Nothing Works/Something Works - But Still Few
Proven Programs
By Howard N. Snyder
December 2007, Corrections Today
In the 1970s the corrections field was overrun by the notion that
nothing works - that no
inmate treatment program could reduce recidivism. While some tried to
fight this argument, many retreated into one of two camps. Some decided
that the solutions for crime were not in programs designed to work with
individual offenders but in tackling the societal factors that promote
criminal behavior. Others took the 'nothing works' to heart and their
solution became
incapacitation. As a result, prison populations soared and states passed
truth-in-sentencing and/or three-strikes legislation to ensure the
incapacitation of untreatable offenders. Not surprisingly, during this
period efforts (and funding) to develop and evaluate new treatment
programs were scarce. Why test a new program when we know that nothing
works?
In recent years the pendulum has swung far in the
opposite direction. The basic assumption now is
some programs must work.
The mantra 'evidence-based programs' is dominating discussions of
professionals and (perhaps even more important)
financial backers. You would think that this new perspective would
have led to the development of new proven treatment programs - to a
smorgasbord of empirically-proven programs from which practitioners
could select the one that meets their unique service needs. Sadly, this
has not happened. Practitioners who 30 years ago were told that nothing
works are now being told that some programs/interventions must work -
but we don't know which ones they are.
There is a dearth of evidence-based treatment
programs because a substantial level of effort is needed to prove that a
program reduces recidivism. At a minimum, a program must be replicated
in more than one site and evaluated using either random assignment or
carefully selected control groups. For multiple sites to implement the
same program, the program must be well scripted and documented. New
programs are not good candidates for replication because they are likely
to change and adapt during the first few years of existence. Thus, it
takes a lot of time and money to develop, test and eventually give a
program the evidence-based
seal of approval. As a result, efforts (and funding) to design and
evaluate effective treatment programs are as scarce now as they were 30
years ago. Why begin the
process of developing a new program when it is so difficult for the
program to achieve the required status of evidence-based?
Whether its 30 years ago or today, the same
situation exists for those in need of an effective program for their
inmate populations. Not many effective programs exist, and largely none
exist for most populations and settings.
Too few new programs are being developed and too few promising
programs are being tested with the rigor that would yield the proof
needed to label them as evidence-based. Thirty years ago the major
barrier to program development was the common assumption that nothings
works. Today, program development is inhibited by time, cost and the
reluctance of funding sources to support anything that is not already
evidence-based. Both then
and now, though for different reasons, practitioners do not have the
tools needed to meet their responsibilities effectively.
So what can be done? First, research and
development (R&D) must become an integral part of the corrections
business.
Most successful large corporations have their own R&D
departments. We have generally expected R&D work to be done by the
federal government, but their funds will always be limited. And recently
the funds that exist have been redirected to other, apparently more
pressing, national concerns. Can you imagine large drug companies
waiting (as we do) for the government to design and test new drugs? The
justice system itself must assume the bulk of the R&D responsibilities.
If state legislators and private foundations can be convinced that the
world needs evidence-based treatment programs, then we should be able to
convince them that it's nuts to wait for someone else (i.e., the federal
government) to develop and test these needed programs.
Second, though most state systems and private foundations do not have
the funds to mount anything but the smallest R&D effort on their own,
collaboration is possible. For example, what if four or five state and
local correctional agencies worked together to form an R&D
collaborative? Together they could select an existing, promising program
that might be able to serve one of their unmet needs and then lend their
support to an empirically-sound, multiple-site evaluation of it. Funds
to support the work could come from state legislatures who are demanding
evidence-based treatment programs and from local foundations eager to be
part (at relatively low costs) of a large R&D effort that has the
potential to produce a model recidivism-reduction program. If the test
proved successful, the field would have a new tool to use; if the
program failed to produce the desired effects, the costs to each member
of the collaborative would be minimal. The point is that such a
collaboration puts the future of corrections in the hands of those to
whom it is most important.
Today, few believe that nothing works. Most people know there must be
programs that work, we just have to find them. If the correctional
agencies in this country do not assume responsibility for developing the
tools they need to be successful, we will continue to be thwarted and
frustrated - just as we were in the 1970s - by people telling us we do
not have the tools to do our job and that our efforts to reduce
recidivism are predestined to fail.
Howard N. Snyder,
Ph.D.,
is director of systems research at the
National
Center for Juvenile Justice
and holds the center's Maurice B.
Cohill Jr. Juvenile Justice
Policy Research Chair. He received ACA's Peter P. Lejins Research Award
in 2004.
Correctional Health Continues to Provide Quality Care
By Gary D. Maynard
President, ACA
Secretary
Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
October 2007, Corrections Today
On Nov. 9, 1973, a Texas inmate was injured performing a work
assignment. The inmate was dissatisfied with the medical care he
received and took his case to court. His complaint ultimately made its
way to the U.S. Supreme Court where, in 1976, the Supreme Court declared
that inmates have a constitutional right to medical care. No other group
in the United States has ever been officially given such an entitlement.
On one hand, outrage came from opponents who felt that the
impoverished in the community should have a right to health care - not
those who committed felonies. On the other hand, proponents of inmate
rights were skeptical because the inmate was only entitled to freedom
from "deliberate indifference" to "serious medical needs." Would the
level of quality be comparable to back alley medicine or approach
community standards? Would medications prescribed reflect the most
effective available in the community or something less?
As time has passed, these concerns have proved to be unfounded. The
"right" to care has served correctional administrators as one of the
primary keys to tranquility within an institution (together with food,
jobs and visits). From the community perspective, returning a healthy
individual to the community is recognized as an imperative component of
the public safety mission. For example, no one wants a person with
undetected tuberculosis released into the community. ACA has been a
leader in guaranteeing this direction through its adoption of
performance-based standards for both medical and mental health practice.
The articles in this month's edition of Corrections Today
reflect just how far correctional health care has come. Correctional
health care is on the forefront of the battle against sexually
transmitted diseases, including HIV/ AIDS. Facilities offer more
concentrated hepatitis C diagnosis, monitoring and treatment than
anywhere else in society. The scope of mental health disorders for which
treatment is available in institutions surpasses that available to
indigents in the community, and prisons constitute the largest source of
residential mental health treatment available in the country. In short,
correctional institutions have become an indispensable component of
the nation's public health system, delivering quality health care to
those who otherwise might find it inaccessible.
This means that prison health care faces the same challenges
currently being experienced by all public health care providers - and
then some:
Health care is expensive. Growing inmate populations place a
greater demand on resources in an era of tightening budgets. The
consumer price index for medical costs in urban areas last year exceeded
5 percent, compared to the 2 to 3 percent rise in other economic
sectors. In addition, health care clamors for a greater percentage of
the overall budget as a result of increasing costs and a greater need
for services.
Health care employees are scarce. The recruitment and
retention of nurses in a prison environment is difficult, especially
given the shortage of nurses in the medical community generally.
Recruitment is further inhibited by less than glamorous
conditions and difficult patients.
Inmate-patients are "sicker" than most. In many cases,
correctional health care workers are treating inmates affected by life
on the streets or in dangerous communities. They are treating
intravenous drug users and the malnourished - both the underfed and
those whose intake has little nutritional value. Many inmates never
received childhood immunizations and few have regular medical
examinations. Hardly any have had the educational background to
understand or the opportunity to learn behaviors taught in prevention
programs.
In order to overcome these obstacles, a team approach is imperative.
Medical staff must not be viewed as outsiders in the institutional
environment and must not view custody as an obstacle to achieving
results. A balance must be achieved between ensuring the adequate
movement of inmates to meet "sick call"/"chronic care clinic" demands
and the need to restrict movement for security reasons and to reduce
demands for additional officers. As in so many situations, the key is
communication and understanding.
To bring treatment and security professionals together to provide
effective health care delivery and management, ACA has created the
Healthcare Professional Interest
Section. The association recognizes the importance of this
collaboration in maintaining quality care for inmates and encourages
communication on relevant issues. Treatment and security professionals
working together can advance the corrections profession and improve
programming.
Adequate funding is also imperative. Correctional medicine is already
the "cheapest" medicine delivery system in the nation on a per capita
basis. It is not a category in which administrators can "make do."
Hospitalization cannot be deferred; medications cannot be withheld; and
the mentally ill cannot go undetected and untreated. Despite rising
costs and demands, the quality of care cannot suffer as a result of
deficient resources.
Working together, medical and security staff can bring much deserved
positive recognition to correctional health systems. Correctional health
systems must continue to serve a recognized role in the public health
system and continue their cutting edge work in stemming the impact of
hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS. This will only be the case if we look back to
the 1976 Supreme Court decision for encouragement to provide quality
health care that advances with research and standards. We must recognize
and remember that medical care is a key component in the operation of
our facilities and in meeting our public safety mission.
Providing Gender-Responsive Services for Women
and Girls
By Joann Brown Morton, DPA
President
Association on Programs for Female Offenders
August 2007, Corrections Today
This issue of
Corrections Today focusing on female offenders is a part of the
American Correctional Association's long-standing effort to improve
programming and services for women and girls in the criminal justice
system. Until recently, women and girls were called the 'forgotten
offenders' because they were frequently overlooked in correctional
research, policy development, program design and organizational
management. As the articles in this issue illustrate, this has changed
during the last several years. It would not have been possible without
additional knowledge about female offenders and the development of
effective policies and practices for them.
With the rise of the Civil Rights Movement in the
1960s and the expanding roles of women and girls, some predicted that
females would begin committing the same types of crime as males did.
While this did not happen, the number of female offenders grew mostly as
a result of the war on drugs, and the need for better treatment surfaced
as poor conditions were documented in a number of studies.
Faced with a need for change, limited research about
women and girls, and the requirement for equal or comparable programming
for females, many began to claim that an inmate was an inmate and that
being female made no difference. 'Equality' came to mean corrections
should provide the 'same' programs for women and men. Women and girls
were issued male uniforms instead of letting them wear their own clothes
or uniforms designed to fit females. Razor ribbon was strung around
female facilities housing mostly minimum security inmates, and curtains,
rugs and other 'feminine' items were removed. In one egregious example
of ignoring differences between men and women, one state began charging
women for sanitary napkins, claiming women were not discriminated
against because men were also charged for hygiene products. In response
to the excesses of this 'equality,' research concerning the difference
between male and female offenders began.
In 1990, ACA published a landmark study by Jackie
Crawford titled The Female Offender: What Does the Future Hold? This
study was one of the first publications that profiled adult and juvenile
female offenders in the
United States,
in both local jails and state facilities, and it provided invaluable
data on their characteristics and needs. