THE COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION FOR CORRECTIONS: Raising the Bar of Excellence.

I have had the honor and pleasure of being on the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections (CAC) for the past six years. As director of the Johnson County, Kan., Department of Corrections, I understand the importance of the accreditation process. I am proud that we have six program components, including both the juvenile and adult areas, accredited by the American Correctional Association (ACA). I am privileged to belong to a department that is committed to excellence and one in which adhering to nationally recognized standards is ingrained into its very foundation. I cannot imagine being a part of an organization that was not willing to become accredited. I have been an ACA auditor since 1990 and also have been an accreditation manager. You might say I have seen this process from all sides.

CAC and its staff are integral to the accreditation process. CAC, in partnership with ACA, administers the only national program of accreditation for all components of adult and juvenile corrections. In developing an awareness and acceptance of accreditation within the field of corrections, the mutual efforts of CAC and ACA have been very visible.

The History of Accreditation

In 1974, ACA initiated correctional accreditation when it created CAC as a project funded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. During the next five years, ACA continued to administer the funds that supported CAC as an ACA project. The CAC board served as the accrediting body and approved the policies and procedures that govern the accreditation process. In 1979, CAC became an independent, autonomous organization, fiscally and administratively distinct from ACA. After 1979, the basic principles of both organizations remained similar, with each committed to protection of the public while ensuring just and humane treatment in the management of offenders. Both groups emphasized the need for effective leadership in the field.

During the period in which CAC was independent from ACA, both continued to share some responsibilities and cooperated in efforts to upgrade correctional programs and services through the implementation of standards. Both organizations worked through the years to establish and maintain a positive and cooperative working relationship.

CAC decided to officially realign itself with ACA in August 1986. Ten years after separating, CAC officially returned the administrative responsibility of carrying out the accreditation process for ACA, which now has sole ownership of the standards. This responsibility is accompanied by formalized information-sharing between CAC and ACA with respect to the interpretation of standards, the application of experience in their use, and in developing future editions of standards. The CAC Board of Commissioners renders accreditation decisions.

Finally, both CAC and ACA go beyond the correctional and criminal justice domain to affect changes. Both serve as resources to the field by providing guidelines for sound correctional practice and a mechanism for evaluating compliance with standards. In addition, both can offer the courts, state legislatures and the federal government information regarding the needs of the corrections profession.

CAC's Membership

Presently, CAC is composed of a 20-member board that meets throughout the year. The responsibility for rendering the accreditation decision rests solely with CAC. The composition of the commission is as follows and is selected from the following categories:

* Adult Probation/Parole (1)

* At-Large (1)

* American Bar Association (1)

* American Institute of Architects (1)

* American Jail Association (1)

* American Probation and Parole Association (1)

* Association of Paroling Authorities International (1)

* Association of State Correctional Administrators (2)

* Citizen at-large (1)

* Correctional Health (Physician) (1)

* Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators (1)

* International Community Corrections Association (1)

* Juvenile Probation/Aftercare (1)

* National Association of Counties (1)

* National Association of Juvenile Corrections Agencies (1)

* National Juvenile Detention Association (1)

* National Sheriffs' Association (2)

* North American Association of Wardens and Superintendents (1)

Membership in CAC represents participation in a far-reaching national effort to encourage, promote and sustain improvements in the field of corrections as we move into the 21st century. The job of a commissioner often is consuming and demanding, but also rewarding, as it offers a valuable opportunity for increased involvement in the field and for contributing to the development and achievement of heightened goals and standards for corrections as a profession. The roles and responsibilities of a commissioner include: being a decision-maker for awarding accreditation; being a committee or task force member who is involved in addressing critical correctional issues such as crowding, minimum inmate living conditions, implementation and conduct of the accreditation process; and increasing public, professional, legislative and judicial understanding and support of the accreditation effort. Along with the growth and sophistication of accreditation in corrections has come increased publicity and demand for commissio ners to represent the board's position on ever-present critical correctional and public policy issues.

The Mission of CAC

The mission of CAC is to upgrade and improve practices and conditions in adult and juvenile correctional facilities and programs through an accreditation process that is founded upon a commitment to accountability, professionalism and respect for basic human rights and that recognizes sound and effective correctional practices while striving toward excellence in the field of corrections.

CAC accomplishes its mission by:

* Working in partnership with ACA to develop sound standards for effective professional and constitutional operation of correctional facilities and programs;

* Having competent staff and correctional experts provide advice and assistance to correctional facilities and programs working to meet accreditation requirements;

* Training highly qualified auditors to objectively and thoroughly evaluate the compliance of correctional facilities and programs with accreditation requirements;

* Using a commission comprised of dedicated individuals with diverse backgrounds and experiences to objectively and accurately determine whether correctional facilities and programs meet the requirements for accreditation;

* Monitoring accredited facilities to ensure continued compliance with accreditation requirements; and

* Soliciting and welcoming input from interested individuals, organizations and entities about ways to improve the accreditation process and fulfill its purposes.

Solid Paneling: Supporting Accreditation

CAC is the body responsible for making accreditation decisions and considers an agency's application at its next regular meeting following the completion of the audit team's report. CAC is divided into panels that are empowered to reach and make accreditation decisions. The panels hear each individual application for accreditation and include a quorum of at least three commissioners.

The panels serve as fact finders. With the panel chairperson presiding, panel members discuss issues and raise questions relative to all aspects of the agency's operations and participation in the process. The information presented during the hearing and in the audit report are considered by the panel members in making the appropriate accreditation decisions. Hearings are conducted in accordance with established procedures. Panel proceedings require a formal vote to be taken on all final actions such as agency appeals, waiver requests and, finally, the accreditation decision on recommendation of the CAC panel.

The CAC panel assures that an acceptable plan of action is submitted for every noncompliant standard, including those standards for which appeals of noncompliance and waiver requests were denied by the panel. The feasibility of plans to achieve compliance is strongly considered, including specific tasks, realistic time frames, and the availability of resources (staff and funding) for implementing proposed remedies. The plan must address, to the panel's satisfaction, any concerns that it may have with auditors' comments about the quality of life in the facility or program, patterns of noncompliance, or any other conditions reviewed relating to the life, health and safety of inmates and staff.

There are three decisions a CAC panel can make relating to the accreditation of an agency:

* The three-year accreditation award is based on sufficient compliance with standards; acceptance of adequate plans of action for all noncompliant standards; and satisfaction of any other life, health and safety conditions established by the panel.

* An agency can be placed in candidate status due to insufficient standards compliance, inadequate plans of action or failure to meet other requirements. Additional requirements for accreditation can be stipulated if conditions exist in the facility or program that adversely affect life, health or safety. Extensions to candidate status are for a period of time specified by the panel and for identified deficiencies if, in the panel's judgment, the agency is actively pursuing compliance.

* A denial of accreditation and withdrawal of the agency from the process is based on the reasons stated above. Agencies denied accreditation, but not extended in candidate status, can reapply after 180 days.

Monitoring Visits

Another option available to CAC is a monitoring visit, which can be conducted at any time during the accreditation period, with advance notice to the agency. The determination of need for a monitoring visit is based on: compliance levels, findings and recommendations by CAC during the hearing, incidents or events reported by the agency in its annual certification statement, problems indicated by adverse media reports or correspondence received by ACA staff, disturbances at the agency or special investigations.

If a monitoring visit is conducted, the auditor will prepare a monitoring visit report that addresses the findings of the site visit. The monitoring visit report and the agency response are submitted to CAC for review during a regular commission hearing. If the adjudicating panel believes that the agency's failure to maintain continuous compliance with certain standards is detrimental to life, health or safety, CAC may place an agency on probation. Probationary status lasts for a period of time designated by the panel to allow for the correction of deficiencies.

At the end of the probationary status, another monitoring visit may be conducted to assure the deficiencies have been corrected. When the agency corrects the deficiencies and the corrections have been verified and accepted, the agency then can resume its status as an accredited agency.

Although monitoring visits and probation status do not occur very often during the course of panel hearings, it is important to note that CAC, when necessary, uses the above-stated options in order to protect the integrity of the standards.

The Standards and Accreditation Process

While the focus of this article is CAC, it also is important to discuss the standards and the accreditation process. I am an avid supporter of standards and accreditation because they provide a blueprint for a facility or department to remedy problem areas and improve programs and services. I have been fortunate in my career to be associated with agencies that provide quality services and supervision to offenders. And it is probably no coincidence that these programs all have been ACA-accredited.

The accreditation process for my department is a total team effort. Staff are an integral part of preparation for audits. This is a good way to involve your team in learning about the accreditation process as well as letting staff see the big picture to understand why we have certain policies and the importance of adhering to nationally recognized standards. It has been my experience that staff who are part of accreditation end up being more committed not only to having a successful audit but also to knowing that standards are a part of our foundation and woven into the very fabric of what we represent as a department.

Programs should strive to adhere to nationally recognized standards. It challenges staff to be committed to excellence and in some cases, it is a vehicle that can instill a sense of pride in your team when the agency for which you work is committed to this process. And this commitment has to exist throughout the organization in order to gain accreditation. I applaud those who have committed themselves and their programs to what, at times, can be a challenging but meaningful and worthwhile undertaking.

Looking Ahead

As we move into the 21st century, the concept of performance-based standards is prevalent in a significant number of professions and ours is no different. Recently, our adult residential center went through a pilot audit for ACA's new performance-based standards. We appreciated the opportunity to be a part of this process. Performance-based standards are the next step in the history of correctional standards and one we need to embrace. Corrections professionals are going to have a unique opportunity to help improve and advance the quality of correctional programs throughout the country.

Certainly, CAC could not do its job if auditors did not do theirs. We are extremely fortunate to have a growing number of auditors who have earned the respect of their peers in the field, have excellent credentials and many years of experience in all areas of correctional systems. They are the heart and soul of what is a very strong component of the process. What they do contributes to the very integrity and foundation of accreditation. I am proud to have been an auditor and associated with these outstanding corrections professionals.

Being a commissioner is a privilege and I am very proud to have served in that capacity. I have had the honor of working with some very distinguished and committed individuals. We do not take our responsibilities lightly and there is a high level of integrity throughout CAC. We always are looking for ways to improve and we certainly welcome input from our customers.

In closing, CAC, ACA and the standards themselves have come a long way over the years. We need to celebrate what has been accomplished and look forward to the future of ACA and the corrections profession.

Michael J. Youngken is director of the Johnson County, Kan., Department of Corrections and a member of the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections.