U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

Implementing Performance-Based

Measures in Community Corrections

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis, Director June 1996

continued . . .

by Harry N. Boone, Jr., Ph.D. and Betsy A. Fulton

Issues and Findings

Discussed in the Brief: A model

process for community corrections

agencies’ strategic planning and

evaluation that relies on performance-based measures. The NIJsponsored project was based on

the idea that performance-based

measures could provide agencies

with a mechanism for assessing

what they do and how well they

do it. Given the proper learning environment and a system of structured feedback, community

corrections agencies that adopt the

model process—developed by the

American Probation and Parole Association (APPA)— could discover

ways to improve outcomes and

achieve desired goals.

Key issues: Tremendous growth

in the population of probationers

and parolees has stretched the capacities of community corrections

agencies to the limit and, concurrently, increased demands for measurable accomplishments. Other

factors contributing to the pressured state of these organizations

include:

● A climate of heightened public

concern for safety, demands for

accountability, and diminished or

inadequate resources.

● New practices for managing the

offender population that promise

greater effectiveness and efficiency

but require changes in the status

quo.

Developing an agency-specific

strategy

Rationale for creating performancebased measures. Performance-based measures provide internal and external

feedback at all organizational levels about

the relationships between practices, objectives, and results. Additionally, they reflect decisions about the business of

community corrections: who the customers

are, what they want, and how their needs

will be determined and met. To the degree

that performance measures are not integral

to standard business practices, feedback is

less credible, less useful, and even contrary to an organization’s objectives.

The APPA model was designed to provide

a framework for developing agency-specific

performance-based measures (see exhibit

1). The process requires an organization to

examine its values, define its mission, articulate its goals, design activities for their

accomplishment, and create measures for

evaluating their effectiveness. Adoption

of these key organizational practices enhances an agency’s chances for achieving

desired results.

Traditionally, low recidivism rates have

been used as the primary—and often

sole—measure of success for community

corrections programs. The 1990’s have

brought growth to community corrections

organizations along with demands for accountability and fiscal restraint. In a climate where accomplishments mean more

than tradition, organizational viability

depends increasingly on strategic planning, systematic monitoring, and ongoing

evaluation of performance against stated

goals and objectives, so that, if necessary, mid-course corrections can be

made.

In 1993, the National Institute of Justice

(NIJ) sponsored a project by the American Probation and Parole Association

(APPA) to develop a model process for

devising and implementing alternative

outcome measures that could be used by

community corrections agencies to

evaluate staff and overall agency performance. This Research in Brief provides

a rationale for these measures and a

step-by-step discussion of the model

process.
2

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 1: A Framework for Developing Performance-Based Measures Issues and Findings

continued . . .

● Little guidance for needed modifications of policy and practice from

the traditional focus on reducing

recidivism.

Key findings: The APPA model is

based on a five-step process:

● Clarify values.

● Define agency mission.

● Develop organizational goals.

● Implement activities to meet

agency goals.

● Evaluate performance.

Expected benefits of this process for

community corrections agencies

include:

● Better assessment of activities

(e.g., treatment and services, surveillance, enforcement) that define the

profession.

● Clear differentiation between

long-term goals (such as reduced recidivism) and short-term objectives

(such as increased probation completion rate).

● “Results-oriented management”

through establishment of benchmarks and standards on which to

base organizational improvement

and judge success or failure.

● Creation of a learning environment that contributes to organizational growth through structured

feedback and continuous monitoring

and evaluation.

● Ability to successfully compete for

limited public funds by demonstrating agency value.

Implementing the model. Evaluation,

in any form, can be discomforting. Management and staff often resist performance measures because they are

threatening and represent change. Involving a representative cross section of

staff in selecting performance measures

can help to overcome this resistance in

several ways. It increases organizational

learning regarding the tradeoffs involved

in performance measurement. Is it, for

example, more important to measure the

number of contacts made or to evaluate

what happened during those contacts?

Staff input increases buy-in and decreases normal fears and opposition to

evaluation. The involvement of line personnel and supervisors in the developmental process is critical. Line officers

are responsible for performing the activities designed to achieve organizational

goals, and supervisors must assess this

performance.

The five steps in exhibit 1 could be used

to develop a comprehensive approach to

performance-based measures. Allowing

sufficient time for a thorough developmental phase can clarify an agency’s

values, mission, and methods. It can be

enlightening and promote renewed understanding and commitment.

Step 1—clarifying values. Values are

principles, standards, or qualities considered worthwhile, and they represent

the fundamental beliefs on which agency

practices are based (see exhibit 2 for an

example). The first, and perhaps most

significant, step in developing a performance-based strategy is to clarify and

communicate agency values. Values

shape decisions, actions, and results.

They are the motivating force behind

agency policies and practices, from hiring officers, to case supervision of offenders, to monitoring and evaluation.

Step 2—defining a mission. The second step in developing a performancebased measurement strategy is to

develop a mission statement that reflects

the organization’s values and its strategic

intent. A mission statement should

clarify organizational purpose—e.g., “to

protect the community,” without spelling

out the method for achieving it. DevelopMeasures

Activities

Goals

Mission

Values
3

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 2: Maricopa County Adult

Probation Department

Values Statement

• We believe that individuals can

change and that we can be instrumental in directing that change.

• We believe in being sensitive to the

needs of victims of crime.

• We believe in promoting and maintaining a positive, safe, and healthy

work environment.

ment of an attainable, yet inspirational, mission statement can be a long

and involved process. The end result,

however, is worth the expenditure of

time. A strong mission promotes organizational cohesiveness and increases

overall effectiveness.

Step 3—clarifying organizational

goals. A broadly stated mission, while

desirable, can be overwhelming. A key

question is left unanswered—how does

the agency become what it aspires to

be? The next step in developing a performance-based measurement strategy,

clarifying organizational goals, begins

to answer this question by bringing the

mission into focus and breaking it

down into manageable, achievable

components (see exhibit 3 for an example of a probation department’s

mission statement and organizational

goals). Program goals map out the future and provide a standard against

which success can be measured. They

specify the intentions of the agency

and direct organizational activities.

The importance of goal clarification

cannot be overstated. Goals that are

too ambitious or ambiguous can create

organizational confusion; one goal may

be achieved at the expense of another.

One solution to this problem lies in

setting specific and separate goals for

the short and long terms. For example,

initiatives that aim to immediately deter crime or incapacitate criminals

may be effective short-range goals, but

rehabilitation, which involves behavioral change over time, is a goal that

can only be reached in slow and

steady increments.1

 Preventing recidivism is a long-term goal, which can be

supported by short-term goals (e.g.,

enforcing court orders and securing

treatment resources for offenders). By

assigning goals to the appropriate

timeframe, agencies can clarify intentions and guide operations toward program success.

Step 4—selecting activities that

support organizational goals.

Selecting the supervisory style or

method that supports an agency’s

stated goals is the next step in developing an agency-specific performancebased measurement strategy. Methods

of supervision are generally discussed

in terms of whether community corrections is oriented more toward social

services or law enforcement. The purpose here is not to advocate one orientation over the other, but to encourage

agencies to examine their organizational philosophies and supervisory

styles within the context of established

goals. In this way, the roles of individuals can be integrated with operational procedures.

Performance-based measurements assist agencies in determining the activities that lead to goal achievement.

Results-oriented data move the debate

from considerations of style to those of

effectiveness; activities change as

agencies enhance their knowledge and

understanding of what “works.”

Step 5—identifying performancebased measures. In depth exploration of agency values, mission, goals,

and activities, as outlined in the APPA

model, supports a measurement strategy that assesses and communicates

an agency’s purpose and performance.

As one researcher has stated, “Once

the agency has identified its goals and

the methods it uses to address each

Exhibit 3: Maricopa County Adult Probation Department

Mission Statement

The mission of the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department is to provide information to the court and provide community-based sanctions for adult offenders. This is

accomplished by conducting investigations, enforcing court orders, and providing

treatment opportunities.

Organizational Goals

• To conduct complete and thorough investigations and provide the court with accurate, objective information and professional evaluations and recommendations.

• To secure treatment resources for probationers.

• To assist probationers to remain in the community through appropriate intervention

and supervision.

• To assess the behavior of probationers and bring to the court’s attention those offenders who are in serious noncompliance with court orders.

• To foster professional development, safety, and well-being of staff.

• To set direction consistent with the department’s mission and values.
4

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

with no direction for program improvement, they are routinely pushed aside

with no corrective actions taken.”5

Outcome measures that more effectively guide program improvements

may include rates of offender employment, drug abuse reduction, offender

completion of probation/parole (see exhibit 5), or risk-level reduction.

If only outcomes are examined, little

direction is available for program

policymaking. Examining processes,

however, helps to explain why such effects were produced and how practices

can be modified to produce desired

outcomes.6

 By controlling processes,

agencies can control outcomes. One

researcher has stated that as much as

85 percent of undesirable results are

associated with any process controllable by management, while 15 percent can be attributed to individuals.7

Organizations seeking to prioritize how

they spend their evaluation resources

should consider addressing process

measures first to obtain fundamental

feedback on whether services are being delivered according to specifications. If the feedback confirms that

processes are meeting agency targets,

goal, it can specify objective (measurable) criteria that determine the extent

to which the activities are being performed.”2

 Typically, performance measurement in community corrections has

tended to focus on either process (e.g.,

number of supervision contacts) or

outcome (e.g., recidivism). One has excluded the other, when, realistically,

measures of both are necessary.

Process measures are needed to determine if a program has been implemented as designed. Specifically, they

provide a mechanism to:

• Identify program goals.

• Consider causal linkages to

criminal behavior.

• Specify the program’s target

population.

• Describe what services are actually

being delivered.

• Investigate unanticipated

consequences.

• Search for explanations of success,

failure, and change.3

Process measures may include the

number and type of contacts, the number of referrals for treatment, the style

of interaction between officers and offenders, or the extent to which offenders were appropriately classified (see

exhibit 4 for an example of a process

measure). Processes can be examined

through observation of program activities, interviews, and case audits.4

Outcome measures are needed to assess a program’s impact. As previously

discussed, multiple intermediate outcomes should be measured in addition

to a long-term result such as rate of recidivism. “Because recidivism-centered findings provide administrators

then questions about outcomes are

meaningful. The importance of accurately distinguishing among these

types of measures cannot be overemphasized.

As Total Quality Management (TQM)

initiatives and “reinvention of government” became popular, so did the

awareness that public organizations

have both internal and external customers, as well as suppliers.8

 Hence,

customer satisfaction is being introduced as a key objective for community corrections. One purpose of

performance-based measures is to increase the understanding of relationships between customers, processes,

and outcomes.

Staff evaluation using

performance-based measures

Employee performance evaluations

will change dramatically in terms of

performance criteria, employee/supervisor interaction, and corrective actions. Staff will be held accountable

for the quality and results, rather than

the frequency, of their efforts. Being

held accountable for results can be a

Exhibit 4: Sample Process Measure

Degree of Accuracy and Completeness of Presentencing Investigations (PSI‘s)

Objective 90 percent of all PSI’s will be complete and accurate when they are

submitted to the court.

Data Number of PSI’s evaluated by supervisors, number of PSI’s rated

Elements complete and accurate by supervisors.

Formula (Number of PSI’s rated complete and accurate by supervisors ÷ number

of PSI‘s evaluated) x 100.

Sample Results of evaluation on this process measure: 60 (10 percent) of the

585 PSI’s completed in the first quarter of 1994 were randomly

selected for review. 51 of the PSI’s met minimum standards for

accuracy and completeness; thus, 85 percent ([51 ÷ 60] x 100) of all

PSI’s were rated complete and accurate.

Therefore, the objective was not achieved.
5

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Analyzing, reporting, and

applying results

The final phase in the cyclical process

of performance-based measurement

involves analysis, reporting, and application of results. Analysis and reporting highlight positive outcomes,

uncover ineffective practices, and

guide agencies to explore alternative

methods for achieving organizational

goals. If properly implemented, a system of performance-based measurement will keep agencies at the

vanguard of community corrections

practices.

What if performance-based evaluations contain bad news? One way to

prepare for this situation is to anticipate unfavorable results.10 Agencies

that pursue performance measures as

“proof” that their methods “work” set

the stage for certain disappointment.

If, however, an organization adopts the

view that “feedback,” rather than

“proof” is the objective, disappointing

results become an opportunity to examine alternatives.

Community corrections agencies must

accept responsibility for poor outcomes and explore the reasons behind

them. Probation and parole originated

with the idea that people can change,

but absolute certainty or success is impossible when human behavior is involved. By testing, modifying, and

retesting programs and practices, community corrections agencies and professionals can learn about “what

works.” Key stakeholders within the

criminal justice system and the community at large should be regularly informed of program outcomes. An

honest, straightforward approach to reporting outcomes is essential in order

to avoid misinterpretation or misrepresentation.

frightening prospect for employees at

all levels of the organization, but if accountability is not established, performance-based measurements are of

little use.

The employees of an organization are

responsible for planning and delivering services or products, and it has

been observed, “what gets measured

gets done.”9

 Programs that do not

closely align employee evaluations

with process and outcome requirements should expect neither implementation according to design nor

achievement of desired goals.

When held accountable for results, officers become concerned. Managers

can promote acceptance and minimize

skepticism by involving officers in the

development of performance-based

measurements and by listening to their

concerns. Managers also must commit

resources and provide the training required for staff to achieve the results

for which they are to be held accountable. Above all, it should be made

clear that the principle of accountability will be applied throughout the organization—at line, managerial, and

administrative levels. Accountability

should be presented and perceived as

an opportunity for professional growth

rather than as a threat to the status

quo. Managers must lead the organization through the rough spots.

With the proper learning environment

and structured feedback based on

meaningful performance criteria, staff

can be expected to work to improve

outcomes and achieve desired goals.

The more control people are given over

their work, the more motivated, productive, and effective they are. Staff

who are evaluated using performancebased measurement are free to employ

creative approaches to goal achievement, and they are provided with

meaningful feedback that demonstrates their worth to the customer

(i.e., the offender), the organization,

and the community.

Exhibit 5: Sample Outcome Measure

Percentage of Offenders Recommended for and

Successfully Completing Probation/Parole Supervision

Objective 70 percent of all offenders recommended for, and placed on,

community supervision will successfully complete the required period

of supervision.

Data Number of offenders recommended for community supervision, number

Elements of offenders successfully completing supervision.

Formula (Number of offenders successfully completing supervision ÷ number of

offenders recommended for community supervision) x 100

Sample 430 offenders were recommended for, and placed on, community

Results of an supervision during the first quarter of 1990. Of those 430 offenders,

Evaluation 318 successfully completed their terms of supervision. Therefore,

Using this 74 percent ([318 ÷ 430] x 100) of all offenders recommended for

Outcome community supervision during 1994 successfully completed their

Measure supervision requirements.

Objective was achieved.
6

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Sharing both positive and negative

outcomes will earn greater respect and

credibility with all audiences. Measuring performance demonstrates a commitment to improved practices, and

key information about agency

struggles may elicit support and assistance for those improvements. The

content and format of communiques

should be carefully considered: long,

comprehensive reports are of little

value or interest to most audiences.

Information should be concise and,

wherever possible, in graphic form.

Through appropriate analysis, reporting, and application of results, community corrections agencies can

demonstrate their commitment to

achieving stated goals. Successful

agencies are actively involved in

learning; they pursue information and

work to enhance their knowledge.

They modify, adapt, and accept the

challenges that come with change and

growth. Community corrections agencies that fully participate in performance-based measurement have much

to gain and even more to contribute.

Conclusion

This model for developing a performance-based measurement strategy

can assist agencies in exploring important organizational issues. By clarifying values, mission, and goals,

agencies can more readily identify

methods for measuring, evaluating,

and communicating agency performance and accomplishments.

Change in any form produces anxiety

and discomfort, but if it is controlled,

rational, and purposeful, change can

stimulate positive growth. A performance-based measurement strategy

can ease the perception of accountability as a threat by setting clear expectations and standards. An appropriate performance-based measurement strategy:

● Guides agencies and their personnel through the change process.

● Provides agencies with a vision, a

logical well-planned pathway.

● Allows agencies and their personnel

to learn and grow.

● Leads to a healthy, vital organization.

The past decade has brought formidable challenges to community corrections. Agencies and practitioners have

demonstrated a commitment to enhancing their programs and services.

As a profession, community corrections must continue to learn and grow,

and a system of performance-based

measurements can facilitate this professional and organizational growth.

By demonstrating results, community

corrections agencies can position

themselves as agencies that make a

difference in the safety of American

communities.

Notes

1. Harland, Alan T. and C. J. Rosen,

“Sentencing Theory and Intensive Supervision Probation,” Federal Probation, LI(4)(1987):33–42.

2. Petersilia, Joan, “Measuring the

Performance of Community Corrections,” 1993:8. Paper prepared for the

BJS/Princeton Outcomes Study Group.

3. Harris, P., “Evaluation of Criminal

Justice Programs,” 1991. Final Report

of technical assistance no. 92C1010

for the Community Justice Assistance

Division of the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice. National Institute of

Corrections.

4. See Harris, “Evaluation of Criminal

Justice Programs.”

5. See Harris, “Evaluation of Criminal

Justice Programs,” 9.

6. Blalock, A.B., ed., Evaluating Social Programs at the State and Local

Level, Kalamazoo, Michigan: W.E.

Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1990.

7. Deming, W.E., Out of the Crisis,

Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1986.

8. Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler, Reinventing Government, New York:

Plume, 1993.

9. See Osborne and Gaebler, Reinventing Government, 146.

10. See Blalock, Evaluating Social

Programs at the State and Local Level.

This study was performed under NIJ grant

number 93-IJ-CX-0004 to the American Probation and Parole Association. Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those

of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the

official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The National Institute of Justice is a

component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the

Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

and the Office for Victims of Crime.

NCJ 158836
7

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Vernon Fogg, Colorado State Judicial

Department

Alan Harland, Temple University,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Joan Petersilia, University of California,

Irvine, California

Paula Pumphrey, Arkansas Department

of Community Punishment

Alan Schuman, American Probation and

Parole Association

Information used in this Research in

Brief was derived from the American

Probation and Parole Association’s

monograph titled, Results-Driven Management Implementing PerformanceBased Measures in Community

Corrections. Additional authors contributing information to the monograph inHarry N. Boone, Jr., Ph.D. and Betsy

A. Fulton are research associates

with the American Probation and Parole Association. An advisory board

consisting of prominent academicians and corrections practitioners

provided invaluable consultation in

the development of the “model for

developing performance-based measures.” They were:

Don Andrews, Carleton University,

Ottawa, Canada

Todd Clear, Rutgers University,

Newark, New Jersey

Ronald Corbett, Massachusetts

Office of the Commissioner of

Probation

Dorothy Faust, Maricopa County,

Arizona Adult Probation Department

cluded Ann H. Crowe, Research Associate, American Probation and Parole Association and Gregory

Markley, Director of Staff Development, Texas Department of Corrections. The monograph and Research

in Brief were developed under the

leadership of Timothy H. Matthews,

Director, American Probation and

Parole Association. The monograph

uses community corrections examples to guide the reader through

the step-by-step process of implementing performance-based measures. Please contact: American

Probation and Parole Association,

P.O. Box 11910, Lexington, KY

40578-1910, or call 606-244-8207.

Wide Web site for viewing or downloading. Contact NCJRS for more information.

Inciardi, James, A Corrections-Based

Continuum of Effective Drug Abuse

Treatment, NIJ Research in Progress

60-minute videotape, $19 ($24 in

Canada and other countries), 1995,

NCJ 152692.

MacKenzie, Doris Layton, Ph.D., and

Eugene Hebert, editors, Correctional

Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate

Sanction, NIJ Research Report, 19

chapters by different authors, 1995,

NCJ 157639. Limited copies available.

Moses, Marilyn C., Keeping Incarcerated Mothers and Their Daughters Together: Girl Scouts Beyond Bars,

Program Focus, 1995, 12 pages, NCJ

156217.

Related NIJ Publications

Listed below are selected additional

NIJ products related to corrections

issues. These products can be obtained free, except where noted,

from the National Criminal Justice

Reference Service (NCJRS): telephone 800-851-3420, e-mail

askncjrs@ncjrs.aspensys.com, or

write to NCJRS, P.O. Box 6000,

Rockville, MD 20849–6000.

Please note that when free publications are out of stock, they are

available in photocopies for a minimal fee or through interlibrary loan.

They are also usually available

electronically on the NCJRS Bulletin Board System or on the NCJRS

Justice Information Center World

NIJ Survey of Jail Administrators,

NIJ Update, 1995, 2 pages, FS

000087.

NIJ Survey of Wardens and State

Commissioners of Corrections, NIJ

Update, 1995, 2 pages, FS 000085.

Pfeiffer, Christian, Sentencing

Policy and Crime Rates in Reunified

Germany, NIJ Research in Progress

60-minute videotape, $19 ($24 in

Canada and other countries), 1994,

NCJ 152237.

Useem, Bert, Camille Graham

Camp, and Renee Dugan, Resolution of Prison Riots, Research in

Brief, 20 pages, 1995, NCJ 155283.
8

U.S. Department of JusticeR e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20531

____________________________

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ

Permit No. G–91