness

and public accountability by promoting a new focus on results, service quality and customer

satisfaction” (quoted by Newcomer, 1997: 7-8).

The federal plan to integrate performance-based management throughout government

was laid out in a series of government documents: Serving the American Public: Best Practices

in Performance Measurement (Gore, 1997), Guide to a Balanced Scorecard Performance

Management Methodology (Procurement Executives’ Association, 1998) and Balancing

Measures: Best Practices in Performance Management (National Partnership for Reinventing

Government, 1999). The following goals were identified for the performance management

system:

ß Translate agency vision into clear measurable outcomes that define success,

and that are shared throughout the agency and with customers and

stakeholders;

ß Provide a tool for assessing, managing, and improving the overall health and

success of business systems;

ß Continue to shift from prescriptive, audit- and compliance-based oversight to

an ongoing, forward-looking strategic partnership involving agency

headquarters and field components;

ß Include measures of quality, cost, speed, customer service, and employee

alignment, motivation, and skills to provide an in-depth, predictive

performance management system; and

ß Replace existing assessment models with a consistent approach to

performance management (Procurement Executives’ Association, 1998: 6).

At the heart of the federal performance-based management system, as well as the state

and international initiatives, is the concept and practice of benchmarking. Benchmarking
DRAFT

PBM Measurement Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

4

involves the collection of data across organizations and agencies that will allow for comparisons

of performance (Joyce & Woods, 1996: 81-82 and National Partnership for Reinventing

Government, 1999: 49). Kopczynski and Lombardo (1999: 133) identified five uses of

comparative data:

1. Recognize good performance and to identify areas for improvement;

2. Use indicator values for higher-performing jurisdictions as improvement

targets by jurisdictions that fall short of the top marks;

3. Compare performance among a subset of jurisdictions believed to be

similar in some way;

4. Inform stakeholders outside of the local government sector; and

5. Solicit joint cooperation in improving future outcomes in respective

communities.

Performance-Based Management in Corrections

Correctional professionals, now and historically, recognize certain values to be

fundamental to good correctional practice. Most would agree, for example, that prisons should

experience few, if any, escapes, prisoner-on-prisoner assaults, and prisoner-on-staff assaults.

Possession of contraband should be prevented. Prisoners should be treated respectfully and

humanely. Staff should have a work environment in which they feel safe and valued. Most good

correctional managers work to see that these values are recognized and sought after by their staff.

Historically, a prison manager’s performance was judged subjectively. Wardens were

expected to have few if any escapes and assaults, prisoners should not be mistreated and staff, by

and large, should be satisfied with the conditions of confinement. Yet, assaults do occur in

prisons. Many incarcerated individuals have lifelong histories of violent behavior. The stress of

incarceration may inflame those tendencies. So what is a reasonable number of assaults for a
DRAFT

PBM Measurement Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

5

particular type of prison? And, more importantly, what can be done to reduce the number of

assaults? It was in the asking of these last two questions, that correctional agencies began to

move toward performance-based management. In others words, they began to measure,

document, and evaluate performance of prison managers.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons led the way among correctional agencies in adopting

performance-based management. Long before the federal Performance and Results Act of 1993,

the Bureau developed its Key Indicator and Strategic Support System (KISSS) in which vital

information about prisoners, staff, finances, and health services was provided to central office

and facility executives. States such as Florida, Minnesota, and North Carolina embraced

performance-based management as part of statewide initiatives to implement the practice across

state agencies.

By translating agency visions into clearly measurable outcomes and establishing the tools

for assessing these outcomes (i.e.,, benchmarking) correctional agencies could begin to identify

high and low performing institutions. Actions to improve performance could be undertaken and

evaluated. Areas needing improvement could be identified. Best practices could be explored.

Correctional agencies could now make decisions objectively regarding high quality incarceration

and management. Resources could be tied to performance.

Performance-Based Management across Jurisdictions

To conduct benchmarking across jurisdictions, agencies form performance partnerships.

Agency executives come together to form associations in which organizations jointly and equally

participate in identifying and selecting outcomes sought, choosing appropriate outcome

indicators, and developing data collection procedures to track progress (Hatry: 1997: 34).
DRAFT

PBM Measurement Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

6

Agencies often vary considerably in their approaches to similar tasks depending on the resources

that are available and management practices. Just as performance-based management within an

organization allows for the establishment of objective standards and continual evaluation of

practice, performance partnerships allow for the extension of the concept across correctional

agencies.

 In this project, ASCA formed an outcome-based performance partnership for the purpose

of benchmarking correctional system performance. In doing so, ASCA identified a set of

correctional measures that represent the most important aspects of institutional program delivery

and developed appropriate outcome indicators for those measures.

But, why is performance measurement in corrections important at the national level?

What will be gained from comparisons across jurisdictions? There are at least six compelling

reasons for the design and implementation of a national performance measurement system:

1. Clarify misunderstandings. All jurisdictions collect information about correctional

outcomes. Unfortunately, there is no uniformity in how these measures are defined or

obtained. Consequently, one should not compare outcomes among states’ and the

federal prison systems. Unfortunately, reporters, legislators and budget analysts

frequently attempt to make such comparisons, which often leads to erroneous decisions

and assessments because they are comparing dissimilar data.

2. Establish national standards. Clearly, the U.S. Constitution defines the control and

punishment of criminal behavior to be a state function. However, this does not

preclude corrections as a profession from establishing a set of clearly articulated values

about what constitutes quality correctional management and services that are accepted

across jurisdictions. A set of national correctional standards defines an objective set of
DRAFT

PBM Measurement Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

7

norms to which agencies can ascribe to and strive toward. It provides correctional

professionals with the opportunity to define what is important in corrections rather than

leaving the task to politicians or the media.

3. Design measurable outcomes. Without measurable outcomes, any assessment of

performance is subjective. One can never know how well a jurisdiction is doing. It is

difficult to determine if public dollars are being well spent, if particular practices are

working, and if performance is improving.

4. Provide for cross-jurisdictional evaluation. The nation’s prison systems differ

considerably with respect to practices, resources and management. A national

performance measurement system allows for cross-jurisdictional evaluations of best

and most efficient practices. Without such information, it is difficult to answer such

questions as whether certain techniques work better than others, whether better funded

departments protect public safety more successfully, and so forth.

5. Transform management to be more future-oriented. Performance measurement

recognizes good performance and identifies agencies that need improvement. As such,

a national reporting system will support quality improvement and encourage

jurisdictions to consider how they wish to perform in the future.

6. Encourage performance-based management. As described above, several

departments of corrections have begun to use performance-based management.

However, many have not developed their information systems and managerial training

to support performance-based management adequately. The establishment of a

national system and the request that all state agencies participate will encourage
DRAFT

PBM Measurement Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

8

jurisdictions to begin developing the infrastructure for performance-based

management.

The sections that follow describe the history; delineate the selected measures, indicators

and measures; review a survey of selected prison systems’ capacity for participating in a national

reporting program; and describe necessary future steps of the outcome-based performance

measurement project undertaken by ASCA.

SECTION II. PROJECT OVERVIEW

History

During the early 1990’s, the ASCA membership began to explore the possibility of

establishing a national performance measurement reporting system. This effort has included

three phases. Initial work (Phase I) set out to determine the availability and use of common data

elements in state departments of corrections and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. With funds

received from the Correctional Program Office, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the National

Institute of Justice, ASCA contracted with the Urban Institute to conduct a national survey of

state and federal prison agencies to determine data gathering practices and capacities. Phase I

had four objectives:

• Determine whether a common core of information is maintained and available

that is comparable across jurisdictions;

• Assess the overall capacity of correctional information systems to generate

and report statistically reliable information about offenders;

• Organize the data elements collected by corrections agencies into categories

that reflect correctional processes and organize them into a set of measurable

events; and

• Describe the information that correction departments maintain about facilities

management, medical care, and costs and revenues.
DRAFT

PBM Measurement Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

9

In its report published in October 1998, the Urban Institute identified 207 offender-based

data elements used by departments of corrections. One hundred of these elements were

considered to be core indicators of correctional processing. The report found that jurisdictions

varied considerably in the degree to which they collected various data elements and the extent to

which those data were available electronically. Importantly, the report noted that even with the

commonly collected data elements, departments do not collect the information in exactly the

same manner (Urban Institute, 1998: 98).

In the closing section of its report, the Urban Institute (1998: 106-107) acknowledged

and addressed ASCA’s interest in developing a performance indicator system. The report stated

that comparative indicators would have to take into account “the varying missions, legal

structures, and organizational arrangements,” of prison agencies; its writers deemed this task to

be “extremely complex.” The report went on to indicate that correctional performance is

difficult to measure and interpret. It is suggested that the work of developing performance

indicators “must be done by a deliberative body that can address the complexities,” associated

with such measurement.

ASCA initiated Phase II of developing a performance indicator system in August 1999,

when the Executive Committee endorsed a resolution to create a subcommittee to develop a plan

and a process for the development of measures which correctional agencies could use to track,

compare and assess progress toward meeting identified objectives develop a methodology to

measure and judge correctional performance. The resolution was adopted by the ASCA

membership in October of that same year. The resolution also empowered the Executive

Committee to seek financial support to pursue this task.
DRAFT

PBM Measurement Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

10

During January 2001, eight ASCA members were selected to serve as the Performance

Measures Subcommittee:

1. Joseph D. Lehman, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Washington,

Subcommittee Committee Chairperson

2. Ron Angelone, Director, Department of Corrections, Virginia

3. Harold W. Clarke, Director, Department of Correctional Services, Nebraska

4. John F. Gorczyk, Commissioner, Department of Corrections, Vermont

5. Michael W. Moore, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Florida

6. Kathleen M. Hawk Sawyer, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, DC

7. A.T. Wall, Director, Department of Corrections, Rhode Island

8. Reginald A. Wilkinson, Director, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Ohio

Jeffrey A. Beard, (Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections) and Richard

L. Stalder, (Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Louisiana) frequently

responded to drafts of Subcommittee documents and were asked to join the Subcommittee. Other

directors who provided input to the Subcommittee—i.e., written responses and attendance of

Subcommittee meetings—included: Margaret M. Pugh, Commissioner, Department of

Corrections, Alaska; and Terry L. Stewart, Director, Department of Corrections, Arizona.

Research staff from the Florida Department of Corrections, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and Ohio

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction provided feedback and suggestions on the

feasibility and reliability of the indicators.

The Executive Committee, along with Association staff, continued to work with the three

federal funding agencies who sponsored the Phase I work completed by the Urban Institute: the

Corrections Program Office (CPO), the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), and the National

Institute of Justice (NIJ). By August 2000, a proposal for Phase II (development of a set of
DRAFT

PBM Measurement Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

11

agreed upon outcome-based measures and definitions) had been developed by the membership

and submitted to the federal funding agencies. A grant was secured in late 2000.

Project Goals and Objectives

In its proposal, Defining and Measuring Corrections Performance, ASCA set forth the

following vision and primary goals for this project:

The members of ASCA believe that organizational performance is enhanced

through use of outcome-oriented empirical measures. They expect that

development of outcome-based measures will serve to improve program

performance, increase accountability, and improve planning capacity of

correctional organizations. Furthermore, they believe that performance-based

outcome measures in corrections can be applied in such a manner that will allow

for direct and valid inter-jurisdictional comparisons. The measures developed

will be intrinsically valid, empirically based, and stand up to scientific scrutiny.

These measures will also be supported by reliable methods of data collection and

withstand rigorous analysis. Further, ASCA will establish a process to enable its

member states to maintain the measures, definitions and indicators as current and

relevant to contemporary practice.

In order to accomplish its overall goal of developing a set of national outcome-based

performance measures that are applicable across jurisdictions, five objectives were pursued:

1. Identify eight measures of correctional performance that represent the most

important elements of institutional correctional processes;

2. Select four of those eight measures for further specification;

3. Choose indicators for each of the four measures that are sufficiently detailed

and comprehensive to capture the crucial aspects of the over-reaching measure

of institutional correctional performance;

4. Specify definitional rules for measuring each indicator that are sufficiently

detailed to assure comparability across jurisdictions; that will account for

important cross-jurisdictional differences in mission, legal structures and

organizational arrangements; and that will produce information when

measured that is applicable across jurisdictions; and

5. Once the measures are specified, determine the extent to which jurisdictions

are currently collecting such information in an automated form and when not

what would be involved in beginning to do so.
DRAFT

PBM Measurement Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

12

The thinking behind setting forth these five objectives was the desire among the ASCA

Executive Committee members that the project would be of manageable scope to assure success.

By starting relatively small, the Executive Committee aimed to demonstrate that a performance

indicator system could be developed for the nation. Once in place, additional measures could be

added, along with additional indicators.

SECTION III. METHODOLOGY AND PROCESS

While the task of developing a performance indicator system is relatively complex, the

procedures to do so are rather simple and straightforward. The proposal for this project specified

that the ASCA Executive Committee would oversee the project with daily coordination and

supervision provided by the ASCA staff and a Lead Consultant would perform the majority of

the activities necessary for the development of performance indicator system.

The proposal specified an approach to the developmental task in which the Lead

Consultant would engage a group of subject matter experts during the early months of the project

to “identify optimal approaches for the selection of measures, indicators and data elements.”

Once that task was completed, the Lead Consultant would organize and submit a planned

approach to the Executive Committee for identifying performance indicators. In the next step,

the Lead Consultant would identify approximately eight performance measures to be submitted

to the Executive Committee for review and comment; the consultant would then narrow the

measures down to approximately four. In consort with a project advisory panel, the Lead

Consultant would then specify indicators and data elements for the proposed measures for

presentation to the Executive Committee. Finally, the consultant would work with subject matter

experts to identify optimal approaches for the automation of the data elements.
DRAFT

PBM Measurement Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

13

In actuality, while the goals, outcomes, and deliverables remained as specified in the

original proposal, the approach and procedures differed from those originally outlined. The first

major change was that ASCA decided to appoint a committee composed of members with a

specific interest in performance measurement to oversee the project rather than tasking the

Executive Committee with this responsibility. (The members of that committee were listed in

the previous section.) The Performance Measures Subcommittee held its first meeting at the

ASCA Winter Business meeting in Nashville, Tennessee on January 21, 2001. The

Subcommittee selected Kevin N. Wright as its Lead Consultant for the project.

ASCA staff, along with Allen Beck and Laura Maruschak of the Bureau of Justice

Statistics (BJS), held an initial meeting with Kevin Wright on February 8, 2001. Discussion

included a history of the project, project goals and objectives, roles and responsibilities, and

tasks and timetables.

Rather than turning to a group of subject matter experts to inform the initial examination

of performance-based measurement, the Lead Consultant reviewed the extensive literature on

performance-based measurement in corrections. Seven prison performance indicator models

were identified in this review:

1. Charles Logan’s Performance Measures for Prisons (Logan, 1993)

2. Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Executive Staff Management Indicators (Bureau of

Prisons, undated)

3. Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators’ Performance-Based Standards

(Loughran, et al, 2000)

4. Florida’s Department of Corrections’ Performance Standards (Florida Department of

Corrections, 2001)

5. Ronald Powell’s Factors in Measuring Performance (November, 1996)

6. North Carolina’s Performance Planning Budget Process (NC DOC, undated)
DRAFT

PBM Measurement Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

14

7. Association of State Correctional Administrators’ Issue Areas and Information

Categories (Association of State Correctional Administrators, August, 1998)

This list does not include all performance models available in institutional corrections;

rather, they represent the array of what has been considered important in modeling correctional

processes and outline the scope of issues involved in prison operations. Measures and indicators

for each of the seven models are delineated in Table 1.

Four of the models specify measures and indicators that are applicable at the facility

level, two models contain system-wide measures and indicators and one model is intended for

use at both the facility and system levels. Most of the models are organized in multi-level

categories. They identify three to eight overriding dimensions that comprise prison practice (e.g.

security, safety, programs, etc.). Under each of these dimensions, the models catalog topical

areas that encompass the entirety of the overall function. For example, under the category of

safety the models may recognize staff safety and inmate safety. The models, then, list measures

of each sub-category. Some systems distinguish performance indicators from outcome

indicators.

Considerable similarity exists among the seven models; still interesting variations are

apparent. The models employ slightly different conceptualizations of what constitutes prison

practice and specify distinctive definitions of measures and indicators. Clearly, the seven models

offered guidance for the selection of measures and indicators to be considered by the

Subcommittee in selecting elements to include in the ASCA performance measurement system.

However, these models are far more comprehensive in their inclusion of elements than initial

ASCA efforts could be. The task for this project was to select among the different

conceptualizations of prison practices what appears to be the cardinal elements and then to

choose among the various indicators those that are quintessential to prison performance, all the
DRAFT

PBM Measurement Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

15

while keeping the list sufficiently concise to be within the scope of this project. Parsimony was a

guiding principle of this effort.

The proposal submitted to the federal funding agencies stated that the “end product (of

the project) will be a set of agreed upon outcome-oriented measures and definitions...” The

proposal defined “measures” as follows:

Measures are broad areas that reflect those qualities and goals that are viewed as

critical to determining the quality and effectiveness of operations and/or program

performance. They are essential areas that, together, should give a clear sense of

how well a corrections department is accomplishing its mission and tasks.

Examples include: cost, effectiveness of security, and effectiveness of programs.

For each of the measures, ASCA would identify key indicators (data elements) that operationally

define each criterion. For a given measure, there would likely be more than one key indicator.

Based upon a review and synthesis of the seven models, the Lead Consultant proposed

that the Subcommittee consider the following eight measures: 1. Security, 2. Safety, 3. Order, 4.

Health and Mental Health, 5. Programming, 6. Justice, 7. Population Management, and 8.

Human Resource Management. The consultant also provided examples of possible indicators for

each of the eight measures. The Performance Subcommittee convened in Middletown,

Connecticut on July 12, 2001 to examine, discuss and select measures and indicators. In their

discussions, Subcommittee members found it difficult to evaluate measures without considering

what indicators might contribute to those measures and moved back and forth between measures

and indicators as they explored what might work in the final model.

One of the Subcommittee’s first points of departure was a discussion of security and

safety. The group decided that it was difficult to separate the two and that a more meaningful

distinction was that of internal and external safety—internal safety being security within the

institution and external safety being public or community safety.
DRAFT

PBM Measurement Final Report – Draft 16

TABLE 1: PRISON PERFORMANCE INDICATOR MODELS

MODEL

LOGAN’S

PERFORMANCE

MEASURES FOR

PRISONS

BOP’S EXECUTIVE

STAFF

MANAGEMENT

INDICATORS

CJCA’S

PERFORMANCEBASED STANDARDS

FLORIDA DOC’S

PERFORMANCE

STANDARDS

RONALD POWELL’S

FACTORS IN

MEASURING

PERFORMANCE

PLANNIN

APPLICATION

LEVEL Institution Institution and System Institution Institution Institution

MEASURES &

INDICATORS

1. Security

A.Rating of bldg design

B.Security procedures

 1.Shakedowns

 2.Body searches

 3.Security breaches

 4. Bunk area shakedown

 5.Urinanalysis test

C.Drug use

 1.Incidents

 2.Discipline rpts

D.Significant Incidents

 1.Sign. rpts

 2.Escapes

E.Furloughs

F.Freedom of Movement

G.Staffing

2. Safety

A.Inmate safety

 1.Likelihood

 2.Armed assaults

 3.Assault w/o weapons

 4.Sexual assaults

 5.Pressured sex

 6.Perceived danger

 7.Reported assaults

 8.Reported assaults - staff

 9.Discipline reports

 10.Sign incidents w/injury

B.Staff safety

 1.Bldg design

 2.Danger to male staff

 3.Danger to female staff

 4.Likelihood of assault

1. Population mgmt

A.General

 1.Inmate/capita cost

 2.Overtime cost

 3.Outside medical

 cost

 4.Ave sentence

 length

 5.Criminal aliens

B.Mgmt adm &

 planning

 1.Inmate population

 2. Security level

 classification-%

 3. Region -%

 4. Inmate distance

 from legal resid

C.Staffing levels

 1.Inmate/staff ratio

 2.Bilingual staff

 3.Staff/inmate demo-

 graphic comp

D.Programs

 1.Residential drug

 abuse program-#

2. HR Mgmt

A.Grievances

 1.Union grievances

 2.Arbitration results

B.Staffing

 1.Staffing

 2.Yrs experience

C.Proper pay

 1.Incentive awards

D.Affirmative action

 1.Staff composition

 2.Staff separations/

1. Security

A.Escapes

B.Contraband

 1.Incidents

 2.Lost keys

 3.Lost tools

2. Order

A.Accountability

 1.Major misconduct

 2.Staff involvement

 in misconduct

 3.Administrative

 sanction

B.Restrictive &

 coercive methods

 1.Physical restraints

 2.Mechanical

 restraints

 3.Chemical restraints

 4.Stun gun use

 5.Restraint chair use

 6.Isolation

 7.Duration

C.Participation

 1.% idle time

3. Safety

A.Injuries

 1.Staff

 2.Youth

 3.Suicides

B.Environmental risks

 1.Over capacity

 2.Youth injuries

 during restraints

 3.Assaults on youth

 4.Assaults on staff

 5.Injuries by fire or

 smoke

1. Institutions

 1.Escape rates

 2.Officer assault rates

 3.Inmate assault rates

 4.Work/program

 assignment rates

 5.Community work

 squad assignments

 filled

 6.Work release slots

 filled

 7.DOT work squad

 earnings

 8.Operational per

 diem rates

2. Inspector general

 1.Positive drug test

 rates

 2.Contraband incident

 rates

 3.Investigations

 completed

3. Administration

 1.Turnover rates

 2.Mandatory training

 3.Grievances & civil

 rights complaints

 4.Length of exper-

 ience in class for

 promotion

 5.Vacancy rate

 6.TEA status

4. Programs

 1.Program slots filled

 2.Mandated substance

 abuse inmates

 placed

 3.Program contract

 compliance

 4. Religious events

1. Inmate administration

A.Admissions

 1.Type

 2.Jurisdiction

 3.Prior prison time

 4.Sentenced offense

 5.Length of sentence

B.Prisoner population

 1.Population of

 interest

 2.Prisoner movement

C.Releases

 1.Type

 2.Facility of release

 3.Time served

D.Inmate Classification

E.Prison capacity

2. Program participation

 A.Education

B.Drug/alcohol

 programs

C.Counseling

 1.Mental health

 2.Life skills

 3.Pre-release

 4.Job placement

D.Work/training

 1.Industry

 2.Private ventures

 3.Public works

 4.Community service

E.Sex offender

F.Violence reduction

G.Recreation

1. Confine

 Senten

 1.% in 

 2.Ave. 

 3.Escap

 1.% w/

 2.Numb

 3.# w/ 

 4.# w/ m

 5.Confi

2. Educat

 training

 1.% com

 2.% w/

 3.% be

 diplo

 4.% par

 1.% com

 2.% par

 1.% tot

 2.% wo

 3.% ins

 4.% com

 behav

 1.Positi

 2.Home 

 3.Comm

 4.Corre

 couns

 behav

 1.Rule 
DRAFT

PBM Measurement Final Report – Draft 17

TABLE 1: PRISON PERFORMANCE INDICATOR MODELS

MODEL

LOGAN’S

PERFORMANCE

MEASURES FOR

PRISONS

BOP’S EXECUTIVE

STAFF

MANAGEMENT

INDICATORS

CJCA’S

PERFORMANCEBASED STANDARDS

FLORIDA DOC’S

PERFORMANCE

STANDARDS

RONALD POWELL’S

FACTORS IN

MEASURING

PERFORMANCE

PLANNIN

APPLICATION

LEVEL Institution Institution and System Institution Institution Institution

 5.Inmates use of physical 

force

 6.Reported assaults

 7.Sign incidents w/injury

C.Dangerous inmates

 1.Prop extremely

 2.Prop somewhat

 3.Possession of weapons

 D.Safety of environ

 1.Accidents

 2.Fire hazards

 E. Staffing adequacy

3. Order

A.Inmate misconduct

 1.Physcial force by inmate

 2.Security of personal

 property

 3.Sanctions

 4.Write ups

 5.Discipline rpts

 6.Sign incidents-riots &

 disturbances

B.Staff use of force

 1.Frequency

 2.Sign incidents

 3.Sign incidents w/

 restraints

 C.Perceived control

D.Strictness of Enforcement

 1.Discipline rpts outcomes

 2.Minor sanctions

 3.Major sanctions

 4.Goodtime removal

 5.Segregation

 6.Sanctions reduced

 race&gender

 3.Staff promotions/

 race&gender

 4.Mgmt staff/race &

 gender

 5.Dept staff/race &

 gender

E.Cross development

 training

F.EEO complaints

G.Disciplinary/

 adverse actions

 against staff

H.Internal affairs

 Actions

3. Security & facility

 mgmt

A. Safe environment

 1.Staff perceptions

 2.Tort claims

 3.Assaults w/o

 weapons

 4.Assaults w/weapons

 5.Guilty findings for

 prohibited acts

 6.Homocides

 7.Suicides

 8.Escapes

B.Monitoring

 1.Urinanalysis

 2.Guilty findings for

 prohibited acts

C.Use of force

D.Administrative

 remedies

E.Health &

 occupational safety

 6.Fires

 7.Fear levels

4. Programming

A.Educ & training

 1.Math & reading

 scores

 2.Educ while in

 isolation

B.Treatment Assessm’t

 1.Health assessments

 2.Mental health

 3.Substance abuse

 4.Reading & math

 5.Social skills

 6.Vocational

 7.Physical fitness

 8.Individual

 treatment plans

 9.Educational

 programming

 10.Social skills

 programming

 11.Vocational skills

 programming

 12.Monthly progress

 notes

 13.Annual summary

 14.Health curriculum

 15.Social skills

 curriculum

 16.Vocational skills

 curriculum

 17.Exercise

 18.Education mater-

 ials in isolation

 19.Reintegration plans

 20.Telephone calls

 21.Visitation

 22.Community

 volunteers

 5.Vocational certi-

 ficates awarded

 6.Public/private

 partnerships

5. Health services

 1.Medical per diem

 2.Medical readmits

 3.Mandatory training

 4.Cost of community

 hospital care

 5.Deficiencies

 6.Suicides

 7.Grievances upheld

6. Programs &

 institutions

 1.Substance abuse

 program slots use

 2.Mandated substance

 abuse treatment

 3.Academic class

 attendance

 4.Vocational class

 attendance

H.Religious

3. Safety/security

 violations

A.External

 1.Recidivism

 2.Escapes

B.Internal

 1.Assaults

 2.Injuries (non-

 assault)

 3.Suicides

 4.Homocides

 5.Crimes in custody

 6.Disciplinary action

 7.Drug/alcohol use

 8.Riots &

 disturbances

 9.Litigation

4. Community

 reintegration

 2.Viole

 3.Non-

 4.Custo

 restri

3. Substan

 treatm

 1.% eli

 2.Inten

 reside

 3.Outpa

 1.% elig

 2.Self-h

 Involv

 1.Visits

 2.Volun
DRAFT

PBM Measurement Final Report – Draft 18

TABLE 1: PRISON PERFORMANCE INDICATOR MODELS

MODEL

LOGAN’S

PERFORMANCE

MEASURES FOR

PRISONS

BOP’S EXECUTIVE

STAFF

MANAGEMENT

INDICATORS

CJCA’S

PERFORMANCEBASED STANDARDS

FLORIDA DOC’S

PERFORMANCE

STANDARDS

RONALD POWELL’S

FACTORS IN

MEASURING

PERFORMANCE

PLANNIN

APPLICATION

LEVEL Institution Institution and System Institution Institution Institution

4. Care

A.Stress and illness

 1.Stress scale

 2.Days ill or injured

 3.Days of medical care

 4.Sign incidents-suicide

 5.Sign incidents-medical

 care

 B.Health care

 1.Non-emergency

 2.Emergency

 3.Clinical contacts

 4.Sick call

 5.Medical appts

 6.Physicals

 7.Lab appts

C.Dental

D.Counseling

 1.Alcohol&drug

 2.Other

 3.Psycholog contacts

 4.Contact hrs

 5.Psychiatric visits

 E.Staffing

 1.Number of staff

 2.Number of inmates

 3. Serv delivery staff

5. Activity

A.Inmates busy

 B.Work & industry

 1.Prop involved

 2.Ave hr/wk

C.Evaluation

 D.Ed & training

 1.Prop

 1.Life safety project

 2.Staff injuries

 3.Preventive

 maintenance prog

 4.Inmate work

 related injuries

4. Leadership & admin

A.Staff perceptions

B.Oversight

 1.Program reviews

 2.JCAHO accred

5. Inmate programs &

 services

A.Health

 1.Infectious diseases

B.Programs

 1.Furlough

 2.CCC utilization

 3.Financial respon

C.Industry

 1.UNICOR

 employment

 2.UNICOR data

6. Building

 partnerships

A.Volunteers

 1.Number

 2.Demographics

 3.Training

B.Community

 Relations board

5. Health & Mental

 Health

A.Screening

 1.Intake screening

 staff training

 2.Intake screening

B.Health appraisals

 1.Health

 assessments

 2.Substance abuse

 assessment

C.Treatment Plans

 1.Health treatment

 2.Mental health

 treatment

 3.Substance abuse

 treatment

D.Responsiveness

 1.Instructions

 2.Time to medical

 attention

 3.Urgent off-site

 care

E.Continuity

 1.Reintegration

 health plans

 2.Reintegration

 MH plans

 3.Reintegratoin sub-

 stance abuse plans

F.Environment

 1.Abuse or neglect

 2.Injuries

 3.Suicides

6. Justice

A.Grievances

 1.Number

 2.Hearings
DRAFT

PBM Measurement Final Report – Draft 19

TABLE 1: PRISON PERFORMANCE INDICATOR MODELS

MODEL

LOGAN’S

PERFORMANCE

MEASURES FOR

PRISONS

BOP’S EXECUTIVE

STAFF

MANAGEMENT

INDICATORS

CJCA’S

PERFORMANCEBASED STANDARDS

FLORIDA DOC’S

PERFORMANCE

STANDARDS

RONALD POWELL’S

FACTORS IN

MEASURING

PERFORMANCE

PLANNIN

APPLICATION

LEVEL Institution Institution and System Institution Institution Institution

 2.Enrollment

 3.Ave hr/wk

E. Ed & training eval

F.Recreaction

 1.Satisfactory

 2.Freq of use

G.Religious services

 1.Satisfactory

 2.Freq of use

6. Justice

A.Staff fairness

B.Limited use of force

 1.Evaluation

 2.Frequency

 3.Sign incidents

 4.Sign incidents w/

 restraints

C. Grievances

 1.Prop of staff receiving

 2.Pro of inmates filing

 3.Number

D. Grievance process eval.

E. Discipline process eval

F. Legal resources

 1.Use

 2.Adequacy

 3.Grievances

G. Delays

 1.Days to discipline hag

 2.Prop beyond limit

 3.Days to grievance resolve

7. Conditions

A.Eval

B.Legal rights

 1.Understanding

 2.Pursuit

C.Administration

 1.Fairness

D.Adminstrative

 Hearings

 1.Timeliness

 2.Attorney visits

 3.Confinement due

 to delays
DRAFT

PBM Measurement Final Report – Draft 20

TABLE 1: PRISON PERFORMANCE INDICATOR MODELS

MODEL

LOGAN’S

PERFORMANCE

MEASURES FOR

PRISONS

BOP’S EXECUTIVE

STAFF

MANAGEMENT

INDICATORS

CJCA’S

PERFORMANCEBASED STANDARDS

FLORIDA DOC’S

PERFORMANCE

STANDARDS

RONALD POWELL’S

FACTORS IN

MEASURING

PERFORMANCE

PLANNIN

APPLICATION

LEVEL Institution Institution and System Institution Institution Institution

B.Crowding

 1.% of capacity

 2.Time overcrowded

 3.Sq ft/inmate

 4.Sq ft/housing

 5.Crowding outside 

 housing

C.Social density

 1.Type of housing

 2.Privacy in sleeping area

 3.Privacy in shower

 & toilet area

D.Freedom of movement

 1.Perceived

 2.Prop confined for

 10+ hr/day

E.Facilities

 1.Inmates/conveniences

F.Sanitation eval

G.Noise eval

H.Food

 1.Quality

 2.Variety

 3.Inmate views

 4.Food grievances

I.Commissary

 1.Selection

 2.Inmate views

J.Visitation

 1.Inmate views

 2.Visitation grievances

K.Furloughs

8. Management

A.Job satisfaction
DRAFT

PBM Measurement Final Report – Draft 21

TABLE 1: PRISON PERFORMANCE INDICATOR MODELS

MODEL

LOGAN’S

PERFORMANCE

MEASURES FOR

PRISONS

BOP’S EXECUTIVE

STAFF

MANAGEMENT

INDICATORS

CJCA’S

PERFORMANCEBASED STANDARDS

FLORIDA DOC’S

PERFORMANCE

STANDARDS

RONALD POWELL’S

FACTORS IN

MEASURING

PERFORMANCE

PLANNIN

APPLICATION

LEVEL Institution Institution and System Institution Institution Institution

 1.Index

 2.Grievances

B.Stress inventories

C.Staff turnover

D.Staff/mgmt relations

E.Staff experience

 1.Ave yrs/instit

 2.Ave other facilities

 3.Ave yrs/corrections

F.Ave education

G.Training index

H.Salary & overtime

 1.Ave salary

 2.Ave # hrs O.T.

 3.O.T compensation
DRAFT

PBM Final Report- Draft

February 4, 2003

22

Subcommittee members wrestled with what fell within categories. For external safety,

the group agreed that escapes should be included but struggled with whether recidivism should

be included or should be a separate category. The group eventually reached consensus that

recidivism would be included in the category. The Subcommittee also discussed whether

external safety should be called public or community safety and decided to call the category,

“Public Safety.”

For internal safety, committee members considered whether staff and inmate safety were

distinct from institutional order. The distinction between inter-measures (those that can applied

across jurisdictions) and intra-measures (those limited to within a jurisdiction) was introduced,

which the committee found helpful in deciding what might be included as an indicator. The

Subcommittee reached consensus to retain two categories: Safety within the institution which

would include such indicators as staff and inmate assaults, contraband, and urinalysis and

Population Management which would include indicators such as idle time, disciplinary reports,

segregation, and restraints.

Another topic that the group spent time examining was what constitutes a performance,

or outcome, measure. There was general agreement that costs and offender profiles are not

outcome measures. However, the group concurred that data about these two topics were needed

to assess outcomes. Members reached consensus not to include these two topics in the list of

eight outcome measures but to include them as separate areas for which data would be collected.

The final topic that the group struggled with was how to classify those activities that fall

within the general area of programming and treatment. Should there be a single overriding

category or a few separate categories. The Subcommittee reached consensus that it would

include three measures categories: Programming, Substance Abuse and Mental Health, and
DRAFT

PBM Final Report- Draft

February 4, 2003

23

Health. Part of the rationale in making this final distinction came in recognizing those topics

which are currently receiving a great deal of attention in institutional management.

The Subcommittee included Human Resource Management and Justice to complete its

list of eight performance and two contextual measures:

*1. Public Safety – the ability of correctional agencies to protect the public

from further harm by convicted criminals.

*2. Institutional Safety – the ability of correctional agencies to prevent

violence, maintain institutional control, avoid staff misconduct, and avert

prisoner insurrections.

3. Programming – activities for prisoners that are intended to provide the

skills necessary to remain crime-free after release, to create hope, and to

keep prisoners gainfully occupied while incarcerated.

*4. Substance Abuse and Mental Health – diagnostic and treatment activities

designed for prisoners with substance abuse and mental health problems.

5. Human Resource Management – operational issues involving personnel

including staffing, affirmative action, grievances, training, promotions,

adverse actions, etc.

6. Justice – the internal justice system of the correctional agencies regarding

discipline and grievances of prisoners.

*7. Population Management – prisoner characteristics and efforts to manage

the capacity of the population.

8. Health – diagnosis and treatment of illness and injury within the prisoner

population.

--------------------------------------------------------

*A. Offender Profile – characteristics of the prisoner population including

sentencing, time served, demographics, and type of admission.

 B. Costs – financial information about overall costs of operation, costs per

prisoner, and specific financial information about functional areas, such as

medical and food services.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report- Draft

February 4, 2003

24

Using both a straw poll and discussion, the Subcommittee selected the four starred

performance measures and offender profile as the measures to be included in this phase of

implementation.

During the ensuing month after the July meeting, the Lead Consultant identified a set of

key indicators for each of the performance measures. It was also at this point that the project

shifted its use of labels, now referring to overriding measures as standards. The Performance

Measures Subcommittee met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on August 10, 2001 as part of the

annual ASCA meeting to continue its review of standards and key indicators.

Subcommittee members reviewed the proposed model and reached consensus regarding

the items to retain and those to exclude. Committee members raised several difficult and

complex issues regarding the measurement of some key indicators across jurisdictions. It was

clear that the Subcommittee could not resolve these issues and would have to turn to the

Advisory Committee and subject matter experts for assistance.

A major decision was made during the meeting to drop population management as a

performance standard. The population management standard included key indicators of

disciplinary reports and the use of segregation and restraints. Members agreed that these are not

outcome measures but rather are processes associated with institutional safety. The meaning of

these measures could be ambiguous. For example, a high rate of disciplinary reports might

suggest the lack of institutional safety or could indicate that staff is being vigilant in its control of

the facility.

With the decision to drop population management, the Subcommittee returned to its

original plan to include four standards. Consensus was reached that the project would pursue to

following standards: Public Safety, Institutional Safety, Substance Abuse and Mental
DRAFT

PBM Final Report- Draft

February 4, 2003

25

Health, and Offender Profile. The Subcommittee recognized that the Offender Profile category

was not an outcome measure but decided that its measurement was necessary in order to provide

a contextual framework, i.e., the basic demographic characteristics and criminal history data for

the inmate population, necessary for understanding the data and making comparisons across

systems.

An issue that surfaced during the discussions at this meeting was the uniqueness of the

unified prison systems and how to “level the playing field” when collecting data from systems

that responsible for felons, pre-trial defendants, and misdemeanant offenders. Members reached

consensus that the unified systems should include only felons serving one year or longer.

By the close of the August 2001 meeting, the Performance Measures Subcommittee had

agreed upon a set of key indicators that would serve as the basic structure of the performance

model. The next step in the process was to convene a Project Advisory Panel to review the

proposed measures and provide feedback to the Subcommittee. Five individuals, each with

considerable expertise in measurement of correctional performance measurement and

information technology, were selected to advise the project:

1. William Bales, Director of Research, Florida Department of Corrections

2. Ned Benton, Department of Criminal Justice, John Jay College

3. Gerald Gaes, Director of Research and Evaluation, Federal Bureau of Prisons

4. Patricia Hardyman, Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections

5. Donald Price, Director of Information Technology, Washington Department of

Corrections

Having reviewed the standards and key indicators, the Advisory Committee met with the

Performance Measures Subcommittee in a two-day meeting held November 15-16, 2001 in

Middletown, Connecticut. The group was joined by Allen Beck of the Bureau of Justice
DRAFT

PBM Final Report- Draft

February 4, 2003

26

Statistics and Chris Innes of the National Institute of Justice. By the close of the meeting, the

group had decided upon a final set of key indicators for the project (Table 2).

Two problems add complexity to the development of performance measurement system

at the national level. The first is that several departments of corrections have already developed

performance indicator systems. These agencies have devoted considerable time and expense to

this process and are, therefore, vested in particular ways of measuring outcomes. If the model

that ASCA devises is substantially different from the states’ methods of measuring outcomes,

departments may be reluctant to redesign their systems.

Secondly, differences exist in missions, legal structures and organizational arrangements

among departments which make it difficult to “level the playing field” when measuring

outcomes. For example, some systems are unified; others are not. Departments differ in the

proportion of their populations that they release each year, which will have implications for their

recidivism rates. States differ in how they diagnose mental illness and substance abuse.

To support the Performance Measurement Subcommittee’s grasp of the nature and extent

of this complexity, project staff sent a questionnaire to all ASCA members asking them to

provide two sets of information. First, the inventory asked whether or not the department

currently had a performance indicator system or was in the process of developing one. The

questionnaire then asked departments to indicate if they maintained data on 28 performance

measures. If the agency indicated that data were collected, the respondent was asked to indicate

if the information was available in automated format.

The questionnaire was faxed to 60 jurisdictions of which 39 (65%) responded. (See

Appendix A for a list of the agencies that responded to the questionnaire.) Results from the

questionnaire are provided in Table 3. Twenty-four (61.5%) of 39 responding agencies indicated
DRAFT

PBM Final Report- Draft

February 4, 2003

27

that they currently maintain a performance indicator system. Of the 15 jurisdictions that did not

operate a performance indicator system, 4 (26.7%) were in the process of developing one. The

data regarding specified performance indicators suggest that although most agencies consider the

key indicators identified by this project as performance measures within their systems, the data

are not always stored on their information systems. Somewhat surprising was the finding that

data on sexual assaults were not systematically collected by the agencies.

Table 2: KEY INDICATORS OF THE FOUR PERFORMANCE MEASURES

1. Public Safety

a. Escape rate

b. Recidivism rate defined as return to the DOC system within past three years

2. Institutional Safety

a. Prisoner on prisoner assault rates

b. Prisoner on staff assault rates

c. Prisoner sexual assaults on prisoners

d. Prisoner sexual assaults on staff

e. Sexual misconduct of staff on prisoners

f. Homicide rate

g. Suicide rate

h. Number and percentage of random drug tests that are positive

i. Disturbances

3. Substance Abuse and Mental Health

a. Average daily rate of prisoners receiving substance abuse treatment

b. Average daily rate of prisoners receiving mental health treatment

4. Offender Profile

a. Offense type

b. Demographics—sex, age, race/ethnicity

c. Average sentence length

d. Average time served
DRAFT

PBM Final Report- Draft

February 4, 2003

28

In order for measures to be compared across jurisdictions, each key indicator must be

expressed as a rate. For example, prisoner-on-prisoner assaults need to be adjusted for the

number of prisoners held by a particular department. As such, each measure has a numerator

expressing the performance outcome as a number and denominator expressing some unit of

measure that adjusts for population size. For performance measures to be reliable, valid and

applicable across jurisdictions, definitional rules that specify explicitly what gets counted and

what does not were needed for each numerator and each denominator. To continue with the

example of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults, for the numerator, are all aggressive acts between

prisoners counted or only the more serious ones involving weapons and/or injury? If the later

definition is used, then what is a weapon? Does it include throwing of bodily fluids? What is an

injury, a cut or bruise or more serious medical issues requiring the attention of a health-care

professional? Similarly, what prisoners are considered at-risk and should be included in the

denominator? Should prisoners housed in other states or private facilities be included in the

count? What measure of the population should be used, average daily population or stock

population on a given day of the year? The key to establishing a performance indicator system

that is applicable across jurisdictions is the specification of how each indicator will be measured.

This specificity is spelled out in explicit counting rules associated with the numerator and

denominator for each indicator.

The iteration of the counting rules was accomplished through a series of successive steps.

The Lead Consultant convened a meeting of a group of experts in the measurement of prison

variables in Washington, DC on February 7, 2002. This group included William Bales, Director

of Research, Florida Department of Corrections; Gerald Gaes, William Saylor and Scott Camp,
DRAFT

PBM Final Report- Draft

February 4, 2003

29

Office of Research and Evaluation, Federal Bureau of Prisons; and Allen Beck, Corrections

Division, Bureau of Justice Statistics, and George Camp, Executive Director, ASCA.

Table 3:

Results of E-Mail Survey of ASCA Members Regarding Performance Measurement

October 2001

Yes, my agency defines this

indicator

Yes, the indicator is

Key Indicator automated via our MIS

N % N %

Escape 23 of 29 79.3 21 of 30 70.0

Absconding 15 of 28 53.6 20 of 27 74.1

Away without Leave 12 of 27 44.4 11 of 23 47.8

Recidivism 23 of 33 69.7 22 of 27 81.5

Prisoner-on-Prisoner Assault 25 of 32 78.1 21 of 29 72.4

Prisoner-on-Staff Assault 25 of 32 78.1 21 of 30 70.0

Prisoner-on-Prisoner Sexual Assault 12 of 31 38.7 14 of 25 56.0

Prisoner-on-Staff Sexual Assault 10 of 31 32.3 12 of 24 50.0

Staff-on-Prisoner Sexual Assault 9 of 30 30.0 7 of 24 29.2

Prisoner Homicide 18 of 30 60.0 18 of 28 64.3

Prisoner Suicide 21 of 30 70.0 17 of 28 60.7

Drug Testing of Prisoners for Cause 24 of 32 75.0 16 of 28 57.1

Random Drug Testing of Prisoners 27 of 32 84.4 21 of 28 75.0

Mandated Drug Testing 22 of 31 71.0 16 of 28 57.1

Positive Drug Tests of Prisoners 25 of 31 80.6 19 of 28 67.9

Prison Disturbances 12 of 29 41.4 9 of 26 34.6

Percentage of Prisoners on Idle Status 14 of 29 48.3 15 of 28 53.6

Prisoners with Substance Abuse Problem 22 of 31 71.0 18 of 29 62.1

Prisoners in Substance Abuse Treatment 25 of 32 78.1 20 of 29 69.0

Prisoners with Mental Health Problem 22 of 31 71.0 18 of 30 64.3

Prisoners in Mental Health Treatment 19 of 30 63.3 15 of 26 57.7

Offense Being Served 27 of 31 87.1 31 of 33 93.7

Prisoner Gender 26 of 30 86.7 32 of 33 97.0

Prisoner Age 26 of 30 86.7 32 of 33 97.0

Prisoner Race 26 of 30 86.7 30 of 32 93.8

Prisoner Ethnicity 23 of 29 79.3 28 of 32 87.5

Sentence Length 25 of 30 83.3 30 of 32 93.8

Time Served 23 of 27 85.2 27 of 32 87.1
DRAFT

PBM Final Report- Draft

February 4, 2003

30

The group identified a comprehensive list of used the content of these discussions to

write an initial draft of the full performance measures model specifying the counting rules. This

draft was distributed to the experts who met in Washington DC for their review and feedback.

The model was then revised by the Lead Consultant for presentation to the Performance

Measures Subcommittee at its meeting in Middletown, Connecticut, June 27-28, 2002.

The single most troublesome issue was specification of the mental health and substance

abuse indicators. Early on, the Subcommittee agreed that these two areas were of crucial

importance in the administration of prisons across the nation. The identification and delineation

of measures for these proved to be exceedingly difficult. Four significant issues had to be

considered. The first problem in developing a measure of performance for mental health and

substance abuse treatment was that correctional agencies differ in what instruments and

techniques are used to identify mentally ill and substance abusing offenders. The type of

diagnostic devise used will influence both the number of individuals identified as having a

problem and the range of pathology that is included within the definition of the problem.

The second confounding issue involves the nature of the diseases. An individual with a

substance abuse problem should arrive at the facility with that problem. The prison could chose

to address that problem anytime during the prisoner’s period of incarceration, however it was the

consensus of the Subcommittee that the standard practice is to provide substance abuse treatment

toward the end of the expected period of confinement. In contrast, a prisoner may arrive at intake

mentally ill or could become disturbed during incarceration. At any point during the individual’s

incarceration, the illness could be acute and require treatment. Responsiveness to mental illness

would require a system to treat individuals as treatment is needed.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report- Draft

February 4, 2003

31

The third problem in developing performance measures for substance abuse and mental

health is that treatment modalities vary considerably. For substance abuse, there are programs

run by non-professionals that are educational and self-help oriented, out-patient treatments, and

in-patient, residential programs, such as therapeutic communities. With mental health, an

individual could be placed in out-patient or in-patient programs and/or treated

pharmacologically. The type of treatment needed varies with diagnosis; however, the more

intensive treatments have generally been proven more successful. In judging performance,

measures, then, necessarily must take into account treatment modalities. Finally, prison system

medical-related data tend to be the less sophisticated and the least likely to be automated of all

areas of information systems. Thus, any degree of measurement specification to address the first

three confounding issues would leave most prison agencies unable to provide such information.

Over the course of developing the key indicators, the Lead Consultant and the

Performance Measures Subcommittee considered a number of different measures. A subject

matter expert in the mental health field advised that diagnosis and treatment could not really be

measured well and advised that units of service be used as a proxy for treatment performance

measurement. The Lead Consultant developed a series of measures to assess hours of service

provided by different substance abuse and mental health professionals. However, a polling of

prison agencies across the nation (to be discussed in Section V) revealed that these data were

unavailable in virtually all jurisdictions. The finding compelled the Subcommittee to revisit the

measurement of substance abuse and mental health. During the summer of 2002, ASCA staff

worked with subject matter experts from the Federal Bureau of Prisons to re-specify these

measures. At it’s meeting on September 26-27, 2002 in Middletown Connecticut, the

Performance Measures Subcommittee approved the new key indicators of substance abuse and
DRAFT

PBM Final Report- Draft

February 4, 2003

32

mental health. The significant milestones of this project to develop a set of reliable and valid

performance measures that are applicable across jurisdictions are summarized in a Table 4.

Table 4: Performance Based -Measures Project Milestones

DATE EVENT

Fall 2000

January 2001

January 21, 2001

February 8, 2001

March 16, 2001

July 12, 2001

July 29, 2001

August 10, 2001

September 19, 2001

October 15, 2001

November 15-16, 2001

January 11, 2002

February 7, 2002

Spring 2002

Spring - Summer,

2002

June 27-28, 2002

August 1, 2002

August - September,

2002

September 16, 2002

Proposal prepared and funded

Performance Measures Subcommittee members and Lead Consultant selected

First Subcommittee Meeting—Nashville, TN

Initial meeting of project staff, BJS representatives, Lead Consultant and ASCA staff

Letter mailed to Subcommittee members from Lead Consultant reviewing

performance models and proposing a model for this project

Subcommittee meeting to review models and select performance standards at

Middletown, CT

Letter mailed to Subcommittee members from Lead Consultant reviewing selection of

standards and outlining next steps

Subcommittee meeting to review standards and key indicators -Philadelphia, PA

Review of key indicators by Lead Consultant sent to Subcommittee

ASCA Executive Office sent a questionnaire asking ASCA membership about present

practice of performance based management and collection of performance indicators

Subcommittee meeting with Project Advisory Panel at Middletown, CT

Subcommittee meeting at San Antonio, TX

Lead Consultant met with representatives from BJS, the research office of the Bureau

of Prisons, and ASCA Executive staff to consider counting rules for key indicators

ASCA Performance Standards Key Indicators (with counting rules) mailed to

Subcommittee

Telephone survey of select ASCA members regarding current collection and

automation of key indicators as specified in model

Subcommittee meeting to review of full model with counting and initial results of

survey of capacity at Middletown, CT

Subcommittee meeting to review data dictionary, new key indicators for substance

abuse and mental health, and Phase II plans at Anaheim, CA

ASCA staff works with Bureau of Prisons staff to develop new key indicators for

Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Subcommittee meeting at which revised substance abuse and mental health indicators

are adopted and Phase II planning continues at Middletown, CT
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

33

SECTION IV. ASCA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND KEY

INDICATORS

As described in the previous section, the ASCA Performance Measures Subcommittee

identified eight standards of correctional performance and selected four of those values upon

which to develop a performance measurement system. Eventually, other measures will be added.

It should be noted that the fourth measure is not a correctional outcome but rather a contextual

measure that can be used to adjust for system differences.

Key indicators (actual measures) were identified for each of the four measures. These

indicators represent the elements of the standard that the Subcommittee perceived the most

crucial in representing the standard. In time, other indicators may be added. After the measures

were decided upon, counting rules were written for each measure. The counting rules are

extremely detailed and attempt to account for the differences among correctional agencies’

mission, legal structures, and organizational arrangements. The rules, if followed, will assure

that measures are reliable and valid across jurisdictions.

On the following pages, an executive summary of the performance standards selected by

the Subcommittee is presented. Each standard has several indicators. Because each indicator is

expressed as a rate, there are two data elements for each indicator, a numerator and a

denominator. Each data element is explicitly defined by a set of counting rules that outline what

data are to be included when measuring the element. The data elements contain language that is

particular and sometimes technical. To assure standardization across jurisdictions, these terms

have been defined in a glossary of terms. (See Appendix B.) Because the full model is so

detailed, an executive summary of the indicators was prepared (Table 5). Presented in Appendix

C is the full model with counting rules.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

34

TABLE 5: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ASCA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

KEY INDICATORS

STANDARD I: PUBLIC SAFETY

1. Escapes

I.1.1 Escapes from Secure DOC Facility: Number of individuals in direct custody of the

agency and housed in secure facilities who escaped from within the facility during the

calendar year adjusted for the number of prisoners held in secure facilities on June 30 and

reported as a rate per 1,000.

I.1.2 Escapes from Secure Private Facilities: Number of individuals in direct custody of the

agency and housed in secure private facilities who escaped from within the facility during

the calendar year adjusted for the number of prisoners held in secure private facilities on

June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

I.1.3 Escapes from Outside the Security Perimeter of a DOC facility: Number of

individuals in direct custody of the agency and under direct supervision of agency personnel

who escaped from supervision while outside the secure perimeter of a facility (including

while on work details, medical or court visits, and while being transported) during the

calendar year adjusted for the number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and

reported as a rate per 1,000.

2. Returns to Prison

I.2.1 Returns for New Felony Conviction: Number of individuals released from the DOC

during a calendar year who returned to the DOC prison system within three subsequent

years after release for a new felony-level conviction divided by the number of individuals

released during the calendar year and reported as a rate per 1,000.

I.2.2 Returns for Technical Violation: Number of individuals released from prison during a

calendar year who returned to prison within three subsequent years after release for only a

technical violation divided by the number of individuals released during the calendar year

and reported as a rate per 1,000.

STANDARD II: INSTITUTIONAL SAFETY

1. Prisoner-on-Prisoner Assaults

II.1.1 Serious Prisoner-on-Prisoner Assailants: Number of assailants in prisoner-onprisoner attacks that involved serious injury during the calendar year adjusted for the

number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

35

II.1.2 Serious Prisoner-on-Prisoner Victims: Number of victims of prisoner-on-prisoner

attacks that involved serious injury during the calendar year adjusted for the number of

prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

2. Staff Injuries Resulting From Assaults

II.2.1 Prisoner-on-Staff Assaults: Number of staff injured as a result of direct, willful and

physical attacks by prisoners that required treatment by a medical professional during the

calendar year adjusted for the number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and

reported as a rate per 1,000.

3. Prisoner-On-Prisoner Sexual Assaults

II.3.1 Prisoner-On-Male Prisoner Sexual Assaults: Number of incidents of non-consensual

sexual acts or threats of forcible sexual acts in which the victim is a male prisoner during the

calendar year adjusted for the number of male prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and

reported as a rate per 1,000.

II.3.2 Prisoner-On-Female Prisoner Sexual Assaults: Number of incidents of nonconsensual sexual acts or threats of forcible sexual acts in which the victim is a female

prisoner during the calendar year adjusted for the number of female prisoners held by the

agency on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

4. Prisoner-On-Staff Sexual Assaults

II.4.1 Male Prisoner-on-Male Staff Sexual Assaults: Number of incidents of forcible sexual

acts or threats of forcible sexual acts perpetrated on male staff by male prisoners during the

calendar year adjusted for the number of male prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and

reported as a rate per 1,000.

II.4.2 Female Prisoner-on-Male Staff Sexual Assaults: Number of incidents of forcible

sexual acts or threats of forcible sexual acts perpetrated on male staff by female prisoners

during the calendar year adjusted for the number of female prisoners held by the agency on

June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

II.4.3 Male Prisoner-on-Female Staff Sexual Assaults: Number of incidents of forcible

sexual acts or threats of forcible sexual acts perpetrated on female staff by male prisoners

during the calendar year adjusted for the number of male prisoners held by the agency on

June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

II.4.4 Female Prisoner-on-Female Staff Sexual Assaults: Number of incidents of forcible

sexual acts or threats of forcible sexual acts perpetrated on female staff by female prisoners

during the calendar year adjusted for the number of female prisoners held by the agency on

June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

36

5. Sexual Misconduct By Staff-On-Prisoners

II.5.1 Male Staff-on-Male Prisoners Sexual Misconduct: Number of incidents of sexual

misconduct by male staff members with male prisoners during the calendar year adjusted for

the number of male staff on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

II.5.2 Male Staff-On-Female Prisoners Sexual Misconduct: Number of incidents of sexual

misconduct by male staff members with female prisoners during the calendar year adjusted

for the number of male staff on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

II.5.3 Female Staff-on-Male Prisoners Sexual Misconduct: Number of incidents of sexual

misconduct by female staff members with male prisoners during the calendar year adjusted

for the number of female staff on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

II.5.4 Female Staff-On-Female Prisoners Sexual Misconduct: Number of incidents of

sexual misconduct by female staff with female prisoners during the calendar year adjusted

for the number of female staff on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

6. Prisoner-On-Prisoner Homicides

II.6.1 Prisoner-on-Prisoner Homicides: Number of prisoner victims of homicides committed

by other prisoners during the calendar year adjusted for the number of prisoners held by the

agency on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

7. Prisoner-on-staff Homicides

II.7.1 Prisoner-On-Staff Homicides: Number of staff victims of homicide committed by

prisoners during the calendar year adjusted for the number of prisoners held by the agency

on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

8. Prisoner Suicides

II.8.1 Prisoner Suicides: Number of prisoners who committed suicide during the calendar

year adjusted for the number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and reported as a

rate per 1,000.

9. Positive Drug Tests

II.9.1 Positive Drug Tests: Number of random drug screenings with a positive indication for

cocaine, opiates and/or marijuana during the calendar year adjusted for the number of

random drug screenings conducted during the calendar year and reported as a rate per 1,000.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

37

10. Disturbances

II.10.1 Disturbances of 10+ Prisoners: Number of incidents of collective action by ten or

more prisoners that result in serious injury to staff or other prisoners, significant property

damage and/or result in loss of control of the facility or a portion of the facility and require

extraordinary measures to regain control during the calendar year adjusted for the number of

prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

II.10.2 Disturbances of 5-9 Prisoners: Number of incidents of collective action by five or

more but less than 10 prisoners (5-9 prisoners) that result in loss of control of the facility or

a portion of the facility and require extraordinary measures to regain control during the

calendar year adjusted for the number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and

reported as a rate per 1,000.

STANDARD III: SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH

1. Substance abuse treatment

III.1.1 Screening for Substance Abuse Problems: Number of prisoners screened for

substance abuse problems during the calendar year and reported as a rate per 1,000.

III.1.2 Assessment of Substance Abuse Disorders: Number of prisoners, identified via a

substance abuse screening as having a potential substance abuse problem, who received a

substance abuse assessment to diagnose the problem and develop a plan for appropriate

clinical management while incarcerated reported as a rate per 1,000.

III.1.3 Substance Abuse Intervention and Treatment Enrollment: Number of prisoners

released during the calendar year who were enrolled in recommended treatment services

while incarcerated reported as a rate per 1,000.

III.1.4 Substance Abuse Treatment Completions: Number of prisoners released who

achieved their treatment goals through participation in recommended services and was

formally discharged from treatment by a substance abuse treatment professional.

2. Mental Health Treatment

III.2.1 Mental Health Assessment: Number of prisoners assessed for mental health needs by

a professional mental health services provider during the calendar year and reported as a rate

per 1,000.

III.2.2 Mental Health Diagnosis: Among the prisoners whose mental health needs were

assessed, the number with a mental health diagnosis.

III.2.3 Serious Mental Health Diagnosis: Among the prisoners whose mental health needs

were assessed, number of who were diagnosed with a serious mental health illness.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

38

III.2.4 Mental Health Treatment: Among the prisoners diagnosed with a serious mental

health illness, the number of who are receiving treatment (medication-maintenance or

medication-maintenance plus) by a mental health professional.

III.2.5 Availability of Psychiatric Beds: Number of psychiatric beds adjusted for the number

of prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

III.2.6 Number of Non-DOC Psychiatric Placements: Number of prisoners placed in nonDOC facilities for psychiatric treatment and services adjusted for the number of prisoners

held by the agency on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION IV: OFFENDER PROFILE

1. Commitment Type: Note, sum of following types of commitments should equal 100%;

prisoners should be counted in only one category of commitment.

IV.1.1 New Court Commitments: Number of prisoners incarcerated for a new court

commitment on June 30 adjusted for the number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30

and reported as a percentage.

IV.1.2 New Court Order and Technical Violation Commitment: Number of prisoners

incarcerated for a technical violation with a new sentence on June 30 adjusted for the

number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and reported as a percentage.

IV.1.2 Technical Violation Commitment: Number of prisoners incarcerated for a technical

violation on June 30 adjusted for the number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and

reported as a percentage.

2. Offense Type

IV.2.1 Most Serious Offense For Which The Prisoner Is Currently Incarcerated: Number

of prisoners serving a sentence for a Part I violent crime, other violent crime, property

crime, drug offense, public order offense or other crime on June 30 adjusted for the number

of prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and reported as a percentage.

3. Demographics: Note, the sum of the categories for each of the demographic indicators

should equal the population on June 30.

IV.3.1 Demographic Characteristics of the Prison Population: Demographics of the

prisoner population on June 30 by gender, age category, and race/ethnicity adjusted for the

number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and reported as a percentage.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

39

4. Sentence length: Note, each prisoner should only be counted in one category.

IV.4.1 Length of Sentence Among Prisoners: Number of prisoners who longest sentence is

less than one year, 1 to 3 years, 3-5 years, 5-10 years, 10-20 years, more than 20 years, life

with parole, life without parole, and death on June 30 adjusted for the number of prisoners

held by the agency on June 30 and reported as a percentage.

5. Time Served

IV.5.1 Length of Time Served to Date by Technical Violators: Number of prisoners who

are incarcerated for a technical violation who have served, since the most recent admission

to the prison system, less than one year 1 to 3 years, 3 to 5 years, 5to 10 years, 10 to 20

years, more than 20 years on June 30 adjusted for the number of prisoners incarcerated for a

violation held by the agency on June 30 and reported as a percentage.

IV.5.2 Length of Time Served to Date by New Admissions: Number of prisoners who are

incarcerated for a new offense (new admission) who have served less than one year, 1 to 3

years, 3 to 5 years, 5to 10 years, 10 to 20 years, more than 20 years on June 30 adjusted for

the number of prisoners incarcerated for a violation held by the agency on June 30 and

reported as a percentage.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

40

SECTION V. AN ASSESSMENT OF CAPACITY

Capacity

Historically, correctional agencies have developed information systems to support

operational activities. Initially, all information was maintained in paper files. With

computerization, agencies began to capture some of the information contained in written records

and automate it. For the most part, these data files were developed and designed to support

operational decision-making, so they tended to be specific and functional.

Most departments maintain several record systems, each associated with a specific

disciplinary area. Departments keep records on prisoners, including demographics, offense

history, current offense, sentence, and perhaps, information about substance abuse, education,

mental health and so forth. Departments automate some, but not all of this information.

Agencies also keep information about significant events that occur in the day-to-day operations

of prisons. When a significant event occurs, staff write a report or series of reports describing

the event. Many systems have designed a form for recording the information that is automated.

For example, automated records of the prisoners’ disciplinary infractions are maintained.

Departments of corrections also record information about staff. These data are often maintained

by human resources personnel and vary in degree to which they are automated. Prison medical

units record information about the physical and mental health of prisoners as well as information

about substance abuse and the treatment that prisoners may undergo.

The most frequent use of prison records is in day-to-day decision making. Personnel

considering transferring a prisoner may review his or her records to determine time-served and

time-remaining, program needs, and history of disruptive behavior while incarcerated. Because

different disciplines are involved in creating and collecting information about prisoners, prisons’
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

41

automated information systems tend to draw from these different data sources to create an

integrated data record for each prisoner.

Another use of prison records is in report writing. Here, rather than focusing on an

individual, assessments are conducted on aggregate populations. Prison administrators may be

interested in number of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults that occur each month. A law suit could

generate a need for information regarding the percentage of the population receiving some form

of substance abuse treatment.

As described in Section I, departments of corrections, like other public and private

organizations, are in the throes of moving from an operational-oriented style of management to

strategic and performance-based management. As an organization makes this transition, the

need for information to support decision making increases. A department must move from its

maintenance of distinctive operational databases—prisoner information, disciplinary records,

personnel data, medical records, etc.—to integrated data systems that can be queried to support

decision making. In particular, integrated systems that allow for performance evaluation must be

designed. Such information systems are integrally tied to mission and are woven into

performance-based management.

The capacity of a department of correction to participate in a national performance

measurement system is directly linked to development of it data systems. Departments that have

integrated, performance-based information systems can begin to participate and report in a

national system rather quickly and with minimal staff time and expense. Whereas, departments

that still employ operational data bases will find such participation more difficult. The ability to

query databases and report on performance is referred to as capacity. Capacity to participate in a

national performance measurement system is determined by the data collected, the automation of
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

42

those data, and the ability to query the information to obtain measures of indicators of

performance.

Purpose of Assessment

Once the ASCA performance measures model was designed, the remaining task of this

project was to determine to what extent departments of corrections are prepared and able to

provide information regarding the performance measures from their own systems. By intent, the

topics contained within the ASCA model represent performance issues that prison executives

consider to be among the most important aspects of managing prisons well. For this reason, one

would expect that most states and the federal prison system would already collect most of the

information included in the model. However, the very basis for this project was that different

prison systems collect data about performance in very dissimilar ways, using unique definitions,

thus rendering cross-jurisdictional comparisons inappropriate and not valid.

The purpose of this assessment was to determine to what extent the Nation’s departments

of correction are collecting data on the ASCA key indicators as they are specified by the

counting rules. It was expected that most prison systems would be using some, but not all of the

counting rules for most indicators. Some systems might also be employing rules that were not

specified in the ASCA model. In other cases, agencies could be measuring an indicator

completely different from the way it is specified as an ASCA key indicator. For example, it was

known that some state prison agencies use an incident-based measure of prisoner-on-prisoner

assaults rather than definitions consisting of numbers of assailants and victims.

After determining the extent to which an agency measures a particular key indicator as

specified by the counting rules set forth by this project, the next concern in this assessment was
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

43

what would be required to collect the information as it has been specified. It was expected that

for some indicators, the department would need to make only minor changes that, involve

minimal staff time and expense. For example, the information necessary to report rates as

specified might already be collected, and departmental staff would simply need to write

computer code to capture and report the information as specified. In other cases, beginning to

collect the information could pose a major task for an agency that could require a policy change,

considerable expensive data collection, and the retraining of operational staff as to the value and

utility of the information.

Because any national reporting system that is eventually designed and implemented will

require the input of automated data, the third topic examined in this assessment was the extent to

which information regarding each key indicator is automated. If the data are collected, but not

available in a machine-readable format, then the assessment needed to determine what was

required to automate the data for a prison agency.

The assessment of prison agencies’ capacity to participate in a national performance

measurement system, thus, proceeded with three questions:

1. Does the department collect the information regarding a key indicator as specified by the

definitions and counting rules?

2. If not, what would be involved in beginning to collect the information as defined and

specified?

3. Are the data automated? If not, what would be involved in automating the information?

Answers to these three questions were needed for each key indicator contained in ASCA

performance measures model. The following subsections describe the methodology used for this

task and the findings of the assessment.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

44

Methodology

Procedure. To obtain the desired information about capacity, project staff conducted a

survey of the state and federal correctional agencies. Because of the level of detail necessary

about how data are collected currently and which, if any, of the counting rules are applied in

collecting the information, written questionnaires were inadequate for this task. Rather, an

individual or group of individuals who are intimately knowledgeable about the department’s data

collection systems and their automation had to be interviewed. These interviews were conducted

by telephone.

Respondents were provided with a copy of the Key Indicators of the ASCA Performance

Standards (With Counting Rules) via e-mail and were told that a member of the project team

would contact them. During an initial e-mail and/or telephone contact, the project was

explained, a time for an interview was scheduled and respondents were told that they would be

asked the three questions outlined above for each data element.

At the time of the survey, 52 distinctive data elements comprised the ASCA key indicator

model (several elements were revised after the survey was underway). Interviews generally

lasted approximately one hour; however they ranged from 35 minutes to 2 hours. During the

course of the telephone session, respondents were asked three questions listed above for each of

the 52 data elements. The respondents’ answers were recorded on data sheets during the

interviews. The Lead Consultant conducted the first interviews during the late spring, 2002 and

a member of the ASCA project staff conducted the remaining interviews during the summer of

that same year.

At the time the survey was initiated, the key indicators specified for Substance Abuse and

Mental Health were different than those outlined in the final model. Feedback from initial
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

45

interviews served as one of the motivating forces behind revising the indicators. However, the

results contained in this section are based upon the earlier specification. The key indicators and

counting rules for Substance Abuse and Mental Health as specified and used in the survey are

listed in Appendix C.

Sample. Project staff initially viewed a census of all state and the federal prison systems

necessary to determine capacity among the Nation’s prison departments to participate in a

performance measurement program. All ASCA members (with the exception of city and foreign

departments of corrections) were contacted and asked to nominate an individual to participate in

the assessment. As nominations began to come in from departments, project staff contacted the

nominated individual and attempted to arrange a time for the interview.

Because of the breadth of the ASCA model, some departments needed to bring in

representatives from different disciplines responsible for the collection of specific information to

provide complete answers to the survey questions. Other states wanted representatives from data

collection unit or units to be present along with representatives from the information technology

unit to provide complete and accurate representations of their agency’s data. Respondents

included research, information technology, and/or planning staff. Frequently, arranging a time

for the interview proved to be time consuming and difficult.

As of the August 1, 2002 meeting of the Performance Measures Subcommittee 18

interviews had been completed. At this point in the data collection process, response patterns

were being repeated by new interviewees with little new information about capacity being

obtained. The Subcommittee decided that data from all jurisdictions were not required. The

group, however, saw value in including a few additional states in specific geographic locations

and with specific characteristics to assure that those surveyed represented the array of
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

46

departments across the nation. Personnel from seven additional agencies were interviewed,

resulting in a total sample of 25 departments. (See Appendix A for a listing of the agencies that

participated in the survey.)

Analyses. The interviews produced a wealth of rich detail regarding prison systems’ data

collection practices and information technology systems. Two techniques were employed to

synthesize this information to gain an overall perspective of capacity. First, a coding system was

developed to summarize response patterns. For each data element, respondents’ answers were

classified into four categories: 1) collecting as specified, 2) collecting but recoding needed, 3)

collecting but not automated, and 4) not collecting. The individual who conducted the interview

assigned the data elements into one of the four categories. To ensure reliability of these data, the

classifications were emailed back to respondents, and they were asked to confirm that the

representation was accurate.

The second set of analyses involved qualitative assessments. The two individuals who

conducted the telephone interviews reviewed field notes looking for patterns as to the

departments’ ability to provide the desired performance information. Each reviewer worked

independently and then the two compared their assessments in order to assess and enhance

reliability of their evaluations.

Findings

Quantitative Assessment. The summary results of the telephone surveys are provided in

Table 6. By scanning the first column of results, Collecting as Specified, one can determine to

what extent the Nation’s departments of corrections are prepared to participate in a national

reporting system if it were implemented today. Recall that all key indicators have both a
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

47

numerator and denominator. The numerator contains substantive information about the topical

area of the indicator (e.g. number of escapes from secure facilities), and the denominator

includes information that adjusts for population size (e.g. number of prisoners held in secure

facilities). A quick scan of the “Collecting as Specified” column reveals that agencies are

currently collecting data about the denominators, (i.e. information about the prisoner population)

as it is specified. Yet, even here, 20 percent of the departments, that is 1 in 5, could not provide

information about basic characteristics of their prisoner populations.

Regarding the numerators, the actual substantive information of interest, the data are less

encouraging. Among the three performance standards, for only four key indicators do more than

half of the departments currently measure the variable as specified—returns to prison, prisoneron-prisoner homicides, prisoner suicides, and positive drug screenings. About half of the

departments measure the contextual information about the prisoner population as it is specified.

For a few indicators, almost half the departments are collecting information as specified

(i.e., 46 percent for escapes from within secure facilities and 38 percent for prisoner-on-staff

homicides). But, for many indicators, the percentage of departments collecting the information

as specified is extremely low. Only 17 percent of the departments currently use same definition

of prisoner-on-prisoner attacks as the ASCA model. Eight percent (8%) of the systems can

report, as specified, when a prisoner has sexually attacked a staff member. Likewise, only 8

percent can report major disturbances that occur each year as it has been defined.

Reviewing the percentages of departments who can and cannot currently provide

information regarding the various key indicators provides a partial explanation of capacity. One

also needs to examine how many departments cannot provide information as specified. The last
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

48

Table 6: Summary Results from Telephone Survey Regarding the Collection and Automation of Key Indicators

Spring – Summer, 2002

Collecting

As Specified Needs Recodes Not Automated

Not

Collecting

Number Measure # % # % # % # %

I.1.a.1.num

# of individuals in direct custody of the agency and housed in

secure facilities who escaped from within the facility during

the calendar yr.

11 44% 11 44% 3 12% 0 0%

I.1.a.1.den # of individuals in direct custody of the agency and housed in

secure facilities on June 30. 19 76% 5 20% 1 4% 0 0%

I.1.a.2.num

# of individuals in direct custody of the agency and housed in

secure private facilities who escaped from within the facility

during the calendar year.

6 24% 5 20% 4 16% 1 4%

I.1.a.2.den # of individuals in direct custody of the agency and housed in

secure facilities on June 30. 11 44% 5 20% 1 4% 0 0%

I.1.b.1.num

# of individuals in direct custody of the agency and housed in

secure facilities who escaped from supervision while outside

the secure perimeter of a facility (including while on work

details, medical or court).

9 36% 9 36% 6 24% 1 4%

I.2.a.num

# of individuals released from the DOC during a calendar yr.

who have returned to the DOC prison system within three

subsequent years after release on new felony-level conviction.

11 44% 9 36% 1 4% 4 16%

I.2.a.den # of individuals released during the calendar year. 17 68% 7 28% 1 4% 0 0%

I.2.b.num

# of individuals released from the DOC during a calendar year

who have returned to the DOC prison system within three

subsequent years after release for a technical violation.

14 56% 6 24% 1 4% 3 12%

II.1.a.num # of assailants in prisoner-on-prisoner attacks committed with a

weapon and/or with serious injury during the calendar year. 6 24% 12 48% 3 12% 4 16%

II.1.a.den # of prisoners held by the agency on June 30. 7 28% 3 12% 1 4% 1 4%
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

49

Table 6: Summary Results from Telephone Survey Regarding the Collection and Automation of Key Indicators

Spring – Summer, 2002

Collecting

As Specified Needs Recodes Not Automated

Not

Collecting

Number Measure # % # % # % # %

II.1.b.num # of victims of prisoner-on-prisoner attacks committed with a

weapon and/or with serious injury during the calendar year. 4 16% 6 24% 6 24% 9 36%

II.2.a.num

# of staff injured as a result of direct, willful and physical

attacks by prisoners that require treatment by a medical

professional during the calendar year.

6 24% 7 28% 7 28% 5 20%

II.3.a.num

# of incidents of non-consensual sexual acts or threats of

forcible sexual acts in which the victim is a male prisoner

during the calendar year.

6 24% 8 32% 2 8% 9 36%

II.3.a.den # of male prisoners held by agency on June 30. 21 84% 2 8% 2 8% 0 0%

II.3.b.num

# of incidents of non-consensual sexual acts or threats of

forcible sexual acts in which the victim is a female prisoner

during the calendar year.

8 32% 8 32% 1 4% 8 32%

II.3.b.den # of female prisoners held by agency on June 30. 21 84% 2 8% 2 8% 0 0%

II.4.a.1.num

# of incidents of forcible sexual acts or threats of forcible

sexual acts perpetrated on male staff by male prisoners during

the calendar yr.

2 8% 10 40% 6 24% 7 28%

II.4.a.2.num

# of incidents of forcible sexual acts or threats of forcible

sexual acts perpetrated on male staff by female prisoners

during the calendar year.

3 12% 9 36% 6 24% 7 28%

II.4.b.1.num

# of incidents of forcible sexual acts or threats of forcible

sexual acts perpetrated on female staff by male prisoners

during the calendar yr.

2 8% 10 40% 6 24% 7 28%

II.4.b.2.num

# of incidents of forcible sexual acts or threats of forcible

sexual acts perpetrated on female staff by female prisoners

during the calendar year.

3 12% 9 36% 6 24% 7 28%
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

50

Table 6: Summary Results from Telephone Survey Regarding the Collection and Automation of Key Indicators

Spring – Summer, 2002

Collecting

As Specified Needs Recodes Not Automated

Not

Collecting

Number Measure # % # % # % # %

II.5.a.1.num # of incidents of sexual misconduct by male staff members

with male prisoners during calendar yr. 2 8% 7 28% 9 36% 6 24%

II.5.a.1.den # of male staff working in facilities housing male prisoners on

June 30. 14 56% 6 24% 3 12% 1 4%

II.5.a.2.num # of incidents of sexual misconduct by male staff members

with female prisoners during the calendar year. 3 12% 6 24% 9 36% 6 24%

II.5.a.2.den # of male staff working in facilities housing female prisoners

on June 30. 14 56% 6 24% 3 12% 1 4%

II.5.b.1.num # of incidents of sexual misconduct by female staff members

with male prisoners during the calendar year. 3 12% 6 24% 9 36% 6 24%

II.5.b.1.den # of female staff working in facilities housing male prisoners

on June 30. 14 56% 6 24% 3 12% 1 4%

II.5.b.2.num # of incidents of sexual misconduct by female staff with female

prisoners during calendar yr. 3 12% 6 24% 9 36% 6 24%

II.5.b.2.den # of female staff working in facilities housing female prisoners

on June 30. 14 56% 5 20% 3 12% 0 0%

II.6.a.num # of prisoner victims of homicides committed by other

prisoners during the calendar year. 16 64% 3 12% 4 16% 2 8%

II.7.a.num # of staff victims of homicides committed by prisoners during

the calendar year. 10 40% 5 20% 6 24% 4 16%

II.8.a.num # prisoners who commit suicide during cal. yr. 20 80% 2 8% 2 8% 1 4%

II.9.a.num

# of prisoners tested in random drug screenings who receive a

positive indication for cocaine, opiates and/or marijuana during

calendar yr.

15 60% 2 8% 3 12% 5 20%

II.9.a.den # of random drug screenings conducted during calendar yr. 17 68% 1 4% 3 12% 3 12%
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

51

Table 6: Summary Results from Telephone Survey Regarding the Collection and Automation of Key Indicators

Spring – Summer, 2002

Collecting

As Specified Needs Recodes Not Automated

Not

Collecting

Number Measure # % # % # % # %

II.10.a.num

# of incidents of collective action by ten or more prisoners that

result in serious injury to staff or other prisoners, significant

property damage and/or result in loss of control of the facility

or a portion of the facility and require extraordinary measures

to regain control during calendar year.

2 8% 10 40% 9 36% 4 16%

II.10.b.num

# of incidents of collective action by five or more but less than

10 prisoners that result in loss of control of the facility or a

portion of the facility and require extraordinary measures to

regain control during calendar yr.

3 12% 9 36% 9 36% 4 16%

III.1.a.num

# of staff hours of assessment and treatment provided by

substance abuse professionals (psychologists, social workers,

and trained and certified substance abuse counselors) to

prisoners.

1 4% 5 20% 2 8% 17 68%

III.1.b.num

# of staff hours of assessment and treatment provided by

substance abuse professionals (psychologists, social workers,

and trained and certified substance abuse counselors) to

prisoners.

0 0% 3 12% 1 4% 21 84%

III.2.a.num # of staff hours of assessment and treatment provided by

psychiatrists to prisoners. 0 0% 2 8% 2 8% 21 84%

III.2.b.num # of staff hours of assessment and treatment provided by Ph.D.

psychologists to prisoners. 0 0% 2 8% 2 8% 21 84%

III.2.c.num # of staff hours of assessment and treatment provided by

masters-level psychologists to prisoners. 0 0% 2 8% 2 8% 21 84%

III.2.d.num # of staff hours of assessment and treatment provided by social

workers to prisoners. 0 0% 2 8% 2 8% 21 84%

III.2.e.num # of staff hours of assessment and treatment provided by other

mental health professionals to prisoners. 1 4% 2 8% 2 8% 20 80%

III.2.f.num Number of psychiatric beds on June 30. 11 44% 2 8% 8 32% 3 12%
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

52

Table 6: Summary Results from Telephone Survey Regarding the Collection and Automation of Key Indicators

Spring – Summer, 2002

Collecting

As Specified Needs Recodes Not Automated

Not

Collecting

Number Measure # % # % # % # %

III.2.g.num # of psychiatric placements of prisoners in non-DOC facilities

on June 30. 3 12% 1 4% 4 16% 4 16%

IV.1.a.num

# of prisoners incarcerated for 1) a new court commitment, 2) a

post-custody violation with a new sentence and 3) a postcustody violation with no new sentence on June 30.14 56% 11 44% 0 0% 0 0%

IV.2.a.num

Number of prisoners serving a sentence for a Part I violent

crime, other violent crime, property crime, drug offense, other

public order offense or other crime on June 30.

8 32% 17 68% 0 0% 0 0%

IV.3.a.num

Demographics of the prisoner population on June 30 by

gender, age category and race/ethnicity adjusted for the

number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30.

11 44% 14 56% 0 0% 0 0%

IV.4.a.num

# of prisoners serving sentences of less than one year, 1 to 3

years, 3-5 years, 5-10 years, 10-20 years, more than 20 years,

life with parole, life without parole and death on June 30.

13 52% 11 44% 0 0% 1 4%

IV.5.a.1.num

# of prisoners who are incarcerated for a violation who have

served less than one year, 1 to 3 years, 3-5 years, 5-10 years,

10-20 years, more than 20 years on June 30 adjusted.

10 40% 13 52% 0 0% 1 4%

IV.5.a.1.den # of prisoners incarcerated for a violation held by the agency

on June 30 and reported as a %. 12 48% 11 44% 0 0% 1 4%

IV.5.a.2.num

# of prisoners who are incarcerated for a new offense (new

admission) who have served less than one year, 1 to 3 years, 3-

5 years, 5-10 years, 10-20 years, more than 20 years on June

30 adjusted.

10 40% 13 52% 0 0% 1 4%

IV.5.a.2.den # of prisoners incarcerated for a new offense (new admission)

held by the agency on June 30 and reported as a percentage. 13 52% 9 36% 1 4% 1 4%
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

53

two columns, Collecting Not Automated and Not Collecting, identify departments that will

require substantial time and effort to begin measuring performance as it is defined by the ASCA

model. By adding the percentage of the two columns together, one obtains an indication of how

many departments will require considerable effort to begin reporting.

For the first standard, Public Safety, about 20 to 25 percent of the prison systems have no

automated information on the key indicators or are not collecting the information currently. For

example, 21 percent of the agencies fall into these categories for escapes from within secure

facilities, 25 percent for escapes from outside secure facilities and 21 percent for returns to

prison for a new conviction.

However, the second standard—Institutional Safety—is where one observes considerable

under-capacity to participate in a reporting system. Approximately half of the departments lack

automated data or do not collect information about:

1. Victims of Prisoner-on-Prisoner Assaults,

2. Prisoner-on-Staff Assaults,

3. Prisoner-on-Prisoner Sexual Assaults,

4. Prisoner-on-Staff Sexual Assaults,

5. Staff Sexual Misconduct,

6. Staff Homicides, and

7. Disturbances.

Very few departments collect and automate information as to the number of hours of

substance abuse and mental health treatment and assessment are provided by staff as originally

specified in Standard III. As noted above, this finding was one of the motivating factors behind

the development of new indicators for this standard.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

54

One observes a noticeably different situation regarding departments’ capacity when

reviewing last two columns of Table 6 for Contextual Information. Only one department reported

that it does not collect these data currently.

The final column of Table 6 includes departments who are collecting the information

outlined in the key indicator, but would require additional computer programming in order to

report the information as specified. As one scans the percentages in this column, approximately

one third of the departments fall into this category. In some cases, the recoding effort would

involve minimal staff time and effort and could be easily accomplished, while in other cases,

substantial work would be required for a state to begin to provide the information as specified.

Qualitative Assessment. A distinction was made above between departments with and

without integrated, performance-based systems. This survey of correctional departments’

abilities to report key indicators found that integrated systems are able to begin participating in a

national reporting system relatively quickly and easily. Since the ASCA model identifies what

correctional executive administrators view as the most important elements of prison practice,

departments with their own performance measurement models generally include the same

standards and indicators. There may be definitional differences between the ASCA model and

the departments’ models but, because these agencies have developed integrated information

systems, only minor modifications will be needed to measure the indicators as specified. Based

upon the interviews conducted in this assessment, it appears that about 20 to 25 percent of the

departments have integrated, performance-based information systems.

For the remaining departments, whose information systems were not fully integrated,

participation in a reporting system varies across the indicators. Most systems have relatively

well developed databases for inmate records. Consequently, they can provide information about
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

55

the denominators of the key indicators—prisoner population on a particular day, segments of the

prisoner population on a particular day (i.e. male prisoners, female prisoners), and prisoners

population housed in secure facilities on a particular day. Departments can also provide

information about the characteristics of the prisoner population, or the information detailed in the

contextual information key indicators.

To “level of the playing field” across correctional systems, the counting rules specify that

unified systems should only include data for felons serving one year or longer. (Non-unified

systems should include data on all convicted felons.) Many of the unified systems report that

segmenting the population according to this criterion will be complicated and problematic.

Many offenders have multiple and complex sentences that make such computation extremely

difficult if not impossible. Consequently, many unified system are not able to provide data even

for the prisoner population and characteristics indicators.

Departments with non-integrated data systems face the greatest difficulty with the

substantive areas specified in Standards II and III, institutional safety and substance abuse and

mental health. Almost all departments keep track of the numbers of prisoner and staff

homicides, prisoner suicides and results of drug testing. Beyond these measures, departments

with non-integrated data systems will struggle. Most departments maintain incident-based

records of significant events. These databases cannot be queried to produce information as it has

been specified regarding prisoner-on-prisoner and prisoner-on-staff assaults, sexual assaults, or

disturbances. Their automated records lack the necessary detail to respond to the definitions and

counting rules of the ASCA key indicators. Beginning to collect and record the information

would require most departments to make significant modifications in how they take information

from incident reports. Data collection instruments and/or computer screens would need to be
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

56

redesigned. Operational staff would have to be trained to record the new information. And,

databases would have to be reformed to include new information fields. For most departments,

these changes would be substantial.

Any of the indicators involving information about staff—prisoner-on-staff assaults,

sexual assaults of staff and staff sexual misconduct—would also pose a significant challenge for

most departments. Among the departments with non-integrated data systems, staff records tend

to be maintained by human resources. The information is not available in a form that allows for

the specifications regarding staff victimization and behavior in the ASCA model. A department

may be able to determine from its prisoner records that a staff member was victimized, but often

will be not be able to identify the gender of the staff member.

As described in the quantitative section above, the original indicators developed for the

substance abuse and mental health standard proved to be problematic and were re-specified.

Even with the changes, information regarding substance abuse and mental health treatment tends

to be recorded and maintained by the health services unit of the department of corrections. Few

departments have automated this information. Furthermore, health records currently used would

be extremely difficult to automat as information is kept in traditional hospital-type files (jackets).

Most departments would have to design a complete new record keeping system to produce the

information outlined in the ASCA model.

Patterns and issues observed in the qualitative assessments of each key indicator are

summarized in Table 7. The bullets generally provide additional detail specific to each indicator

but in general reflect this issues raised in the proceeding discussion.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

57

TABLE 7

ISSUES AND FINDINGS REGARDING CORRECTIONAL DEPARTMENTS’ ABILITY

TO REPORT KEY INDICATORS

STANDARD I: PUBLIC SAFETY

Key Indicator: Escapes

• Most states keep automated records of escapes

• Some states have difficulty distinguishing within their databases whether the escape

was from within or without

• Some systems use a legal definition of escape and cannot differentiate between an

attempt and a successful escape.

• Almost all departments could begin to report this information as specified with minor

code writing

Key Indicator: Escapes from private facilities

• States that place prisoners in private facilities have this information

• Often the data is not automated

Key Indicator: Returns to prison

• Considerable variation among responding systems, some systems already routinely

report this data, for other states would pose major undertaking

• The unified systems would have difficulty distinguishing among readmission type

STANDARD II: INSTITUTIONAL SAFETY

Key Indicator: Prisoner-on-prisoner assaults and victims

• Most departments maintain incident-based records of prisoner assaults. Because the

database identifies incidents rather than individuals, some system would have trouble

counting the number of assailants. Furthermore, most incident based systems do not

include information on the victim, the extent of injury

• A few systems could access other records, medical for example, to identify the

number of victims

• Information regarding the type of weapon used is frequently not automated but is

contained in the written record

• Few systems link their incident record system with their disciplinary hearing record

system, thus making it impossible to comply with the counting rule that specifies that

the assault be substantiated

• Incident based record seldom contain follow-up information but rather record pointin-time information

Key Indicator: Staff injuries resulting from assaults

• Again, most departments have a critical incident data base in which incidents where

staff are attacked by prisoners are tracked
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

58

• Since these records tend to be “point-in-time” records, whether injury was sustained

and the extent of injury is seldom available

• Many systems would have difficulty specifying how many staff were attacked in a

single incident

Key Indicator: Prisoner-on-prisoner sexual assaults

• This information is also contained in incident based data records

• Some states would have difficulty identifying when there is more than one victim

• Some systems cannot differentiate types of assaults—sexual from solely physical

• Most data systems lack substantiation

Key Indicator: Prisoner-on-staff sexual assaults

• Because this information is contained in the same incident based data records as the

three previous indicators, the same problems of multiply assailants and victims,

differentiation of assault type and verification apply here

• Furthermore, many systems cannot at this point in time identify the gender of the staff

victim

Key Indicator: Sexual misconduct by staff-on-prisoners

• In most departments staff misconduct information is not maintained in the primary IT

database, which is a prisoner database. Rather it is contained in records maintained

by the internal affairs office, human resources or the legal department. In almost all

cases, this information is not automated and, if it is, detailed information is lacking

• Identifying the gender of both the staff member and the prisoner, particularly the staff

member, would be difficult for most systems

Key Indicator: Prisoner homicides

• Some departments collect information on homicides as part of their information

systems

• However, because prisoner-on-prisoner and prisoner-on-staff homicides are such rare

occurrences many states do not have a data field for these events. Most of these

states indicated that they could easily produce the information

Key Indicator: Prisoner suicides

• This is the one indicator that all departments can readily produce

• The only caveat is that some departments have difficulty distinguishes suicides from

over-doses since their data lack follow-up information

Key Indicator: Positive drug tests

• Most department can also produce these data in automated format

• The only difficulty may be whether the department uses the specified threshold level

Key Indicator: Disturbances

• For most departments reporting major disturbances poses would be much less

difficult than reporting minor disturbances

• Most departments record information regarding disturbances in critical incident
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

59

reports. Most systems do not automate this information. Of those who automate it,

most lack the detail required to report this information as specified. Consequently,

most states would face a major undertaking to begin to report this information

STANDARD III: SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH

Key Indicator III: Staff hours of assessment and treatment

• Most departments do not collect this information. The only departments that may be

able to provide these data are those who have a contract with private providers

• Most respondents indicated that their health departments maintain information

regarding assessment and treatment of substance abuse and mental health. These data

are seldom automated and are generally contained within traditional hospital jackets.

Implementing a data collection system regarding these topics would be a major

undertaking.

Key Indicator: Psychiatric beds

• Most states can determine how many psychiatric beds are filled on a particular day.

However, these data are not always automated

CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION IV: OFFENDER PROFILE

Context Indicator: Commitment type

• Most departments can provide information regarding commitment type

• Some departments have difficulty differentiating the two categories of offenders

returned for a violation

• Reporting this information is much more difficult for the unified systems

Context Indicator: Offense type

• Most departments collect offense information but some would have to recode their

data to reflect the categories specified in the counting rules

• Many system record information according to controlling offense rather than longest

sentence

Context Indicator: Demographics

• Departments can provide information regarding prisoners’ age and gender

• Some systems can provide information about whether prisoners are black or white but

cannot separate out Latino/Hispanic prisoners

Context Indicator: Sentence length

• Departments can provide this information with only minor recoding necessary

Context Indicator: Time served

• Most departments can provide this information

• For some departments, separating prisoner groups by admission type will be difficult
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

60

Conclusions

A crucial step in the design of an outcome-based performance measure system is the

determination of the capacity of departments of correction to collect and report the information

identified ASCA model, and to do so in compliance with the definitions and counting rules

specified by the model. Such information will inform leaders in the development of the system

regarding implementation of the model. To understand capacity, one needs to know about a

department’s record systems, automation of those systems, integration of those systems, and

ability to query those systems regarding performance. As described in this section of the report,

project personnel conducted a survey of departments to assess overall capacity and to learn more

about departments’ information systems and analysis capabilities.

The survey discovered that almost all prison systems across the nation possess the

capacity to measure and report about the aggregate prisoner population under supervision and

individual characteristics of that population. Furthermore, most prison agencies collect

information about escapes, homicides and suicides. Beyond these measures, the survey

discovered a significant disparity among departments of corrections regarding their capacity to

measure and report on all other indicators.

Departments can be divided into two general groups regarding capacity. Approximately

20 to 25 percent of the Nation’s prison agencies have developed strategic management systems

that have combined traditional operational databases to create integrated information systems to

monitor performance. These departments are positioned to begin participating fully in a national

reporting system. They may need to make minor changes in how information is collected and

retrieved, as well as writing new computer code to compile information exactly as it is specified

by the key indicators and their counting rules.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

61

The one exception to above conclusion is in the area of substance abuse and mental

health measurement. Because the records are collected by health units of prison systems, even

the integrated information systems often lack detailed information to respond to the ASCA

indicators in this area.

The remaining 75 to 80 percent of the Nation’s departments of correction, beyond the

measures identified above, has more limited capacity to measure and report on the remaining

ASCA key indicators. Automated disciplinary records are incident-based and lack detail about

weapons used, injuries sustained, and victims. Agencies are unable to co-mingle staff data with

prisoner information. Departments simply do not record information about disturbances in the

detail necessary to count and report incidents as specified. To a large extent, the reason for the

lack of capacity is that departments still maintain separate operational databases. For some

systems, the only prisoner records are automated; disciplinary, staff and medical records are not

automated.

Respondents had an interesting reaction to the survey. Even though they were told that

the study was intended to assess capacity to report on the ASCA indicators, many were

concerned that they would have to begin reporting in the near future. They were trying to figure

out how they could produce the information. This response could pose a potential problem in

how data are produced. If departments simply pass responsibility off to middle level central

office staff, they likely will approach the task of data production as a discrete, problem to be

solved, when ASCA’s goal is to advance strategic management and in particular performancebased management. Furthermore, a discrete problem orientation may not produce information

about the key indicators that is reliable, valid and adheres to the definitions and counting rules

specified.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

62

SECTION VI. NEXT STEPS

The development of a national performance measurement system has been a topic of

discussion among the ASCA membership since the early 1990s. In August, 1999, the ASCA

Executive Committee passed a resolution to develop a methodology to measure and judge

correctional performance across jurisdictions. This project served to lay the basic groundwork

for such a system by identifying a set of correctional standards, developing key indicators for

those standards and specifying rules for measurement that would allow for cross-jurisdictional

collection of information that is reliable and valid. In undertaking this initial task, the ASCA

Performance Measures Subcommittee endeavored to create a system that was manageable and

parsimonious to ensure success in this first attempt at designing a national performance

measurement system. The Subcommittee accomplished its initial task.

For ASCA, continued development of a national performance measurement system will

necessarily be multifaceted. On the one hand, the ASCA plans to proceed with the development

of a data platform in which departments can to report performance data. However, in developing

such a platform, ASCA must take into consideration the ability of the correctional agencies to

participate. As of the summer of 2002, for example, only about 20 to 25 percent of the

departments possess integrated information systems that will allow them to participate fully.

Less that half the departments can measure and provide performance information about

Standards II and III. The other crucial and immediate task for ASCA is the development of

capacity. A more distant task for ASCA is to develop the infrastructure that will allow for crossjurisdictional comparisons, analyses of performance data, and will support other current

ASCA/Correctional Technology Association (CTA) projects, such as staff safety, common

business functions, and data exchange projects. Finally, ASCA will need to develop additional
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

63

performance measures. This final section of the report describes the activities required for these

four tasks.

National Data Platform

The easiest of next steps is the development of a platform into which departments can

begin reporting data. Software and hardware development will be required for this task. More

than likely, given today’s technology, this platform will be a secure internet website. ASCA is

interested in building a portal for quickly and easily deploying nationwide corrections

applications, information, and services. There are several other projects ASCA is in various

stages of completing that will eventually utilize the solution to be implemented. ASCA is

seeking a solution that will provide a focal point for garnering corrections information while

providing a secure framework for deploying national applications and initiatives that utilize

information technology resources.

The Council for Juvenile Correctional Administrators (CJCA), ASCA’s counterpart at the

juvenile level, has already developed a web-based performance measurement system. ASCA has

developed a relationship with CJCA to learn from its experiences in the design of such a system.

Furthermore, the Performance Measures Subcommittee has begun to interact regularly with the

CTA to share ideas and to plan for the linkage of state and federal departments’ information

systems with a national performance measures system.

Along with the development of the website that will contain the ASCA performance

measures database, a number of ancillary tasks will also have to be performed. Data collection

screens, procedures and guide must be developed.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

64

Once the website has been developed, a field test of the performance measurement

system will need to be conducted. A group of departments can be selected for this purpose. It

seems that departments with fully integrated information systems would be the most logical

choices for this test since they are the only departments that can participate in the sharing of

information to any significant extent. Agency staff will need to be trained. Once departmental

staff begin to enter data, quality assurance must be performed to assess the fidelity of the data

entry process to the ASCA model of indicators and counting rules. This evaluation will require

site visits to determine if agency staff are using the counting rules as specified.

After the system has been field tested, the website can be opened for all departments to

begin reporting. It is at this point that ASCA faces a dilemma in developing a performance

measurement system that is reliable and valid. Agencies such as the Florida Department of

Corrections, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the Minnesota Department of Corrections that

have invested in transforming from an operational to strategic management philosophy and have

developed an agency-wide performance measurement program along with an integrated

information system have needed a decade or more to do so. These departments invested

substantial staff time and financial resources in transforming the organization’s decision-making

structure. Getting operational managers to integrate the change and to begin to use performance

information in decision-making required time and substantial staff development.

In the previous section, findings from a survey of departments revealed that most

departments are not able currently to input data automatically in the manner prescribed by the

system. Once the website is in place, directors may pass the request for information along to

research and information technology personnel indicating that the director desires that the

information be provided. Respondents in the interviews told project staff that they lacked
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

65

resources to produce the information outlined in the ASCA model, yet correctional staff tend to

try to do what their chief executive want. Staff tasked to produce performance information at the

departments with non-integrated information systems may scramble to draw information from

diverse and often not automated databases to patch together responses to the ASCA query. It is

likely that much of the information produced in this fashion will not comply with the definitions

and counting rules of the ASCA model. It will be crucial that intensive evaluation of the quality

of information accompany any implementation.

More importantly, if this is the response to the implementation of the ASCA model, the

attempt to transform the prison management profession from a non-integrated system to a more

strategic decision approach will have failed. Rather than moving toward using performance

measurement as a tool, departments may simply respond to the call for data as a discrete problem

to be solved. In this case, the means (producing data) will have replaced the ends (evaluating

performance in the process of improving practice). It would serve little purpose if a department

was able to provide data to a national performance measurement system without being able to

evaluate performance among facilities and other internal units of the agency and to base

decisions on those comparisons. To avoid this potential problem, ASCA must invest in

developing capacity.

Capacity Development

Capacity development involves more than convincing directors to participate in a

national performance measurement system. Strategic management includes analyzing current

conditions within the organization and its environment, evaluating alternative courses of actions,

devising strategies for performance improvement, taking risks, being creative and sustaining a
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

66

continuous process that accumulates experience and redirects practice and decision making in

light of future goals. Development of the agency’s capacity to utilize a performance

measurement system will be an important part of the transforming an organization from a rulebased to a results-based management practice. The change from an operations-oriented to a

strategic-oriented organization is a lengthy, expensive and staff-intensive effort. As described in

the opening sections of this report, departments of corrections across the nation are at varying

degrees of making this transformation.

If ASCA’s goal is to advance the commitment of adult institutional corrections to

performance-based management, it must invest in the appreciation for and commitment to the

philosophy and practice. This is much broader than a willingness to participate in a particular

reporting system. Directors in general and in particularly new directors can be introduced to the

topic at ASCA meetings. However, significant advancement will only occur if experienced

correctional executives who have lead their agencies through such transformations assist officials

from other agencies considering and willing to undertake such change.

As an agency undertakes performance-based management, it will necessarily need to

integrate its operational information systems and to create a management information system.

Most prisoner record systems tend to be adequate, but considerable development work is needed

in other areas. Critical incident databases need to be enhanced to include more detail about the

perpetrators, victims, weapons, and injuries sustained. Disciplinary information, often not

contained in a database, must be coded and linked back to significant events. Staff data must be

linked to prisoner data. And finally, health records across systems must be evolved into

performance measures databases. Substantial investments in hardware and software are required

to accomplish these tasks. Obtaining or reallocating state resources for these investments may be
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

67

difficult for some agencies given the current revenue problems faced by most states. Thus,

alternate sources of funds are essential. Equally important is the training of staff at all levels

within the organization to use performance data and analysis for decision-making. Considerable

planning is required if this action is to be successful.

Once an agency is able to produce performance data that are used internally to improve

correctional practice, then it is ready to begin participating in a national reporting performance

measurement system.

Analysis of Performance

While this project developed a set of common definitions for performance measurement,

any assessment of performance will require adjustments for composition of the prisoner

population. For example, it would inappropriate to generate a table or graph of prisoner-onprisoner assaults without adjusting for department differences in the number of prisoners

incarcerated for violence offenses. The data specified in the Contextual Information section of

the ASCA model provide some of the needed control variables for these analyses. However,

ASCA must work with researchers who can perform these rather sophisticated statistical

analyses. ASCA may need to employ or contract with researchers to perform these analyses.

Develop New Performance Indicators

The goal of this project was to develop a limited number of performance indicators in

order to move ASCA toward its goal of establishing a performance measurement system. Eight

standards were identified of which four were selected for development at this time. ASCA will

need to return to the remaining standards—programming, justice, human resource management
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – Draft

February 4, 2003

68

and health—and to begin to develop key indicators in these areas. The ASCA may also wish to

consider other measures of correctional practice.

In developing the ASCA model, the Performance Measures Subcommittee attempted to

select indicators that the members believed to be the most important elements that comprise the

standard. For this reason, there are other indicators that can be added to the current model.

As evidenced by the efforts of this project, developing indicators that are capable of

being applied across jurisdictions involves considerable time as the process is complex. Further

development of standards, key indicators and the specification of counting rules will require a

significant investment of ASCA members time along with the expertise of performance

measurement expert or experts.
PBM – Final Report A-1

February 4, 2003

APPENDIX A:

STATES RESPONDING TO PERFORMANCE-BASED MEASURES SURVEYS

Jurisdiction

E-Mail Survey Regarding

PBM Practices

October 2001

Telephone Survey Regarding

Collection and Automation of

Key Indicators

Spring – Summer 2002

Alabama Yes Yes

Alaska Yes No

Arizona Yes Yes

Arkansas No No

California Yes No

Canada No No

Colorado No No

Connecticut Yes No

Delaware Yes No

Federal Bureau of Prisons Yes Yes

Florida Yes Yes

Georgia No Yes

Hawaii Yes Yes

Idaho No No

Illinois No No

Indiana Yes No

Iowa Yes No

Kansas Yes Yes

Kentucky Yes No

Louisiana Yes No

Maine Yes No

Maryland Yes Yes

Massachusetts No Yes

Michigan No Yes

Minnesota Yes Yes

Mississippi Yes No

Missouri Yes No

Montana Yes No

Nebraska Yes Yes

Nevada Yes No

New Hampshire Yes No

New Jersey No No

New Mexico No No

New York Yes Yes

North Carolina No Yes

North Dakota Yes No

Ohio No Yes

Oklahoma Yes Yes

Oregon Yes No
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

B-2

Jurisdiction

E-Mail Survey Regarding

PBM Practices

October 2001

Telephone Survey Regarding

Collection and Automation of

Key Indicators

Spring – Summer 2002

Pennsylvania Yes Yes

Philadelphia, PA Yes No

Rhode Island Yes Yes

South Carolina Yes No

South Dakota No No

Tennessee No Yes

Texas Yes Yes

Utah No Yes

Vermont Yes Yes

Virginia Yes Yes

Washington No Yes

West Virginia No Yes

Wisconsin Yes No

Wyoming Yes No

Number of Respondents 39 25
PBM – Final Report B-1

February 4, 2003

APPENDIX B:

ASCA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS KEY INDICATORS

Glossary of Terms

Absconder: Individuals who escape from direct surveillance of prison staff while outside

the perimeter of the secure institution while on work details, during transportation or

during medical visits or court appearances; who fail to return from furloughs or other

temporary release; or who walk away from a non-secure satellite camp or facility

attached to a secure institution.

Administrative release: Individuals released prison from some reasons other than

completion of sentence, i.e., release to a temporary furlough or detainer/hold from

another state, county, or federal agency.

Age categories: When reporting the age of prisoners the following age groups should be

used: lo-18, 18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 and older.

Assailant: an incarcerated individual who has been found guilty of an assault or threat of

assault while incarcerated by a formal disciplinary process or court of law.

Attempted Escape: An attempt to breach the security of a facility that fails because the

prisoner is apprehended before a staff member loses sight and sound of the individual.

Civilians: Individuals who are not paid employees of the DOC. These individuals might

include visitors, volunteers, interns, and truck drivers, service personnel repairing

equipment in the facility, and construction workers employed by contractors who

have projects within the facility.

Court Commitment: Prisoner committed to the custody of the DOC for 1.) New court

order; 2.) Technical violation with a new sentence; or 3.) Technical violation with no

new sentence.

Comprehensive mental health evaluation: An examination of the following: mental health

history, prior treatment, medication history, relevant psychosocial history (family,

social, and legal, relationships), functional assessment, current situational stressors,

mental status examination, current diagnosis, relevant medical diagnoses, current

medication, and substance abuse status by a mental health or medical professional.

The evaluation should include a structured interview, review of mental health records,

and observations by institutional staff and result in a diagnosis and a preliminary

treatment plan.

Denominator: The number below the line indicating division in a fraction, the quantity

that divides the numerator. For example, 18 states from a total of 50 state correctional

agencies have responded to the ASCA survey regarding the availability of the

standard performance measures, i.e., 50 is the denominator.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

B-2

Direct Custody: All prisoners housed by the agency; this excludes prisoners housed in

other states and housed in private facilities.

Direct Supervision: The duty or responsibility of a staff member or agent of the DOC to

prevent an offender from gaining freedom. The staff member may be armed and/or

the prisoner may be restrained.

DOC – Department of Corrections: Government agency responsible for the supervision

and control of individuals incarcerated for a crime or held pending disposition of a

crime.

DOC staff member: A paid employee of the DOC on a full-time, part-time, or contractual

basis.

Drug offenses: These offenses include drug trafficking, drug possession, and other drug

offenses such as possession of drug paraphernalia and forged or unauthorized

prescriptions.

Escape: An act is considered to be an escape from within the facility as soon as the

individual breaches the last line of security. For example, if an individual clears the

first fence of a double fenced facility but is caught inside the two fences, this act is

considered to be an attempt and should not be counted. However, if the individual

clears the second fence, then the act should be counted as an escape, even if the

individual is apprehended on prison grounds. If the double fenced facility has a

perimeter patrol, then the individual must clear the road around the facility before the

act is considered to be an escape. For an escape to be successful and counted, the

staff member responsible for direct supervision of the prisoner must lose sight and

sound surveillance of the individual.

Extraordinary measures: Efforts by the DOC to regain control of a facility. This may

include including sending in a significant number of staff or the tactical response

team, firing of shots, use of gas, etc.

Felony-level conviction: Any offense with a sentence of more than one year (one year

and one day).

Formal mental health treatment plan: A written protocol for addressing or stabilizing the

individual’s mental illness(es) by a mental health professional or multi-disciplinary

team and includes periodic review of the individual’s treatment and progress.

Treatment may include one-on-one therapy, psychotropic medication(s), and/or group

therapy. The plan should also specify the type of housing unit, program assignments,

and job appropriate for the individual.

Gender: Two categories—male and female—should be used.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

B-3

High mental health needs include individuals who are diagnosed with a mental illness as

determined by the criteria set forth in the DSM IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manner

of Mental Disorders).

High substance abuse needs: Use of illicit substance or alcohol at a level determined by a

substance abuse, mental health, or medical professional to meet the clinical criteria

for addiction and are at high risk of recidivism if not treated.

Individual counseling: One-on-one therapy with a substance abuse or mental health

professional regarding his/her use of alcohol and/or illicit drugs.

Local private facility: A correctional facility located in the same state or jurisdiction as

the parent department of corrections that is operated by a private agency or

corporation.

Longest sentence: The longest sentence of among the concurrent sentences plus the sum

of all consecutive sentences.

Loss of control of the facility: A situation in which prisoners are acting in concert to

disrupt facility operation and refuse to comply with lock down orders. They may

have taken hostages or appear to be prepared for physical conflict. Hostile intent is

apparent and threats are noted. To regain control, extraordinary measures must be

taken including sending in a significant number of staff or the tactical response team,

firing of shots, use of gas, etc.

Medication Maintenance: The use of any psychotropic agents to treat and/or ameliorate

the episodic, recurrent or persistent features of said mental health problem.

Medication Maintenance Plus: The use of any psychotropic agents and adjunct nonmedical interventions (to include: individual, group, couples, and /or family psycho

therapies, counseling or psycho education, clinical case management, residential

living accommodations...) to treat and/or ameliorate the episodic, recurrent or

persistent features of said mental health problem.

Mental health assessment: A review of the individual’s need for mental health treatment

(i.e., placement in a therapeutic or treatment unit, hospitalization, therapy,

medication, and/or discharge services). An assessment maybe provided to a prisoner

as part of the intake/ reception process and/or at any point during his/her incarceration

as behavior(s) or symptoms that may need clinical management are observed/

reported.

Mental health problem: Any mental disorder as defined in the DSM IV (or current

version).

Mental health professional: An individual with a unique set of knowledge, skills and

abilities that make him/her competent in either development, research, administration,
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

B-4

assessment, prevention, treatment, education or training aimed at effecting the onset,

occurrence, and maintenance of mental, behavioral and in some cases physical health

disorders. Various professionals may emerge from specialization within a core

profession (e.g. psychiatric nursing), and across academic degree level programs

within existing mental health professions (e.g., the MA, MS, PhD. and PsyD., are

now offered in clinical psychology). In some cases new fields of professional mental

health practice are emerging (e.g. addictions counselor).

Mental health treatment: A mental health evaluation, placement in a therapeutic or

treatment unit, hospitalization, therapy, medication, and discharge services in order to

alleviate symptoms of mental disorders that significantly interfere with the prisoner’s

ability to function in a correctional facility.

Most serious offense: Offense for which the prisoner is currently incarcerated with the

longest sentence.

Non-consensual sexual act: An incident in which the act occurs against the will of the

victim as the result of the threat of force or force used to obtain compliance.

Numerator: The number written above the line in a common fraction that represents the

number of cases or individuals to be divided by the total. For example, 18 states from

a total of 50 state correctional agencies have responded to the ASCA survey

regarding the availability of the standard performance measures, i.e., 18 is the

numerator.

Other violent offenses: These offenses include negligent manslaughter, kidnapping, other

sexual assault, simple assault, and other violent offenses including intimidation,

illegal abortion, extortion, cruelty toward a child or wife, hit-and-run driving with

bodily injury, and miscellaneous crimes against the person.

Part 1 violent offense: These offenses include murder, non-negligent manslaughter, rape,

robbery, and aggravated assault.

Positive drug test: The threshold for a positive indication for the cocaine immunoassay

test is 150 ng/mL, for the opiates immunoassay test is 300 ng/mL, and for the

marijuana immunoassay test is 50 ng/mL.

Positive drug hit: Positive drug testing event in which an individual tests positive for

cocaine, opiates, and/or marijuana. For example, if an individual is randomly

selected for testing more than once during the calendar year, and he or she tests

positive for one or more of the specified drugs in subsequent tests each positive test is

counted as a positive drug hit.

Prisoners held by the agency: All prisoners under the custody of the DOC who have been

convicted of a crime and are serving sentences greater than one yea with the

exceptions of: 1. Prisoners housed in other states, held by private facilities under
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

B-5

contract, or incarcerated in county and local jails, and 2. Prisoners under the custody

of the DOC who are currently released to the community (furlough, electronic

monitoring, etc.)

Program completion: The prisoner has finished all steps or phases of the treatment

modality provided by the substance abuse treatment professional. Exceptions: if the

prisoner has finished the treatment phase(s) of the program and continues to

participate in on-going relapse prevention activities within the institution and/or is

serving as a mentor or peer counselor, count as a program completion, count as a

program completion.

Property offenses: These include burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, arson, fraud,

forgery, embezzlement, stolen property (including receiving, transporting, possessing,

concealing and selling stolen property, but excluding motor vehicle theft and drugs),

and other property offenses such as possession of burglary tools, damage to property,

smuggling and other miscellaneous property crimes.

Psychiatric placements: Prisoners who are transferred to facilities, public or private for

psychiatric care and treatment.

Public order offenses: These offenses include weapons offenses (including unlawful sale,

distribution, manufacture, alteration, transportation, possession or use of a deadly or

dangerous weapon or accessory), traffic offenses, DUI or DWI, probation or parole

violations, escape, obstruction of justice, court offenses, non-violent sex offenses,

commercialized vice, family offenses, liquor law violations, bribery, invasion of

privacy, disorderly conduct, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and

miscellaneous public order offenses.

Race/ethnicity categories: When reporting the prisoners’ race/ethnicity the following

categories should be used: White, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino,

American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander,

other racial category, or not known.

Random drug screening: Systematic assessment with replacement for drug use among

prisoners who have been incarcerated 30 days or more in DOC facilities. Exclude

screenings that are mandated, targeted, or of suspected offenders.

Release from prison: Individuals who have completed their sentences and are released to

the community on parole, conditional release, or on a split prison-probation sentence.

This does not include temporary releasees (e.g. individuals furloughed) or individuals

released to halfway houses or electronic monitoring who are still under the direct

custody of the DOC.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

B-6

Residential substance abuse treatment program: A structured curriculum in which the

inmates live a housing unit(s) separate from the general population and participate in

educational classes and therapeutic activities to address the their substance abuse

problems and to reduce the risk of recidivism. The activities are directed by a

substance abuse professional and may include group counseling, journaling,

individual counseling, reality therapy, etc.

Secure facility: Institution with defined perimeter security. A secure facility has a

perimeter to prevent prisoners from leaving. These security features may include

barriers such as fences and walls that are intended to physically constrain prisoners

from departing as well as surveillance methods such as guard towers, perimeter

patrols and electronic monitoring devices that are intended to detect prisoners who

attempt to depart.

Serious injury: An injury that requires urgent and immediate medical attention, severely

restricts the prisoner’s usual activity, and requires medical treatment. Medical

attention should be more extensive than mere first aid such as the application of

bandages to wounds. It might include stitches, setting of broken bones, treatment of

concussion, etc.

Sexual battery: Any behavior that involves oral sex, anal intercourse, touching and

fondling genitals or breasts, or forcibly inserting an object into the victim’s vagina

and/or rectum. It does not include kicking, grabbing or punching genitals when the

intent is to harm or debilitate rather than to sexually exploit.

Sexual misconduct: Sexual behavior directed toward prisoners, including sexual abuse,

sexual assault, sexual harassment, physical contact of a sexual nature, sexual

obscenity, invasion of privacy, and conversations or correspondence of a romantic or

intimate nature.

Serious mental health problem: An Axis I mental health problem as defined by the DSM

IV (or current version).

Significant property damage: Property loss valued at $1,000 or more.

Substance abuse screening: Gathering information about a prisoner’s alcohol and other

drug use that involves questioning the offender (self-report) about his/her history of

alcohol and other drug use and reviewing his/her criminal record, social history, and

current offense for documentation of alcohol and/or substance.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

B-7

Substance abuse assessment: An interview with the offender regarding his/her alcohol

and other drug use and a review of historical information by a substance abuse

professional from which a diagnosis of substance abuse or dependence is derived and

recommendations for treatment services are then developed.

Substance abuse or dependence diagnosis: Finding that the prisoner simultaneously

exhibited at least three of the following seven criteria during a 12-month period: 1.

Tolerance, as defined by either a need for markedly increased amounts of the

substance to achieve intoxication or the desired effect or markedly diminished effect

with continued use of the same substance; 2. Withdrawal, as manifested by either the

characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance or the same substance is taken

to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms; 3. Substance is taken in larger amounts or

over a longer period than was intended; 4. Persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to

cut down or control substance abuse; 5. A great deal of time is spent in activities

necessary to obtain or use the substance and/or recover from its effects; 6. Important

social, occupational or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of

substance use; and 7. Use of the substance is continued despite knowledge that it is

likely to have been caused or exacerbated a persistent or recurrent physical or

psychological problem.

Substance abuse intervention: Services to support and encourage the prisoner’s

abstinence from use of substances, e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics

Anonymous, or drug and alcohol education.

Substance abuse in-patient treatment: Structured substance abuse curriculum in which the

inmates live a housing unit(s) separate from the general population and participate in

educational classes and therapeutic activities to address the their substance abuse

problems and to reduce the risk of recidivism. The activities are directed by a

substance abuse provider and may include group counseling, journaling, individual

counseling, reality therapy, etc.

Substance abuse out-patient treatment services: Treatments such as individual therapy,

group therapy, or out-patient substance abuse programming by a substance abuse

provider.

Substance abuse professionals: An individual with a unique set of knowledge, skills and

abilities that make him/her competent in the areas of development, administration,

prevention, education, treatment, evaluation, assessment and training aimed at

intervening with individuals with substance use disorders. Various professionals may

emerge from this specialization within existing professions (e.g., counselors,

physicians, nurses, psychologist, social workers, primary care physicians,

credentialed addictions counselors, etc), as well as para-professionals who have

received on-the-job-training in substance abuse counseling.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

B-8

Substance abuse referral: Formal recommendation for a substance abuse assessment

based a substance abuse screening. The screening indicated that the prisoner has a

history of substance abuse.

Substance abuse screening includes a documented review of the frequency, amount,

and/or the role of alcohol and/or illicit substances in the current offense by the

prisoner that relies upon objective criteria.

Substance abuse treatment plan: A written summary from the substance abuse assessment

that incorporates the diagnosis, extent of impairment in areas of functioning (e.g.,

social, familial); types of services needed; and triage of services or sequence of

services (e.g., treatment services precede support services).

Technical violation: A violation or failure to comply with any conditional release order,

standard or special condition of release imposed by a parole agency; or release order

by a correctional agency. Offenders returned to prison for a new conviction and a

technical violation or who are incarcerated for a violation of the conditions of

probation should not be counted as technical violators.

Treatment Completion: The prisoner achieved the goals as described in the treatment

plan through participation in recommended services and was formally discharge from

treatment. Exceptions: if the prisoner has completed the services recommended in the

treatment plan and continues to participate in on-going relapse prevention activities

within the institution, support services, and/or is serving as a mentor or peer

counselor, count as a program completion.

Threat: An expression of intention to inflict harm that is likely to happen, not just a

verbal assertion.

Validated instrument: A tool for documenting an individual’s needs (e.g., use of alcohol

and illicit substances, mental health needs, risk of recidivism, etc.) that has been

statistically evaluated as to its content validity and appropriateness for the population

with which it is used.

Victim: An individual who is assaulted by another individual regardless of whether the

identity of the assailant(s) was substantiated by the disciplinary process or a court of

law. However, there must be sufficient evidence that the injury resulted from an

attack and not an accident.

Weapon: A weapon includes gun, sharp object (used to inflict cutting type injury),

pointed object (used to inflict stabbing type injury), solid/blunt object (thrown or used

to hit), toxic or flammable fluids or substances, fists\hands, feet\legs, bodily

fluids\waste (spit, urine, feces, blood, etc.), teeth, head, water, and other.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-1

APPENDIX C:

KEY INDICATORS OF ASCA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

(WITH COUNTING RULES)

STANDARD I: PUBLIC SAFETY

1. Escapes

Key Indicator I.1.a.1. Number of individuals in direct custody of the agency and housed in

secure facilities (institutions with defined perimeter security) who escaped from within the

facility during the calendar year adjusted for the number of prisoners held in secure facilities on

June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

Data element I.1.a.1.num. Number of individuals in direct custody of the agency and housed in

secure facilities (institutions with defined perimeter security) who escaped from within the

facility during the calendar year.

Counting rules:

1. A secure facility has a perimeter that is intended to prevent prisoners from leaving.

These security features may include barriers such as fences and walls that are intended to

physically constrain prisoners from departing as well as surveillance methods such as

guard towers, perimeter patrols and electronic monitoring devices that are intended to

detect prisoners who attempt to depart.

2. Institutions, camps and community-based facilities that lack perimeter security should not

be included.

3. Do not include prisoners housed in other states.

4. Do not include prisoners housed in private facilities.

5. An act is considered to be an escape from within the facility as soon as the individual

breaches the last line of security. For example, if an individual clears the first fence of a

double fenced facility but is caught inside the two fences, this act is considered to be an

attempt and should not be counted. However, if the individual clears the second fence,

then the act should be counted as an escape, even if the individual is apprehended on

prison grounds. Exception: If the double fenced facility has a perimeter patrol, then the

individual must clear the road around the facility before the act is considered to be an

escape.

6. When an individual breaches the last line of security but staff are in pursuit of the

individual and keep the prisoner in both sight and sound before apprehending the

individual on state/federal property, the act is considered an attempted escape and should

not be counted. Only when the staff in pursuit lose sight and sound of the prisoner or the

prisoner manages to exit state/federal property, is it considered an escape.

7. Individuals who escape from direct surveillance of prison staff while outside the

perimeter of the secure institution (while on work details, during transportation or during

medical visits or court appearances) should not be included in this count, nor should

prisoners who fail to return from furloughs or other temporary releases.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-2

8. Prisoners housed in non-secure satellite camps and facilities attached to secure

institutions who abscond should not be included in the count.

9. Unified prison systems should count only those escapes by prisoners who have been

convicted of a crime and are serving sentences greater than one year.

Data element I.1.a.1.den. Number of individuals in direct custody of the agency and housed in

secure facilities (institutions with defined perimeter security) on June 30.

Counting rules:

1. A secure facility has a perimeter that is intended to prevent prisoners from leaving.

These security features may include barriers such as fences and walls that are intended to

physically constrain prisoners from departing as well as surveillance methods such as

guard towers, perimeter patrols and electronic monitoring devices that are intended to

detect prisoners who attempt to depart.

2. Institutions, camps and community-based facilities that lack perimeter security should not

be included.

3. Do not include prisoners housed in other states.

4. Do not include prisoners housed in private facilities.

5. Prisoners housed in non-secure satellite camps and facilities attached to secure

institutions should not be included in the count.

6. Unified prison systems should count only those prisoners who have been convicted of a

crime and are serving sentences greater than one year.

Key Indicator I.1.a.2. Number of individuals in direct custody of the agency and housed in

secure private facilities (institutions with defined perimeter security) who escaped from within

the facility during the calendar year adjusted for the number of prisoners held in secure private

facilities on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

Data element I.1.a.2.num. Number of individuals in direct custody of the agency and housed in

secure private facilities (institutions with defined perimeter security) who escaped from within

the facility during the calendar year.

Counting rules:

1. A secure facility has a perimeter that is intended to prevent prisoners from leaving.

These security features may include barriers such as fences and walls that are intended to

physically constrain prisoners from departing as well as surveillance methods such as

guard towers, perimeter patrols and electronic monitoring devices that are intended to

detect prisoners who attempt to depart.

2. Institutions, camps and community-based facilities that lack perimeter security should not

be included.

3. Include escapes by prisoners held by private companies who are contracted to provide

incarceration.

4. Do not include prisoners housed in other states.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-3

5. An act is considered to be an escape from within the facility as soon as the individual

breaches the last line of security. For example, if an individual clears the first fence of a

double fenced facility but is caught inside the two fences, this act is considered to be an

attempt and should not be counted. However, if the individual clears the second fence,

then the act should be counted as an escape, even if the individual is apprehended on

prison grounds. If the double fenced facility has a perimeter patrol, then the individual

must clear the road around the facility before the act is considered to be an escape.

6. When an individual breaches the last line of security but staff are in pursuit of the

individual and keep the prisoner in both sight and sound before apprehending the

individual on the property of the privately managed facility, the act is considered an

attempted escape and should not be counted. Only when the staff in pursuit lose sight

and sound of the prisoner or the prisoner manages to exit the property of the privately

managed facility, is it considered an escape.

7. Individuals who escape from direct surveillance of prison staff while outside the

perimeter of the secure institution (while on work details, during transportation or during

medical visits or court appearances) should not be included in this count, nor should

prisoners who fail to return from furloughs or other temporary releases.

8. Prisoners housed in non-secure satellite camps and facilities attached to secure

institutions who abscond should not be included in the count.

9. Unified prison systems should count only those escapes by prisoners who have been

convicted of a crime and are serving sentences greater than one year.

Data element I.1.a.2.den. Number of individuals in direct custody of the agency and housed in

secure facilities (institutions with defined perimeter security) on June 30.

Counting rules:

1. A secure facility has a perimeter that is intended to prevent prisoners from leaving.

These security features may include barriers such as fences and walls that are intended to

physically constrain prisoners from departing as well as surveillance methods such as

guard towers, perimeter patrols and electronic monitoring devices that are intended to

detect prisoners who attempt to depart.

2. Institutions, camps and community-based facilities that lack perimeter security should not

be included.

3. Count prisoners held by private companies who are contracted to provide incarceration.

4. Do not include prisoners housed in other states.

5. Prisoners housed in non-secure satellite camps and facilities attached to secure

institutions should not be included in the count.

6. Unified prison systems should count only those prisoners who have been convicted of a

crime and are serving sentences greater than one year.

Key Indicator I.1.b.1. Number of individuals in direct custody of the agency and under direct

supervision of agency personnel or its agents who escaped from supervision while outside the

secure perimeter of a facility (including while on work details, medical or court visits, and while

being transported) during the calendar year adjusted for the number of prisoners held by the

agency on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-4

Data element I.1.b.1.num. Number of individuals in direct custody of the agency and housed in

secure facilities (institutions with defined perimeter security) who escaped from supervision

while outside the secure perimeter of a facility (including while on work details, medical or court

visits, and while being transported) during the calendar year.

Counting rules:

1. To be counted as an escape from supervision while outside the secure perimeter of a

facility, the prisoner must be directly supervised by a staff member of the facility whose

duty and responsibility is to prevent the individual from gaining freedom. Often the staff

member will be armed or the prisoner will be restrained.

2. Incidents in which prisoners are not under the direct supervision of a staff member but

depart without authorization (i.e. absconding from an unsupervised work detail or failure

to return from a furlough or leave) should not be counted.

3. For an escape to be successful and counted, the staff member responsible for direct

supervision of the prisoner must lose sight and sound of the individual. For example, if a

prisoners begins to run from an outside work detail but is apprehended before the staff

member supervising the work detail loses sight or sound of the individual, then the

incident should be considered an attempted escape and not counted in this indicator.

4. Do not include prisoners housed in other states.

5. Include outside escapes by prisoners for whom private companies have contracted to

provide supervision or transportation.

6. Do not include outside escapes by prisoners for whom custody has been transferred to

another government agency. For example, if responsibility for transportation has been

transferred to a law enforcement agency (e.g. sheriff’s department) and the prisoner

escapes while in route to a court hearing, then the incident should not be counted.

7. Unified prison systems should count only those escapes by prisoners who have been

convicted of a crime and are serving sentences greater than one year.

Data element I.1.b.1.den. Number of individuals in direct custody of the agency and housed in

secure facilities (institutions with defined perimeter security) on June 30.

Counting rules: see data element I.1.a.1.den

2. Returns to Prison

Key Indicator I.2.a. Number of individuals released from the DOC during a calendar year who

have returned to the DOC prison system within three subsequent years after release for a new

felony-level conviction divided by the number of individuals released during the calendar year

and multiplied by 1,000.

Data element I.2.a.num. Number of individuals released from the DOC during a calendar year

who have returned to the DOC prison system within three subsequent years after release for a

new felony-level conviction.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-5

Counting rules:

1. Include only those individuals who have completed their sentences, are released on

parole, have received a conditional release, or are released on a split prison-probation

sentence. Do not include temporary releasees (e.g. individuals furloughed) or individuals

released to halfway houses or electronic monitoring. To be counted the individual must

no longer be under the custody of the DOC, except for those released from prison on a

split prison-probation sentence.

2. Include only those individuals released to the community. Exclude from the count

prisoners who died; were transferred to another jurisdiction; or who escaped, absconded

or AWOL. Exclude all administrative releasees (including prisoners with detainers).

3. Do not include offenders incarcerated for a crime that occurred while in prison.

4. Individuals returned on a violation but have a new conviction should be counted as a

return for a new crime.

5. In the unified systems, a felony-level conviction will be considered any offense with a

sentence of more than one year (one year and one day).

Data element I.2.a.den. Number of individuals released during the calendar year that the

recidivist was released.

Counting rules:

1. Include only those individuals who have completed their sentences, are released on

parole or have received a conditional release. Do not include temporary releasees (e.g.

individuals furloughed).

2. Include only those individuals released to the community. Exclude from the count

prisoners who died; were transferred to another jurisdiction; or escaped, absconded or

were AWOL. Exclude all administrative releasees (including prisoners with detainers).

3. Unified prison systems should include in the exit cohort only those prisoners who have

been convicted of a crime and are serving sentences greater than one year.

Key Indicator I.2.b. Rate of re-incarceration defined as the number of individuals released from

the DOC during a calendar year who have returned to the DOC within three subsequent years

after release for a technical violation divided by the number of individuals released during the

calendar year and multiplied by 1,000.

Data element I.2.b.num. Number of individuals released from the DOC during a calendar year

who have returned to the DOC prison system within three subsequent years after release for a

technical violation.

Counting rules:

1. Include only those individuals who have completed their sentences, are released on

parole or have received a conditional release, or are released on a split prison-probation

sentence. Do not include temporary releasees (e.g. individuals furloughed) or individuals
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-6

released to halfway houses or electronic monitoring. To be counted the individual must

no longer be under the custody of the DOC, except for those released from prison on a

split prison-probation sentence.

2. Include only those individuals released to the community. Exclude from the count

prisoners who died; were transferred to another jurisdiction; or escaped, absconded or

were AWOL. Exclude all administrative releasees (including prisoners with detainers).

3. Include only those prisoners returned to prison for a violation of parole or conditional

release.

4. Prisoners returned for a violation but have a new conviction should not be counted in this

category.

5. Exclude probation violators.

Data element I.2.a.den. Number of individuals released during the calendar year that the

recidivist was released.

Counting rules: See data element I.2.a.den
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-7

STANDARD II: INSTITUTIONAL SAFETY

1. Prisoner-on-prisoner assaults

Key Indicator II.1.a. Number of assailants in prisoner-on-prisoner attacks that involved serious

injury during the calendar year adjusted for the number of prisoners held by the agency on June

30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

Data element II.1.a.num. Number of assailants in prisoner-on-prisoner attacks that involved

serious injury during the calendar year.

Counting rules:

1. A single incident may have more than one assailant; count the number of assailants.

2. Weapons include gun, sharp object (used to inflict cutting type injury), pointed object

(used to inflict stabbing type injury), solid/blunt object (thrown or used to hit), toxic or

flammable fluids or substances, bodily fluids\waste (spit, urine, feces, blood, etc.), teeth,

head, water, and other.

3. A serious injury requires urgent and immediate medical treatment, severely restricts the

prisoner’s usual activity. Medical attention should be more extensive than mere first aid

such as the application of bandages to wounds. It might include stitches, setting of

broken bones, treatment of concussion, etc.

4. To be counted, an assailant must have been convicted of a prison violation or the act must

be substantiated in the disciplinary process and/or a court of law.

5. To be counted, the assailant must be incarcerated.

6. Do not include prisoners housed in other states or held in privately run facilities.

7. Unified prison systems should count only those assailants who have been convicted of a

crime and are serving sentences greater than one year.

Data element II.1.a.den. Number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30.

Counting rules:

1. This tally should include all prisoners under the custody of the DOC with the exceptions

of:

a. individuals housed in other states, held by private facilities under contract and

incarcerated in county and local jails, and

b. individuals under the custody of the DOC who are currently released to the

community (furlough, electronic monitoring, etc.)

2. Unified prison systems should count only those prisoners who have been convicted of a

crime and are serving sentences greater than one year.

Key Indicator II.1.b. Number of victims of prisoner-on-prisoner attacks that involved serious

injury during the calendar year adjusted for the number of prisoners held by the agency on June

30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-8

Data element II.1.b.num. Number of victims of prisoner-on-prisoner attacks committed with a

weapon and/or with serious injury during the calendar year.

Counting rules:

1. A single incident may have more than one victim; count the number of victims.

2. Weapons include gun, sharp object (used to inflict cutting type injury), pointed object

(used to inflict stabbing type injury), solid/blunt object (thrown or used to hit), toxic or

flammable fluids or substances, bodily fluids\waste (spit, urine, feces, blood, etc.), teeth,

head, water, and other.

3. A serious injury requires urgent and immediate medical attention, severely restricts the

prisoner’s usual activity and requires medical treatment.

4. In many incidents the assailant is not known. For this reason, the fact that an assault has

take place does not have to be substantiated by the disciplinary process; however, there

must be sufficient evidence that the injury resulted from an attack and not an accident.

When the incident is identified by self-report, there must be evidence beyond the victim’s

statement to substantiate the event.

5. To be counted, the victim must be incarcerated.

6. Do not include prisoners housed in other states or held in privately run facilities.

7. Unified prison systems should count only those victims who have been convicted of a

crime and are serving sentences greater than one year.

Data element II.1.b.den. Number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30.

Counting rules: see data element II.1.a.den

2. Inmate-on-Staff assaults

Key Indicator II.2.a. Number of staff injured as a result of direct, willful and physical attacks by

prisoners that require treatment by a medical professional during the calendar year adjusted for

the number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

Data element II.2.a.num. Number of staff injured as a result of direct, willful and physical attacks

by prisoners that require treatment by a medical professional during the calendar year.

Counting rules:

1. A staff member is defined as an individual who is employed by the DOC or facility on a

full-time, part-time, or contractual basis, and/or other individuals performing correctional

services, e.g., volunteers or interns. Civilians who are attacked, but are not paid staff

should not be counted. These individuals might include visitors, truck drivers, service

personnel repairing equipment in the facility and construction workers employed by

contractors who have projects within the facility.

2. A single incident may have more than one victim; count the number of victims.

3. Count all injuries that require medical attention and treatment.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-9

4. The fact that an assault has taken place does not have to be substantiated by the

disciplinary process; however, there must be sufficient evidence that the injury resulted

from an attack and not an accident.

5. To be counted, the assailant must be incarcerated.

6. Do not include prisoners housed in other states or held in privately run facilities.

7. In the unified system, if the assailant is known, to be counted that individual must be

convicted of a crime and serving sentence greater than one year.

Data element II.2.a.den. Number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30.

Counting rules: see data element II.1.a.den

3. Prisoner-on-prisoner sexual assaults

Key Indicator II.3.a. Number of incidents of non-consensual sexual battery in which the victim

is a male prisoner during the calendar year adjusted for the number of male prisoners held by the

agency on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

Data element II.3.a.num. Number of incidents of non-consensual sexual battery in which the

victim is a male prisoner during the calendar year.

Counting rules:

1. To be counted, the victim must be incarcerated.

2. Do not include prisoners housed in other states or held in privately run facilities.

3. A non-consensual sexual battery is defined as an incident in which the act occurs against

the will of the victim as the result of the threat of force or force used to obtain

compliance.

4. A sexual battery includes oral sex, anal intercourse, touching and fondling genitals,

forcibly inserting an object into the victim’s rectum. It does not include kicking,

grabbing or punching genitals when the intent is to harm or debilitate rather than to

sexually exploit.

5. An incident must be substantiated by the disciplinary process and/or a court of law.

6. Unified prison systems should count only those incidents in which either or both the

victim or the assailant has been convicted of a crime and serving a sentence greater than

one year.

Data element II.3.a.den. Number of male prisoners held by the agency on June 30.

Counting rules:

1. This tally should include all male prisoners under the custody of the DOC with the

exceptions of:

a. male prisoners housed in other states, held by private facilities under contract and

incarcerated in county and local jails, and
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-10

b. male prisoners under the custody of the DOC who are currently released to the

community (furlough, electronic monitoring, etc.)

2. Unified prison systems should count only those male prisoners who have been convicted

of a crime and are serving sentences greater than one year.

Key Indicator II.3.b. Number of incidents of non-consensual sexual battery in which the victim

is a female prisoner during the calendar year adjusted for the number of female prisoners held by

the agency on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

Data element II.3.b.num. Number of incidents of non-consensual sexual battery in which the

victim is a female prisoner during the calendar year.

Counting rules:

1. To be counted, the victim must be incarcerated.

2. Do not include prisoners housed in other states or held in privately run facilities.

3. A non-consensual sexual battery is defined as an incident in which the act occurs against

the will of the victim as the result of the threat of force or force used to obtain

compliance.

4. A sexual battery includes oral sex, touching and fondling breasts or genitals and forcibly

inserting an object into the victim’s vagina or rectum. It does not include kicking,

grabbing or punching genitals when the intent is to harm or debilitate rather than to

sexually exploit.

5. An incident must be substantiated by the disciplinary process and/or a court of law.

6. Unified prison systems should count only those incidents in which either or both the

victim or the assailant have been convicted of a crime and are serving sentences greater

than one year.

Data element II.3.b.den. Number of female prisoners held by the agency on June 30.

Counting rules:

1. This tally should include all female prisoners under the custody of the DOC with the

exceptions of:

a. female prisoners housed in other states, held by private facilities under contract and

incarcerated in county and local jails, and

b. female prisoners under the custody of the DOC who are currently released to the

community (furlough, electronic monitoring, etc.)

