Performance-based standards; development of standards will enable facilities to measure progress.

If God had written the Sixth Commandment as a correctional standard, it would have read: "Thou shalt have a policy prohibiting killing." Instead, He saw the need to focus the message on a desired outcome (a performance-based standard), and so the commandment states: "Thou shalt not kill."

It's been a long time since the Ten Commandments were proclaimed to Moses, but the corrections field and juvenile justice practitioners in particular recently have been changing the way they think about standards - moving away from those that focus on managerial practice to those that focus on performance.

Performance-based standards focus on outcomes and the attainment of goals, rather than the promotion of good managerial practice espoused by current correctional standards (e.g. written policies and procedures, and- documentation of practices and events).

The movement toward performance-based standards gained momentum with the 1994 release of the congressionally-mandated Conditions of Confinement study, which examined the assumption that conformance to existing standards means an improved quality of life within juvenile correctional and detention facilities. The landmark study established the following:

* That there was no relationship between conformance with standards and conditions of confinement - facilities that met the criteria of existing standards did not have fewer injuries, fewer escapes and less suicidal behavior; and

* That there was widespread, persistent and growing crowding in facilities that was significantly related to higher injury rates to residents and staff, more suicidal behavior, increased use of restraints and higher levels of staff turnover, which led to less staff training.

Following the study's release, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) adopted one of the study's recommendations to fund the Performance-based Standards Project. The call for performance-based standards was founded in the belief that existing standards addressed only paper policies and procedures, failed to measure outcomes, and therefore did not impact facility conditions.

OJJDP made available an 18-month, $500,000 grant to develop performance-based standards that define goals to which juvenile facilities should aspire, the criteria to assess performance objectively and data collection protocol to measure a facility's performance. The Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators (CJCA) was selected to administer the grant after a competitive bidding process. CJCA hired the author of the COC Study, Abt Associates Inc., as a subcontractor for the project that would assist in the research and development of the standards.

The project was to be conducted in three phases:

1) development of the standards,

2) field testing of the standards and data collection instrument, and

3) implementation.

CJCA, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to the improvement of juvenile correctional services and practices, supports performance-based standards as a self-assessment tool that facilities can use to diagnose operational problems, measure strengths, document successes and identify areas needing more resources. Ideally, facilities should assess themselves twice a year to best measure performance changes. Adherence to standards should not be seen as a once-a-year grade or judgment, but as a way to monitor progress toward goals.

When presented to the field at the end of this year, these standards will be voluntary. CJCA encourages their adoption by all juvenile correctional and detention facilities.

Developing Standards

The Performance-based Standards Project began in December 1995 with a nine-month development phase. CJCA gathered more than 40 experts and practitioners at nine different two-day meetings to develop standards in six areas of facility operations: safety, order, security, programming, health/mental health and justice. The project convened its 14-member advisory board twice, at the outset and conclusion of the development phase.

The development of the standards was conducted in a step-like process beginning with goals and ending with data elements and sources to be collected to measure performance relative to goals.

First, the advisory board identified three to five goals in the six areas of facility operations. From these goals, five or six performance standards were created. The advisory board gave the set of goals and standards to four working groups focused on the six specific areas of facility operation.

The working groups discussed and revised the goals and standards, then used them to develop the assessment criteria in the form of indicators and measures, as well as data elements to be collected to measure performance toward the goals. This work was completed and presented to the advisory board for review and adoption last summer.

By October 1996, team members had created a thick document detailing 63 performance standards and identifying the data needed to measure performance. The standards were designed to move away from an emphasis on written policies and practices (e.g. "Thou shalt have a policy prohibiting killing") to focus on goals and outcomes (e.g. "Thou shall not Kill").

Field Testing

Project staff then used the standards and data elements identified to create a data collection instrument or protocol to measure facility performance. Phase two of the project takes these standards and protocol to 18 facilities nationwide to test the standards in the field.

The principal goals of this field testing phase include the further refinement and development of the standards and protocol, and the discovery of the best means of implementation. To meet these goals and accurately assess the validity and feasibility of the protocol, sites were selected based on three key variables: facility size (large or small); facility type (correctional or detention); and facility standing (considered "excellent" by the field, accredited or not accredited). Sites are spread evenly across the country.

Field testing is being performed in three waves - six facilities per wave - with revisions made in between waves. To date, the first wave of six sites has been visited, and researchers report much success. While it is too early to draw conclusions, some interesting observations have been made:

* Facility managers and staff who want to continually improve their facilities see value in the performance-based standards process.

* Facilities currently operate in ways that meet the goals of the standards but have no way to show that they work.

* Continual review of facility operations often exists informally, without documentation.

* Facilities would benefit from data collected and aggregated to use when reviewing programs and services.

Implementation

The field-testing phase is expected to be completed in September, and implementation is planned for shortly thereafter. Although implementation plans still are being finalized, CJCA hopes it will include about 40 sites willing to conduct the self-assessment at least two times over an 18-month or longer period of time. The information gathered by the facilities will be analyzed by project staff and returned to facilities during a meeting with a technical assistance expert.

During the follow-up meeting, both facility and project staff will work together to examine the facility's performance, identify areas for change or expansion, develop an action plan, set a timetable for changes, and arrange a second assessment to measure progress. CJCA will provide as much technical assistance to the sites as is allowed by the grant's funding restrictions. The issues raised during implementation also will be forwarded to OJJDP and the National Institute of Corrections to help plan future training and technical assistance programs.

Ideally, sites will begin talking among themselves, brainstorming for ways to improve in certain areas. For example, one facility may have an outstanding health screening system in place that results in decreased illness among youths in the facility, no unexpected suicidal behavior and even improved health among youths as a result of time spent in the facility. This facility could serve in a mentoring role for others trying to develop comprehensive health screening systems.

Conclusion

CJCA and OJJDP believe that providing facilities with the standards and tools to measure performance ultimately will lead to improved conditions of confinement for the increasing number of juveniles sent to correctional and detention facilities. This project is working in unchartered territory, learning at each step and benefiting from the wealth of experience and dedication among corrections and detention professionals. Such collaboration and interest in self-improvement already has helped this performance-based standards project achieve its goal of improving facility operations.

Sample Standards and Protocol Questions

The project at present has 63 standards in the areas of safety, order, security, programming, health/mental health and justice. The protocol instrument, under constant revision, is divided into six parts focusing on where the data is expected to be located: general facility information, juvenile files, staff files, incident reports, juvenile interviews and staff interviews. As you read the following example, bear in mind that this represents just a small part of the project. The safety section was selected as the example because it is concise, yet it illustrates the detailed development process conducted for each of the standards. This same detailed structure has been developed for the order, security, programming, health/mental health and justice goals and related standards, indicators, measures and data elements to assess performance.

Example: SAFETY

GOALS

1. To minimize fear among staff and residents within the facility.

2. To minimize intentional and accidental injuries to residents and staff.

3. To minimize environmental risks within facilities.

GOAL 1. To minimize fear among staff and residents within the facility.

Standard: Levels of fear among juveniles and staff are reduced over time.

Performance indicators look at levels of fear among juveniles and staff, and measure the percentage of juveniles and staff who express fear for their safety through a group of staff who are randomly selected for interviews. Ideally, the interviews, as part of the performance assessment, should be conducted every six months, allowing for comparison and indication if the levels of fear decrease, remain the same or increase over time.

The interviews ask the following questions:

To Staff:

* During the assessment period, how many times have you been injured by a juvenile or juveniles?

To Juveniles:

* Since being admitted, how many times have you been involved in a fight?

* Since being admitted, how many times have you been injured by a staff member?

* Since being admitted, how many times have you been injured by a juvenile or juveniles?

GOAL 2. To minimize intentional and accidental injuries to residents and staff.

Standards:

a. Facility staff protect residents from injuries inflicted by other juveniles.

b. Facility staff protect residents from self-inflicted injuries.

For the first standard (a), performance is assessed based on the rate of injury to residents inflicted by other residents, looking for a decline over successive assessment periods. Additionally, the standards look for a classification system that considers juveniles' size, age, vulnerability to victimization and nature of offense that is regularly used when making housing assignments. The data to be collected comes from incident reports.

To review the classification system, facilities are asked if such a system exists. If so, they are asked if the system includes a juvenile's size, age, vulnerability to victimization and nature of offense. To determine if the system is used, facilities also are asked the number of admissions classified and assigned to housing based on results of the resident classification system, which will be compared to the number of juveniles admitted during the assessment period.

For the second standard (b), performance is assessed by looking at the rate of suicidal behavior by juveniles over time and determining if the rate decreases. Gathered from a randomly selected group of juvenile medical files, data to be collected includes information on whether the juvenile ever exhibited suicidal behavior. If suicidal incidents increase or do not decrease, a facility would be told to look at other areas that were found in the COC study and linked to higher rates of suicidal behavior (namely crowding), higher rates of isolation for juveniles, the facility's failure to screen for suicide risk at admission and higher staff turnover, believed to lead to a less well-trained staff.

GOAL 3. To minimize environmental risks within facilities. Standards:

a. The facility has a plan in place to respond to and mitigate the effects of crowding.

b. Weapons are prohibited within the facility.

c. The facility promptly repairs broken or damaged items that pose a safety risk.

d. Medically trained facility staff respond promptly to emergencies.

e. The facility protects staff and residents from risk of injury by fires or smoke.

For the first standard (a), facilities are asked if a plan exists that has a series of internal and external measures to return the population to the design capacity level when the population exceeds capacity by more than 10 percent for more than 72 consecutive hours. The facility also is asked for its daily population count for the assessment period and the number of days during the assessment period when the crowding mitigation procedures were invoked.

For the second standard (b), most of the data is collected by observation: Do secure lockers exist? Are they used by law enforcement to check weapons before entering the facility? Are visitors searched for weapons before entering (e.g. metal detectors at entrance)? Do staff carry weapons?

For the third standard (c), the assessment tool counts the requests for repairs that were completed within one week of submission during the assessment period. To gather this data, facilities are asked for the dates and times that incidents (including repairs) occurred and for the characteristics of the incidents, which include whether a repair was requested and completed.

For the fourth standard (d), the assessment looks at completed chart information, specifically the time an injured person was seen by medically trained staff.

For the fifth standard (e), the assessment looks at the number of injuries caused by fire or smoke, the frequency of fire drills, whether they cover all shifts, if the facility has passed an inspection by an independent, qualified fire inspector within the last year, and if exceptions noted by that inspection have been corrected. By observation, information will be collected regarding whether fire escape routes are posted in each living unit and in each common area and if fire exits are unobstructed and clearly marked. Finally, the assessment will ask juveniles if they have participated in a fire drill during their period of confinement.

Kim Godfrey is assistant director of the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators.