"Growth means change and change involves risk; stepping from the known to the unknown." - Author unknown, recited by Sherry Carroll

On March 26th and 27th 2009 eighteen thought leaders from diverse correctional (jails, prisons, community corrections), human service, and business backgrounds came together outside of Denver, CO to explore the concept of a high performing correctional organization (HPCO). The Roundtable Members are:

· Brad Bogue (Justice System Assessment & Training)

· Barbara Broderick (Maricopa County (AZ) Adult Probation)

· Sherry Carroll (National Institute of Corrections)

· Pat Caruso (Michigan Department of Corrections)

· Nancy Cebula (People In Charge/ Justice System Assessment & Training)

· Tom Devane (Tom Devane Associates)

· Douglas J. Dretke (Correctional Management Institute, Sam Houston University)

· John Eggers (National Institute of Corrections)

· Tracy Goldenberg (People In Charge/ Justice System Assessment & Training)

· Jon D. Hess (Kent County (MI) Sherriff’s Department)

· Chris Innes (National Institute of Corrections)

· Justin Jones (Oklahoma Department of Corrections)

· Kenneth Massey (Douglas County (KS) Sheriff’s Office)

· Stanley Richards (The Fortune Society)

· Joshua Stengel (Justice System Assessment & Training)

· Scott Taylor (Multnomah County Dept of Community Justice)

· Morris Thigpen (National Institute of Corrections)

· Diane Williams (Safer Foundation)

(Additionally, Thomas R. Kane (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Harold Clarke (Massachusetts Department of Correction) and Tom Beauclair (NIC) were scheduled to attend but were unable to due to scheduling conflicts.)

There were three primary goals of the meeting:

1) To define an HPCO

2) Conceptualize an HPCO model

3) Provide general content and structural guidelines on an HPCO assessment tool.

The meeting commenced with brief introductions and expectations for the meeting. Chris Innes and Sherry Carroll followed up with an overview of the HPCO project and its place within the broader NIC initiative, “Organizational Performance.” This initiative includes the study of organizational culture and will ultimately encompass a leadership component as well.

Tracy Goldenberg and Nancy Cebula discussed the content analysis of approximately 80 interviews they conducted with thought leaders from corrections, academia, and business. The interviews produced over 500 characteristics of an HPCO, and were tallied and later divided into 15 categories. The full group divided into two groups to provide feedback on the categories.

Following lunch, Brad Bogue led a discussion on data and performance measures. The group considered what is reasonable to expect from sites in terms of data collection and what would specifically be included in RUDE measures (Reliable Uniform Data Elements). In addition to RUDE measures, the group looked at the components of an Organizational Checklist and reasonable staff and organizational surveys.

At this point, the meeting was interrupted with news that a blizzard would cause the major roads to be closed and prevent attendees from returning to the hotel. The group was divided into three break out groups (definition, model, tool) with specific instructions to follow on their own back at the hotel. The groups spent the remainder of Day 1 and the beginning of Day 2 in their break out groups.

By the end of Day 2, the following definition was articulated:

“An HPCO provides public safety through guiding principles, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors that the organization as a whole and each member of its workforce embody and promote. An HPCO visibly demonstrates alignment in:

-Values oriented mission statements, vision, and strategic plans

-Distributive leadership that actively engages performance measures to instigate continuous learning within the work force and partners

-Diligent stewardship of resources

The HPCO realizes it is part of a wider community, which must be related to with open communication and transparency”

The model group presented the following model:

Viewed from the side, imagine each as a ring…

According to the group, the model is consciously holistic, non-linear, and non-hierarchical. Everything points to the core – Community Safety. Surrounding this  are ten core values/characteristics: Learning organization, Transparency, Systems perspective, Data driven, Engagement and value of workforce and partners, Social responsibility, Ethics, Agility, Focused on the future, Innovative.