2. Unified prison systems should count only those female prisoners who have been

convicted of a crime and are serving sentences greater than one year.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-11

4. Prisoner-on-staff sexual assaults

Key Indicator II.4.a.1. Number of incidents of forcible sexual battery perpetrated on male staff

by male prisoners during the calendar year adjusted for the number of male prisoners held by the

agency on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

Data element II.4.a.1.num. Number of incidents of forcible sexual acts or threats of forcible

sexual acts perpetrated on male staff by male prisoners during the calendar year.

Counting rules:

1. A staff member is defined as an individual who is employed by the DOC or facility on a

full-time, part-time or contract basis. Civilians who are attacked but are not paid staff

should not be counted. These individuals might include visitors, volunteers, interns,

truck drivers, service personnel repairing equipment in the facility and construction

workers employed by contractors who have projects within the facility.

2. To be counted, the incident must involve a prisoner who is incarcerated rather than place

in some type of community supervision.

3. Do not include prisoners housed in other states or held in privately run facilities.

4. Do not include consensual acts. To be counted there must an attack or threat of force by

the prisoner. The word “threat” used here means likely to happen, not just a verbal

assertion.

5. A sexual battery includes oral sex, anal intercourse, touching and fondling genitals,

forcibly inserting an object into the victim’s rectum. It does not include kicking,

grabbing or punching genitals when the intent is to harm or debilitate rather than to

sexually exploit.

6. An incident must be substantiated by the disciplinary process.

7. Unified prison systems should count only those incidents in which the assailant has been

convicted of a crime and is serving sentences greater than one year.

Data element II.4.a.1.den. Number of male prisoners held by the agency on June 30.

Counting rules: see data element II.3.a.den

Key Indicator II.4.a.2. Number of incidents of forcible sexual battery perpetrated on male staff

by female prisoners during the calendar year adjusted for the number of female prisoners held by

the agency on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

Data element II.4.a.2.num. Number of incidents of forcible sexual acts or threats of forcible

sexual acts perpetrated on male staff by female prisoners during the calendar year.

Counting rules:

1. A staff member is defined as an individual who is employed by the DOC or facility on a

full-time, part-time or contract basis. Civilians who are attacked but are not paid staff

should not be counted. These individuals might include visitors, volunteers, interns,
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-12

truck drivers, service personnel repairing equipment in the facility and construction

workers employed by contractors who have projects within the facility.

2. To be counted, the incident must involve a prisoner who is incarcerated rather than place

in some type of community supervision.

3. Do not include prisoners housed in other states or held in privately run facilities.

4. Do not include consensual acts. To be counted there must an attack or threat of force by

the prisoner. The word “threat” used here means likely to happen, not just a verbal

assertion.

5. A sexual battery includes oral sex, touching and fondling genitals, forcibly inserting an

object into the victim’s rectum. It does not include kicking, grabbing or punching

genitals when the intent is to harm or debilitate rather than to sexually exploit.

6. An incident must be substantiated by the disciplinary process.

7. Unified prison systems should count only those incidents in which the assailant has been

convicted of a crime and is serving a sentence greater than one year.

Data element II.4.a.2.den. Number of female prisoners held by the agency on June 30

Counting rules: see data element II.3.b.den.

Key Indicator II.4.b.1 Number of incidents of forcible sexual battery perpetrated on female staff

by male prisoners during the calendar year adjusted for the number of male prisoners held by the

agency on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

Data element II.4.b.1.num. Number of incidents of forcible sexual acts or threats of forcible

sexual acts perpetrated on female staff by male prisoners during the calendar year.

Counting rules:

1. A staff member is defined as an individual who is employed by the DOC or facility on a

full-time, part-time or contract basis. Civilians who are attacked but are not paid staff

should not be counted. These individuals might include visitors, volunteers, interns,

truck drivers, service personnel repairing equipment in the facility and construction

workers employed by contractors who have projects within the facility.

2. To be counted, the incident must involve a prisoner who is incarcerated rather than place

in some type of community supervision.

3. Do not include prisoners housed in other states or held in privately run facilities.

4. Do not include consensual acts. To be counted there must an attack or threat of force by

the prisoner. The word “threat” used here means likely to happen, not just a verbal

assertion.

5. A sexual battery includes oral sex, vaginal or anal intercourse, touching and fondling of

breasts or genitals, forcibly inserting an object into the victim’s vagina or rectum. It does

not include kicking, grabbing or punching genitals when the intent is to harm or debilitate

rather than to sexually exploit.

6. An incident must be substantiated by the disciplinary process.

7. Unified prison systems should count only those incidents in which the assailant has been

convicted of a crime and is serving a sentence greater than one year.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-13

Data element II.4.b.1.den. Number of male prisoners held by the agency on June 30.

Counting rules: see data element II.3.a.den

Key Indicator II.4.b.2. Number of incidents of forcible sexual battery perpetrated on female staff

by female prisoners during the calendar year adjusted for the number of female prisoners held by

the agency on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

Data element II.4.b.2.num. Number of incidents of forcible sexual battery perpetrated on female

staff by female prisoners during the calendar year.

Counting rules:

1. A staff member is defined as an individual who is employed by the DOC or facility on a

full-time, part-time or contract basis. Civilians who are attacked but are not paid staff

should not be counted. These individuals might include visitors, volunteers, interns,

truck drivers, service personnel repairing equipment in the facility and construction

workers employed by contractors who have projects within the facility.

2. To be counted, the incident must involve a prisoner who is incarcerated rather than

placed in some type of community supervision.

3. Do not include prisoners housed in other states or held in privately run facilities.

4. Do not include consensual acts. To be counted there must an attack or threat of force by

the prisoner. The word “threat” used here means likely to happen, not just a verbal

assertion.

5. A sexual battery includes oral sex, touching and fondling of breasts or genitals, forcibly

inserting an object into the victim’s vagina or rectum. It does not include kicking,

grabbing or punching genitals when the intent is to harm or debilitate rather than to

sexually exploit.

6. An incident must be substantiated by the disciplinary process.

7. Unified prison systems should count only those incidents in which the assailant has been

convicted of a crime and is serving a sentence greater than one year.

Data element II.4.b.2.den.

Counting rules: see data element II.3.b.den.

5. Sexual misconduct by staff-on-prisoners

Key Indicator II.5.a.1. Number of incidents of sexual misconduct by male staff members with

male prisoners during the calendar year adjusted for the number of male staff on June 30 and

reported as a rate per 1,000.

Data element II.5.a.1.num. Number of incidents of sexual misconduct by male staff members

with male prisoners during the calendar year.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-14

Counting rules:

1. A staff member is defined as an individual who is employed by the DOC or facility on a

full-time, part-time or contract basis. Civilians who engage in sexual misconduct but are

not paid staff should not be counted. These individuals might include visitors,

volunteers, interns, truck drivers, service personnel repairing equipment in the facility

and construction workers employed by contractors who have projects within the facility.

2. To be counted, the incident must involve a prisoner who is incarcerated rather than

placed in some type of community supervision.

3. Do not include prisoners housed in other states or held in privately run facilities.

4. An act of sexual misconduct is defined as sexual behavior directed toward prisoners,

including sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment, physical contact of a sexual

nature, sexual obscenity, invasion of privacy, and conversations or correspondence of a

romantic or intimate nature.

5. Unified prison systems should count only those incidents in which the prisoner has been

convicted of a crime and is serving a sentence greater than one year.

Data element II.5.a.1.den. Number of male staff working in facilities housing male prisoners on

June 30.

Counting rules:

1. A staff member is defined as an individual who is employed by the DOC or facility on a

full-time, part-time or contract basis. Civilians should not be counted. These individuals

might include visitors, volunteers, interns, truck drivers, service personnel repairing

equipment in the facility and construction workers employed by contractors who have

projects within the facility.

2. Do not include employees who work in the central or regional officers or any other

administrative staff whose primary workplace is not a male facility.

3. Include in the count, male staff who work in facilities that house male prisoners. If a

facility holds both male and female prisoners, males working in the facility should be

included.

4. In the unified systems, staff working in facilities that do not house prisoners who have

been convicted of a crime and have sentences longer than one year should not be

included in the count.

Key Indicator II.5.a.2. Number of incidents of sexual misconduct by male staff members with

female prisoners during the calendar year adjusted for the number of male staff on June 30 and

reported as a rate per 1,000.

Data element II.5.a.2.num. Number of incidents of sexual misconduct by male staff members

with female prisoners during the calendar year.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-15

Counting rules:

1. A staff member is defined as an individual who is employed by the DOC or facility on a

full-time, part-time or contract basis. Civilians who engage in sexual misconduct but are

not paid staff should not be counted. These individuals might include visitors,

volunteers, interns, truck drivers, service personnel repairing equipment in the facility

and construction workers employed by contractors who have projects within the facility.

2. To be counted, the incident must involve a prisoner who is incarcerated rather than

placed in some type of community supervision.

3. Do not include prisoners housed in other states or held in privately run facilities.

4. An act of sexual misconduct is defined as sexual behavior directed toward prisoners,

including sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment, physical contact of a sexual

nature, sexual obscenity, invasion of privacy, and conversations or correspondence of a

romantic or intimate nature.

5. Unified prison systems should count only those incidents in which the prisoner has been

convicted of a crime and is serving a sentence greater than one year.

Data element II.5.a.2.den. Number of male staff working in facilities housing female prisoners

on June 30.

Counting rules:

1. A staff member is defined as an individual who is employed by the DOC or facility on a

full-time, part-time or contract basis. Civilians should not be counted. These individuals

might include visitors, volunteers, interns, truck drivers, service personnel repairing

equipment in the facility and construction workers employed by contractors who have

projects within the facility.

2. Do not include employees who work in the central or regional officers or any other

administrative staff whose primary workplace is not a female facility.

3. Include in the count, male staff who work in facilities that house female prisoners. If a

facility holds both male and female prisoners, males working in the facility should be

included.

4. In the unified systems, staff working in facilities that do not house prisoners who have

been convicted of a crime and have sentences longer than one year should not be

included in the count.

Key Indicator II.5.b.1 Number of incidents of sexual misconduct by female staff members with

male prisoners during the calendar year adjusted for the number of female staff on June 30 and

reported as a rate per 1,000.

Data element II.5.b.1.num. Number of incidents of sexual misconduct by female staff members

with male prisoners during the calendar year.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-16

Counting rules:

1. A staff member is defined as an individual who is employed by the DOC or facility on a

full-time, part-time or contract basis. Civilians who engage in sexual misconduct but are

not paid staff should not be counted. These individuals might include visitors,

volunteers, interns, truck drivers, service personnel repairing equipment in the facility

and construction workers employed by contractors who have projects within the facility.

2. To be counted, the incident must involve a prisoner who is incarcerated rather than

placed in some type of community supervision.

3. Do not include prisoners housed in other states or held in privately run facilities.

4. An act of sexual misconduct is defined as sexual behavior directed toward prisoners,

including sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment, physical contact of a sexual

nature, sexual obscenity, invasion of privacy, and conversations or correspondence of a

romantic or intimate nature.

5. Unified prison systems should count only those incidents in which the prisoner has been

convicted of a crime and is serving a sentence greater than one year.

Data element II.5.b.1.den. Number of female staff working in facilities housing male prisoners

on June 30.

Counting rules:

1. A staff member is defined as an individual who is employed by the DOC or facility on a

full-time, part-time or contract basis. Civilians should not be counted. These individuals

might include visitors, volunteers, interns, truck drivers, service personnel repairing

equipment in the facility and construction workers employed by contractors who have

projects within the facility.

2. Do not include employees who work in the central or regional officers or any other

administrative staff whose primary workplace is not a male facility.

3. Include in the count, female staff who work in facilities that house male prisoners. If a

facility holds both male and female prisoners, males working in the facility should be

included.

4. In the unified systems, staff working in facilities that do not house prisoners who have

been convicted of a crime and have sentences longer than one year should not be

included in the count.

Key Indicator II.5.b.2. Number of incidents of sexual misconduct by female staff with female

prisoners during the calendar year adjusted for the number of female staff on June 30 and

reported as a rate per 1,000.

Data element II.5.b.2.num. Number of incidents of sexual misconduct by female staff with

female prisoners during the calendar year.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-17

Counting rules:

1. A staff member is defined as an individual who is employed by the DOC or facility on a

full-time, part-time or contract basis. Civilians who engage in sexual misconduct but are

not paid staff should not be counted. These individuals might include visitors,

volunteers, interns, truck drivers, service personnel repairing equipment in the facility

and construction workers employed by contractors who have projects within the facility.

2. To be counted, the incident must involve a prisoner who is incarcerated rather than

placed in some type of community supervision.

3. Do not include prisoners housed in other states or held in privately run facilities.

4. An act of sexual misconduct is defined as sexual behavior directed toward prisoners,

including sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment, physical contact of a sexual

nature, sexual obscenity, invasion of privacy, and conversations or correspondence of a

romantic or intimate nature.

5. Unified prison systems should count only those incidents in which the prisoner has been

convicted of a crime and is serving a sentence greater than one year.

Data element II.5.b.2.den. Number of female staff working in facilities housing female prisoners

on June 30.

Counting rules:

1. A staff member is defined as an individual who is employed by the DOC or facility on a

full-time, part-time or contract basis. Civilians should not be counted. These individuals

might include visitors, volunteers, interns, truck drivers, service personnel repairing

equipment in the facility and construction workers employed by contractors who have

projects within the facility.

2. Do not include employees who work in the central or regional officers or any other

administrative staff whose primary workplace is not a female facility.

3. Include in the count, female staff who work in facilities that house female prisoners. If a

facility holds both male and female prisoners, males working in the facility should be

included.

4. In the unified systems, staff working in facilities that do not house prisoners who have

been convicted of a crime and have sentences longer than one year should not be

included in the count.

6. Prisoner-on-prisoner homicides

Key Indicator II.6.a. Number of prisoner victims of homicides committed by other prisoners

during the calendar year adjusted for the number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and

reported as a rate per 1,000.

Data element II.6.a.num. Number of prisoner victims of homicides committed by other prisoners

during the calendar year.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-18

Counting rules:

1. A single incident could have more than one victim; count the number of victims.

2. In some incidents the assailant is not known. For this reason, the fact that a homicide has

take place does not have to be substantiated by the disciplinary process; however, there

must be sufficient evidence that the death resulted from an attack and not an accident.

3. To be counted, the victim must be incarcerated.

4. Do not include prisoners housed in other states or held in privately run facilities.

5. Unified prison systems should count only those victims who have been convicted of a

crime and are serving sentences greater than one year.

Data element II.6.a.den. Number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30.

Counting rules: see data element II.1.a.den

7. Prisoner-on-staff homicides

Key Indicator II.7.a. Number of staff victims of homicides committed by prisoners during the

calendar year adjusted for the number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and reported as

a rate per 1,000.

Data element II.7.a.num. Number of staff victims of homicides committed by prisoners during

the calendar year.

Counting rules:

1. A staff member is defined as an individual who is employed by the DOC or facility on a

full-time, part-time or contract basis. Civilians should not be counted. These individuals

might include visitors, volunteers, interns, truck drivers, service personnel repairing

equipment in the facility and construction workers employed by contractors who have

projects within the facility.

2. A single incident could have more than one victim; count the number of victims.

3. In some incidents the assailant is not known. For this reason, the fact that a homicide has

take place does not have to be substantiated by the disciplinary process; however, there

must be sufficient evidence that the death resulted from an attack and not an accident.

4. To be counted, the incident must have taken place in a facility or while prisoners are

under direct supervision and custody of prison staff.

5. Do not include homicides that are committed by prisoners held in other states or in

privately run facilities.

6. Unified prison systems should count only those incidents involving prisoners who have

been convicted of a crime and are serving sentences greater than one year.

Data element II.7.a.den. Number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30.

Counting rules: see data element II.1.a.den
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-19

8. Prisoner suicides

Key Indicator II.8.a. Number of prisoners who commit suicide during the calendar year adjusted

for the number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

Data element II.8.a.num. Number of prisoners who commit suicide during the calendar year.

Counting rules:

1. To be counted, the suicide victim must be incarcerated.

2. Do not include prisoners housed in other states or held in privately run facilities.

3. Unified prison systems should count only those suicide victims who have been convicted

of a crime and are serving sentences greater than one year.

Data element II.8.a.den.

Counting rules: see data element II.1.a.den

9. Positive drug tests

Key Indicator II.9.a. Number of positive drug tests from random drug screenings that were

positive for cocaine, opiates, marijuana and/or methamphetamines during the calendar year

adjusted for the number of random drug screenings conducted during the calendar year and

reported as a rate per 1,000.

Data element II.9.a.num. Number of positive drug tests from random drug screenings that were

positive for cocaine, opiates, marijuana, and/or methamphetamines during the calendar year.

Counting rules:

1. The “at-risk” population is those prisoners housed in DOC facilities. Do not include

prisoners supervised in the community including furloughs, electronic surveillance and

halfway houses. Do not include individuals held in other states or jurisdictions or in

privately operated facilities.

2. Random drug screenings are systematic assessments with all persons at-risk with

replacement. Exclude screenings that are mandated, targeted or of suspected offenders.

Include only prisoners who have been incarcerated 30 days or more.

3. The threshold for a positive indication for the cocaine immunoassay test is 150 ng/mL,

for the opiates immunoassay test is 300 ng/mL and for the marijuana immunoassay test is

50 ng/mL.

4. Count positive hits not individuals. For example, if an individual is randomly selected

for testing more than once during the calendar year, and he or she tests positive for one or

more of the specified drugs in subsequent tests, count each positive drug testing event.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-20

Data element II.9.a.den. Number of random drug screenings conducted during the calendar year.

Counting rules:

1. The “at-risk” population are those prisoners housed in DOC facilities. Do not include

prisoners supervised in the community including furloughs, electronic surveillance and

halfway houses. Do not include individuals held in other states or jurisdictions or in

privately operated facilities.

2. Random drug screenings are systematic assessments with all persons at-risk with

replacement. Exclude screenings that are mandated, targeted or of suspected offenders.

Include only prisoners who have been incarcerated 30 days or more.

Count tests not individuals. If an individual is randomly selected for testing more than once

during the calendar year, count all tests performed

10. Disturbances

Key Indicator II.10.a. Number of incidents of collective action by ten or more prisoners that

resulted in serious injury to staff or other prisoners, significant property damage, involved ten or

more prisoners, and/or resulted in loss of control of the facility or a portion of the facility and

required extraordinary measures to regain control during the calendar year adjusted for the

number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

Data element II.10.a.num. Number of incidents of collective action by ten or more prisoners that

result in serious injury to staff or other prisoners, significant property damage and/or result in

loss of control of the facility or a portion of the facility and require extraordinary measures to

regain control during the calendar year.

Counting rules:

1. Count only incidents that occur in facilities operated by the DOC. Exclude incidents that

occur in facilities located in other states or jurisdictions or operated by private companies

that are housing prisoners under contract.

2. A serious injury is one that requires immediate medical attention and treatment.

3. Significant property damage is defined as that in which the property loss is valued at

$1,000 or more.

4. Loss of control of the facility or a portion of it is defined as a situation in which prisoners

are acting in concert to disrupt facility operation and refuse to comply with lock down

orders. They may have taken hostages or appear to be prepared for physical conflict.

Hostile intent is apparent and threats are noted. To regain control, extraordinary

measures must be taken including sending in a significant number of staff or the tactical

response team, firing of shots, use of gas, etc.

5. Unified systems should not count incidents that occur in facilities that do not house

prisoners who have been convicted of a crime and have sentences longer than one year.

Data element II.10.a.den. Number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-21

Counting rules: see data element II.1.a.den

Key Indicator II.10.b. Number of incidents of collective action by five or more but less than 10

prisoners that resulted in loss of control of the facility or a portion of the facility and required

extraordinary measures to regain control but did not entail any serious injuries or significant

property damage during the calendar year adjusted for the number of prisoners held by the

agency on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

Data element II.10.b.num. Number of incidents of collective action by five or more but less than

10 prisoners that result in loss of control of the facility or a portion of the facility and require

extraordinary measures to regain control but did not entail any serious injuries or significant

property damage during the calendar year.

Counting rules:

1. Count only incidents that occur in facilities operated by the DOC. Exclude incidents that

occur in facilities located in other states or jurisdictions or operated by private companies

that are housing prisoners under contract

2. Loss of control of the facility or a portion of it is defined as a situation in which prisoners

are acting in concert to disrupt facility operation and refuse to comply with lock down

orders. They may have taken hostages or appear to be prepared for physical conflict.

Hostile intent is apparent and threats are noted. To regain control, extraordinary

measures must be taken including sending in a significant number of staff or the tactical

response team, firing of shots, use of gas, etc.

3. Unified systems should not count incidents that occur in facilities that do not house

prisoners who have been convicted of a crime and have sentences longer than one year.

Data element II.10.b.den. Number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30.

Counting rules: see data element II.1.a.den
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-22

STANDARD III: SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH – Key Indicators

1. Substance Abuse Treatment

III.1.1 Screening for Substance Abuse Problems: Number of prisoners screened for

substance abuse problems during the calendar year and reported as a rate per 1,000.

Numerator: Number of prisoners admitted to the direct custody of the agency that were

screened for substance abuse problems during the calendar year.

Denominator: Number of individuals received in direct custody of the agency in the

calendar year.

Counting rules:

1. A substance abuse screening by a substance abuse professional includes questioning

the prisoner about the frequency and recency of use of alcohol and/or other

substances and reviewing his/her criminal record, social history, and current offense

to identify indicators of alcohol and substance abuse.

2. Substance abuse professional is an individual with a unique set of knowledge, skills

and abilities that make him/her competent in the areas of development,

administration, prevention, education, treatment, evaluation, assessment and training

aimed at intervening with individuals with substance use disorders. Various

professionals may emerge from this specialization within existing professions (e.g.,

counselors, physicians, nurses, psychologist, social workers, primary care physicians,

credentialed addictions counselors, etc), as well as para-professionals who have

received on-the-job-training in substance abuse counseling.

3. Unified systems should exclude all cases involving sentenced offenders serving less

than one year and non-sentenced prisoners.

4. Exclude prisoners under inter-state compact agreements.

5. Include prisoners housed in other states under contract.

6. Include prisoners housed in private facilities under contract.

III.1.2 Assessment of Substance Abuse Disorders: Number of prisoners identified via a

substance abuse screening as having a potential substance abuse problem who received a

substance abuse assessment to diagnose the problem and develop a plan for appropriate

clinical management while incarcerated reported as a rate per 1,000.

Numerator: Among the prisoners released during the calendar year, the number of

prisoners who received a substance abuse assessment during their incarceration by a

substance abuse professional.

Denominator: Number of prisoners released during the calendar year who had been

referred for a substance abuse assessment during their incarceration.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-23

Counting rules:

1. A substance abuse assessment is an interview with the offender regarding his/her

alcohol and other drug use and a review of historical information by a substance

abuse professional from which a diagnosis of substance abuse or dependence is

derived and recommendations for treatment services are then developed.