The next ring incorporates categories/criteria established by the Malcolm Baldrige Performance Award. (The model group utilized several of the Baldrige Program’s documents that were brought to the meeting. Roundtable members unanimously agreed to use these already established criteria rather than “reinvent the wheel”.) The Baldrige Categories are: Leadership, Strategic Planning, Process Management, Customer and Market Focus, Workforce Focus, and Measurement Analysis and Knowledge Management.

The final ring corresponds with measurement of organizational values and mission, outcomes (such as recidivism), and other characteristics identified in the thought leader interviews.

The tool group was asked to provide guidelines and recommendations that will be used by the group that will develop the tool. Some of their feedback included:

• The tool should resemble a tree with different levels, moving from macro at the base of the trunk (relevant to all of corrections) to micro (relevant to specific sectors – jail, prison, community corrections).
• It should encompass the following:

Values/Purpose: (values, mission, strategic plan, public safety, learning organization, quantitative measures)

Framework: (budget, crisis management, leadership

Consumers/Offenders

Stakeholders

• The tool should be mindful of other tools and standards. Examples include the NIC Security Audit, ACA Standards, ASCA – PBMS, Baldrige, National Sheriff’s Association

· Non-intimidating, Communicates support/self-actualization rather than punitive

· Response/feedback loops in place for NIC to provide assistance or take you to a website

· Has a manual that is educational

· Easy

· Public Domain/Free

The Tool Group also recommended that the following issues/questions continue to be considered:

· Is it web-based?

· Who collects the data? Centralized database?

· Can respondents choose to share scores

· Offer raw and comparative scores?

• Who and how many people in org respond?

The full group returned to the issue of data collection towards the end of Day 2. Attendees were asked to review the RUDE list and to pick their top three preferences in each category. This will guide the tool developers as they decided what data to collect from site. The results of this tally were: (The number in the parentheses is the number of respondents that endorsed the measure. Underlined items are from ASCA’s PBMS)

The top 3 RUDE measures for community corrections settings (probation, parole, etc.):

1. Annual Recidivism Rate (10)
2. % High Risk Offenders in Tx (9)
3. Avg Offender Risk Score (5)

The top 3 RUDE measures for jail/prison settings:

1. Avg Per Capita monthly rate of violent incidents (on inmates) (11)
2. Avg Per Capita monthly rate of violent incidents (on staff) (9)
3. % inmates working FTE jobs (3)*
4. % of above data elements currently reliably available on agency MIS (3)*
5. % Pop. Currently receiving MH Tx (3)*

*3 way tie

The top 3 organizational checklist measures for both community corrections and institutions:

1. List Performance Measures Utilized (9)
2. Overall Recidivism Rate - 36 mo (9)
3. Any audits completed within past 5 years (6)

The top 3 organizational checklist measures for community corrections settings (probation, parole, etc.):

1. Types and Names of Offender Assessment Tools (10)
2. The types of specialized caseloads in existence (8)
3. % of Offenders on routine supervision (6)

The top 3 organizational checklist measures for jail/prison settings:

1. % of population who go through reentry programs annually (10)
2. Avg % time inmates' time is structured (7)
3. % Over Operational Capacity (6)

The full group then discussed aspects of the upcoming construction and/or pilot site visits. They were also asked to identify some challenges and obstacles that the project might face and to articulate the value of the project. Finally, next steps were discussed.

Preliminary evaluations of the meeting reveal that the meeting was largely successful in: choosing pertinent topics, the format, responding to input, engaging attendees in conversation, articulating the project and its purpose, and providing a positive experience for attendees that inspires continued support and involvement.

Next steps include taking this information out to focus groups and site visits in preparation for the next phase of the project, developing the prototype model and assessment tool and testing them at various sites around the country.

If you have any questions or comments or would like to get involved in this exciting project, please do not hesitate to contact us at:

Sherry Carroll                   Nancy Cebula              Tracy Goldenberg

scarroll@bop.gov             nancy@j-sat.com         tracy@j-sat.com

202.514.0378                   720.244.4530                303.847.3378