2. Substance abuse professional is an individual with a unique set of knowledge, skills

and abilities that make him/her competent in the areas of development,

administration, prevention, education, treatment, evaluation, assessment and training

aimed at intervening with individuals with substance use disorders. Various

professionals may emerge from this specialization within existing professions (e.g.,

counselors, physicians, nurses, psychologist, social workers, primary care physicians,

credentialed addictions counselors, etc), as well as para-professionals who have

received on-the-job-training in substance abuse counseling.

3. Substance abuse or dependence diagnosis requires that the prisoner simultaneously

exhibit at least three of the following seven criteria during a 12-month period: 1.

Tolerance, as defined by either a need for markedly increased amounts of the

substance to achieve intoxication or the desired effect or markedly diminished effect

with continued use of the same substance; 2. Withdrawal, as manifested by either the

characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance or the same substance is taken

to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms; 3. Substance is taken in larger amounts or

over a longer period than was intended; 4. Persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to

cut down or control substance abuse; 5. A great deal of time is spent in activities

necessary to obtain or use the substance and/or recover from its effects; 6. Important

social, occupational or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of

substance use; and 7. Use of the substance is continued despite knowledge that it is

likely to have been caused or exacerbated a persistent or recurrent physical or

psychological problem.

4. Substance abuse referral is formal recommendation for a substance abuse assessment

based a substance abuse screening. The screening indicated that the prisoner has a

history of substance abuse.

5. Unified systems should exclude all cases involving sentenced offenders serving less

than one year and non-sentenced prisoners.

6. Exclude prisoners under inter-state compact agreements.

7. Include prisoners housed in other states under contract.

8. Include prisoners housed in private facilities under contract.

III.1.3 Substance Abuse Intervention and Treatment Enrollment: Number of prisoners

released during the calendar year who were enrolled in recommended treatment services

while incarcerated reported as a rate per 1,000.

1.3.a Numerator: Number of prisoners released during the calendar year who were

enrolled in a substance abuse intervention by while incarcerated.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-24

1.3.a Denominator: Number of prisoners released during a calendar year who were

diagnosed with substance abuse or dependence while incarcerated.

1.3.b Numerator: Number of prisoners released during the calendar year who were

enrolled in substance abuse out-patient treatment provided by substance abuse

professional while incarcerated.

1.3.b Denominator: Number of prisoners released during a calendar year who were

diagnosed with substance abuse or dependence while incarcerated.

1.3.c Numerator: Number of prisoners released during the calendar year who were

enrolled in substance abuse in-patient treatment provided by a substance abuse

professional while incarcerated.

1.3.c Denominator: Number of prisoners released during a calendar year who were

assessed and diagnosed with substance abuse or dependence while incarcerated.

Counting rules:

1. Substance abuse intervention includes services to support and encourage the

prisoner’s abstinence from use of substances, e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics

Anonymous, or drug and alcohol education.

2. Substance abuse out-patient treatment services include individual therapy, group

therapy, or out-patient substance abuse programming by a substance abuse

professional.

3. Substance abuse in-patient treatment includes a structured curriculum in which the

inmates live a housing unit(s) separate from the general population and participate in

educational classes and therapeutic activities to address the their substance abuse

problems and to reduce the risk of recidivism. The activities are directed by a

substance abuse professional and may include group counseling, journaling,

individual counseling, reality therapy, etc.

4. Prisoners who participate in multiple substance treatment interventions/ services

should be counted in only the highest level of treatment category of treatment. For

example, if the prisoner participated in AA and out-patient group therapy, count as

“out-patient treatment services.”

5. Substance abuse treatment plan is a written summary from the substance abuse

assessment that incorporates the diagnosis, extent of impairment in areas of

functioning (e.g., social, familial); types of services needed; and triage of services or

sequence of services (e.g., treatment services precede support services).

6. Substance abuse or dependence diagnosis requires that the prisoner simultaneously

exhibit at least three of the following seven criteria during a 12-month period: 1.

Tolerance, as defined by either a need for markedly increased amounts of the

substance to achieve intoxication or the desired effect or markedly diminished effect

with continued use of the same substance; 2. Withdrawal, as manifested by either the

characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance or the same substance is taken

to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms; 3. Substance is taken in larger amounts or
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-25

over a longer period than was intended; 4. Persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to

cut down or control substance abuse; 5. A great deal of time is spent in activities

necessary to obtain or use the substance and/or recover from its effects; 6. Important

social, occupational or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of

substance use; and 7. Use of the substance is continued despite knowledge that it is

likely to have been caused or exacerbated a persistent or recurrent physical or

psychological problem.

7. Unified systems should exclude all cases involving sentenced offenders serving less

than one year and non-sentenced prisoners.

8. Exclude prisoners under inter-state compact agreements

9. Include prisoners housed in private facilities under contract.

10. Include prisoners housed in other states under contract.

11. Exclude prisoners released to another jurisdiction.

III.1.4 Substance Abuse Treatment Completions: Number of prisoners released who

achieved their treatment goals through participation in recommended services and were

formally discharged from treatment by a substance abuse treatment professional.

1.4.a Numerator: Number of prisoners released during the calendar year who completed

substance abuse out-patient treatment provided by substance abuse professional while

incarcerated.

1.4.a Denominator: Number of prisoners released during a calendar year that were

diagnosed with substance abuse or dependence while incarcerated.

1.4.b Numerator: Number of prisoners released during the calendar year who completed

substance abuse in-patient treatment provided by a substance abuse professional while

incarcerated.

1.4.b Denominator: Number of prisoners released during a calendar year that were

diagnosed with substance abuse or dependence while incarcerated.

Counting rules:

1. Completion of treatment requires that the prisoner achieve the treatment goals as

described in the treatment plan through participation in recommended services and

formally discharge from treatment. Exceptions: if the prisoner has completed the

services recommended in the treatment plan and continues to participate in on-going

relapse prevention activities within the institution, support services, and/or is serving

as a mentor or peer counselor, count as a program completion.

2. Substance abuse out-patient treatment services include individual therapy, group

therapy, or out-patient substance abuse programming by a substance abuse

professional.

3. Substance abuse professional is an individual with a unique set of knowledge, skills

and abilities that make him/her competent in the areas of development,

administration, prevention, education, treatment, evaluation, assessment and training
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-26

aimed at intervening with individuals with substance use disorders. Various

professionals may emerge from this specialization within existing professions (e.g.,

counselors, physicians, nurses, psychologist, social workers, primary care physicians,

credentialed addictions counselors, etc), as well as para-professionals who have

received on-the-job-training in substance abuse counseling.

4. Substance abuse in-patient treatment includes a structured curriculum in which the

inmates live a housing unit(s) separate from the general population and participate in

educational classes and therapeutic activities to address the their substance abuse

problems and to reduce the risk of recidivism. The activities are directed by a

substance abuse professional and may include group counseling, journaling,

individual counseling, reality therapy, etc.

5. Prisoners who participate in multiple substance treatment interventions/ services

should be counted in only the highest level of treatment category of treatment. For

example, the prisoner participated in AA and out-patient group therapy, count as

“out-patient treatment services.”

6. Substance abuse treatment plan is a written summary from the substance abuse

assessment that incorporates the diagnosis, extent of impairment in areas of

functioning (e.g., social, familial); types of services needed; and triage of services or

sequence of services (e.g., treatment services precede support services).

7. Unified systems should exclude all cases involving sentenced offenders serving less

than one year and non-sentenced prisoners.

8. Exclude prisoners under inter-state compact agreements.

9. Exclude prisoners released to another jurisdiction.

10. Include prisoners housed in other states under contract.

11. Include prisoners housed in private facilities under contract.

2. Mental Health Services

III.2.1 Mental Health Assessment: Number of prisoners assessed for mental health needs by

a mental health professional during the calendar year and reported as a rate per 1,000.

Numerator: Number of male and female prisoners assessed for mental health needs

during the last 12 months (between July 1 and June 30th) by a mental health professional.

Denominator: Number of individuals in direct custody of the agency and housed in

secure facilities (institutions with defined perimeter security) on June 30th.

Counting rules:

1. A mental health assessment includes a review of the individual’s need for mental

health treatment (i.e., placement in a therapeutic or treatment unit, hospitalization,

therapy, medication, and/or discharge services). An assessment maybe provided to a

prisoner as part of the intake/reception process and/or at any point during his/her

incarceration as behavior(s) or symptoms that may need clinical management are

observed/ reported.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-27

2. Mental health professional is an individual with a unique set of knowledge, skills and

abilities that make him/her competent in either development, research, administration,

assessment, prevention, treatment, education or training aimed at effecting the onset,

occurrence, and maintenance of mental, behavioral and in some cases physical health

disorders. Various professionals may emerge from specialization within a core

profession (e.g. psychiatric nursing), and across academic degree level programs

within existing mental health professions (e.g., the MA, MS, PhD. and PsyD., are

now offered in clinical psychology). In some cases new fields of professional mental

health practice are emerging (e.g. addictions counselor).

3. Unified systems should exclude all cases involving sentenced offenders serving less

than one year and non-sentenced prisoners.

4. Exclude prisoners under inter-state compact agreements.

5. Include assessments that occur while the prisoner is housed in another state under

contract.

6. Include assessments that occurred while the prisoner is housed in a private facility.

III.2.2 Mental Health Diagnosis: Among the prisoners whose mental health needs were

assessed by a mental health professional, the number with a mental health diagnosis.

2.a Numerator: Among the prisoners whose mental health needs were assessed during

the last 12 months, number of male and female prisoners with a mental health diagnosis.

2.a Denominator: The number of the prisoners whose mental health needs were assessed

during the last 12 months.

2.b Numerator: Number of male and female prisoners with a mental health diagnosis.

2.b Denominator: Number of individuals in custody of the agency and housed in secure

facilities (institutions with defined perimeter security) on June 30th.

Counting rules:

1. Mental health problem includes a mental disorder as defined in the DSM IV (or

current version).

2. Mental health professional is an individual with a unique set of knowledge, skills and

abilities that make him/her competent in either development, research, administration,

assessment, prevention, treatment, education or training aimed at effecting the onset,

occurrence, and maintenance of mental, behavioral and in some cases physical health

disorders. Various professionals may emerge from specialization within a core

profession (e.g. psychiatric nursing), and across academic degree level programs

within existing mental health professions (e.g., the MA, MS, PhD. and PsyD., are

now offered in clinical psychology). In some cases new fields of professional mental

health practice are emerging (e.g. addictions counselor).

3. Unified systems should exclude all cases involving sentenced offenders serving less

than one year and non-sentenced prisoners.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-28

4. Exclude prisoners under inter-state compact agreements.

5. Include prisoners housed in other states under contract.

6. Include prisoners housed in private facilities under contract.

III.2.3 Serious Mental Health Diagnosis: Among the prisoners whose mental health needs

were assessed by a mental health professional, number of who were diagnosed with a

serious mental illness.

2.3.a Numerator: Among the prisoners assessed during the last 12 months, the number

of male and female prisoners diagnosed with a serious mental illness.

2.3.a Denominator: The number of the prisoners whose mental health needs were

assessed during the last 12 months.

2.3.b Numerator: Number of male and female prisoners diagnosed with a serious mental

illness.

2.3.b Denominator: Number of individuals in custody of the agency and housed in

secure facilities (institutions with defined perimeter security) on June 30th.

Counting rules:

1. Mental health problem includes a mental disorder as defined in the DSM IV (or

current version).

2. Serious mental illness is a condition among individuals, age 18 years and over, who

currently or at any time during the past year, have had a diagnosable mental,

behavioral, or emotional disorder of sufficient duration to meet diagnostic criteria

specified within the DSM-IV-R, that has resulted in functional impairment which

substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities.

3. Mental health professional is an individual with a unique set of knowledge, skills and

abilities that make him/her competent in either development, research, administration,

assessment, prevention, treatment, education or training aimed at effecting the onset,

occurrence, and maintenance of mental, behavioral and in some cases physical health

disorders. Various professionals may emerge from specialization within a core

profession (e.g. psychiatric nursing), and across academic degree level programs

within existing mental health professions (e.g., the MA, MS, PhD. and PsyD., are

now offered in clinical psychology). In some cases new fields of professional mental

health practice are emerging (e.g. addictions counselor).

4. Unified systems should exclude all cases involving sentenced offenders serving less

than one year and non-sentenced prisoners.

5. Exclude prisoners under inter-state compact agreements.

6. Include prisoners housed in other states under contract.

7. Include prisoners housed in private facilities under contract.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-29

III.2.4 Mental Health Treatment: Among the prisoners diagnosed with a serious mental

illness, the number of who are receiving treatment (medication-maintenance or

medication-maintenance plus) by a mental health professional.

2.4.a Numerator: Among the prisoners whose mental health needs were assessed during

the last 12 months, the number of male and female prisoners diagnosed with a serious

mental illness who are receiving treatment (medication maintenance or medication

maintenance plus).

2.4.a Denominator: The number of the prisoners whose mental health needs were

assessed during the last 12 months.

2.4.b Numerator: Among the prisoners diagnosed with a serious mental illness, number

of male and female prisoners who are receiving treatment (medication-maintenance or

medication-maintenance plus).

2.4.b Denominator: Number of individuals in custody of the agency and housed in

secure facilities (institutions with defined perimeter security) on June 30th.

Counting rules:

1. Mental health problem includes a mental disorder as defined in the DSM IV (or

current version).

2. Serious mental illness is a condition among individuals, age 18 years and over, who

currently or at any time during the past year, have had a diagnosable mental,

behavioral, or emotional disorder of sufficient duration to meet diagnostic criteria

specified within the DSM-IV-R, that has resulted in functional impairment which

substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities.

3. Mental health professional is an individual with a unique set of knowledge, skills and

abilities that make him/her competent in either development, research, administration,

assessment, prevention, treatment, education or training aimed at effecting the onset,

occurrence, and maintenance of mental, behavioral and in some cases physical health

disorders. Various professionals may emerge from specialization within a core

profession (e.g. psychiatric nursing), and across academic degree level programs

within existing mental health professions (e.g., the MA, MS, PhD. and PsyD., are

now offered in clinical psychology). In some cases new fields of professional mental

health practice are emerging (e.g. addictions counselor).

4. Unified systems should exclude all cases involving sentenced offenders serving less

than one year and non-sentenced prisoners.

5. Medication maintenance is the use of any psychotropic agents to treat and/or

ameliorate the episodic, recurrent or persistent features of said mental health problem.

6. Medication maintenance plus is the use of any psychotropic agents and adjunct nonmedical interventions (to include: individual, group, couples, and /or family psycho

therapies, counseling or psycho education, clinical case management, residential

living accommodations...) to treat and/or ameliorate the episodic, recurrent or

persistent features of said mental health problem.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-30

7. Exclude prisoners under inter-state compact agreements.

8. Include prisoners housed in other states under contract.

9. Include prisoners housed in private facilities under contract.

Key Indicator III.2.5. Number of psychiatric beds adjusted for the number of prisoners held by

the agency on June 30 and reported as a rate per 1,000.

Data element III.2.5.num. Number of psychiatric beds on June 30.

Counting rules:

1. Count only those beds that are dedicated to psychiatric patients.

2. Exclude hours spent on all pre-trial and court ordered cases.

3. Unified systems should exclude all cases involving sentenced offenders serving less

than one year and non-sentenced prisoners.

Data element III.2.5.den. Number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30.

Counting rules: see data element II.1.a.den.

Key Indicator III.2.6. Number of psychiatric placements of prisoners in non-DOC facilities

adjusted for the number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and reported as a rate per

1,000.

Data element III.2.6.num. Number of psychiatric placements of prisoners in non-DOC facilities

on June 30.

Counting rules:

1. Count all psychiatric patients who are transferred to facilities, public or private, that

are responsible for psychiatric care and treatment.

2. Exclude hours spent on all pre-trial and court ordered cases.

3. Unified systems should exclude all cases involving sentenced offenders serving less

than one year and non-sentenced prisoners.

Data element III.2.6.den. Number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30.

Counting rules: see data element II.1.a.den.

CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION IV: OFFENDER PROFILE

1. Commitment type

Context Indicator IV.1.a. Number of prisoners incarcerated for 1) a new court commitment, 2)

a post-custody violation with a new sentence and 3) a post-custody violation with no new
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-31

sentence on June 30 adjusted for the number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and

reported as a percentage.

Data element IV.1.a.num. Number of prisoners incarcerated for 1) a new court commitment, 2) a

post-custody violation with a new sentence and 3) a post-custody violation with no new sentence

on June 30.

Counting rules:

1. A prisoner should be counted in only one category. The sum of the three categories

should equal the population on June 30.

2. Probation violators should be counted in category 1, not categories 2 or 3.

3. Unified systems should count only prisoners who have been convicted of a crime and are

serving sentences or more than one year.

Data element IV.1.a.den. Number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30.

Counting rules: see data element II.1.a.den

2. Offense type

Context Indicator IV.2.a. Number of prisoners serving a sentence for a Part I violent crime,

other violent crime, property crime, drug offense, other public order offense or other crime on

June 30 adjusted for the number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30 and reported as a

percentage.

.

Data element IV.2.a.num. Number of prisoners serving a sentence for a Part I violent crime,

other violent crime, property crime, drug offense, other public order offense or other crime on

June 30.

Counting rules:

1. A prisoner should be counted in only one category. The sum of the three categories

should equal the population on June 30.

2. Use most serious offense (one with the longest sentence) to assign prisoners to categories.

3. Part 1 violent offenses include murder, non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and

aggravated assault.

4. Other violent offenses include negligent manslaughter, kidnapping, other sexual assault,

simple assault, and other violent offenses including intimidation, illegal abortion,

extortion, cruelty toward a child or wife, hit-and-run driving with bodily injury, and

miscellaneous crimes against the person.

5. Property offenses include burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, arson, fraud, forgery,

embezzlement, stolen property (including receiving, transporting, possessing, concealing

and selling stolen property, but excluding motor vehicle theft and drugs), and other

property offenses such as possession of burglary tools, damage to property, smuggling

and other miscellaneous property crimes.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-32

6. Drug offenses include drug trafficking, drug possession, and other drug offenses such as

possession of drug paraphernalia and forged or unauthorized prescriptions.

7. Other public order offenses include weapons offenses (including unlawful sale,

distribution, manufacture, alteration, transportation, possession or use of a deadly or

dangerous weapon or accessory), traffic offenses, DUI or DWI, probation or parole

violations, escape, obstruction of justice, court offenses, non-violent sex offenses,

commercialized vice, family offenses, liquor law violations, bribery, invasion of privacy,

disorderly conduct, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and miscellaneous public

order offenses.

8. All other offenses should be counted in the final category of “other crime.”

9. Unified systems should include only those prisoners who are convicted of a crime and are

serving a sentence of more than one year.

Data element IV.2.a.den. Number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30.

Counting rules: see data element II.1.a.den

3. Demographics

Context Indicator IV.3.a. Demographics of the prisoner population on June 30 by gender, age

category and race/ethnicity adjusted for the number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30

and reported as a percentage.

Data element IV.3.a.num. Demographics of the prisoner population on June 30 by gender, age

category and race/ethnicity adjusted for the number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30.

Counting rules:

1. A prisoner should be counted in only one category. The sum of the categories should

equal the population on June 30.

2. Gender has two categories: male and female.

3. The following age categories should be used: <18, 18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65

and older.

4. The following race/ethnicity categories should be used: White, Black or African

American, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian

or other Pacific Islander, other racial category, or not known.

5. Unified systems should include only those prisoners who are convicted of a crime and are

serving a sentence of more than one year.

Data element IV.3.a.den. Number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30.

Counting rules: see data element II.1.a.den
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-33

4. Sentence length

Context Indicator IV.4.a. Number of prisoners serving sentences of less than one year, 1 to 3

years, 3 to 5 years, 5 to 10 years, 10 to 20 years, more than 20 years, life with parole, life without

parole and death on June 30 adjusted for the number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30

and reported as a percentage.

Data element IV.4.a.num. Number of prisoners serving sentences of less than one year, 1 to 3

years, 3 to 5 years, 5 to 10 years, 10 to 20 years, more than 20 years, life with parole, life without

parole and death on June 30.

Counting rules:

1. A prisoner should be counted in only one category. The sum of the three categories

should equal the population on June 30.

2. Use the longest concurrent sentence.

3. Sum all consecutive sentences.

4. Unified systems should include only those prisoners who are convicted of a crime and are

serving a sentence of more than one year.

Data element IV.4.a.den. Number of prisoners held by the agency on June 30.

Counting rules: see data element II.1.a.den

5. Time served

Context Indicator IV.5.a.1. Number of prisoners who are incarcerated for a violation who have

served less than one year, 1 to 3 years, 3 to 5 years, 5 to 10 years, 10 to 20 years, more than 20

years on June 30 adjusted for the number of prisoners incarcerated for a violation held by the

agency on June 30 and reported as a percentage.

Data element IV.5.a.1.num. Number of prisoners who are incarcerated for a violation who have

served less than one year, 1 to 3 years, 3 to 5 years, 5 to 10 years, 10 to 20 years, more than 20

years on June 30 adjusted.

Counting rules:

1. A prisoner should be counted in only one category. The sum of the categories should

equal the number of prisoners incarcerate for a violation on June 30.

2. Use most recent admission to the prison system for computation of time served. Exclude

jail time credits.

3. Unified systems should include only those prisoners who are convicted of a crime and are

serving a sentence of more than one year.

Data element IV.5.a.1. den. Number of prisoners incarcerated for a violation held by the agency

on June 30 and reported as a percentage.
DRAFT

PBM Final Report – DRAFT

February 4, 2003

C-34

Counting rules:

1. This tally should include all prisoners incarcerated for a violation under the custody of

the DOC with the exceptions of:

a. individuals housed in other states, held by private facilities under contract and

incarcerated in county and local jails, and

b. individuals under the custody of the DOC who are currently released to the

community (furlough, electronic monitoring, etc.)

2. Unified prison systems should count only those prisoners incarcerated for a violation who

have been convicted of a crime and are serving sentences greater than one year.

Context Indicator IV.5.a.2. Number of prisoners who are incarcerated for a new offense (new

admission) who have served less than one year, 1 to 3 years, 3 to 5 years, 5 to 10 years, 10 to 20

years, more than 20 years on June 30 adjusted for the number of prisoners incarcerated for a

violation held by the agency on June 30 and reported as a percentage.

Data element IV.5.a.2.num. Number of prisoners who are incarcerated for a new offense (new

admission) who have served less than one year, 1 to 3 years, 3 to 5 years, 5 to 10 years, 10 to 20

years, more than 20 years on June 30 adjusted.

Counting rules:

1. A prisoner should be counted in only one category. The sum of the categories should

equal the number of prisoners incarcerated for a new offense on June 30.

2. Use most recent admission to the prison system for computation of time served.

3. Unified systems should include only those prisoners who are convicted of a crime and are

serving a sentence of more than one year.

Data element IV.5.a.2. den. Number of prisoners incarcerated for a new offense (new admission)

held by the agency on June 30 and reported as a percentage.

Counting rules:

1. This tally should include all prisoners incarcerated for a new offense (new admission)

under the custody of the DOC with the exceptions of:

a. individuals housed in other states, held by private facilities under contract and

incarcerated in county and local jails, and

b. individuals under the custody of the DOC who are currently released to the

community (furlough, electronic monitoring, etc.)

2. Unified prison systems should count only those prisoners incarcerated for a new offense

(new admission) who have been convicted of a crime and are serving sentences greater

than one year.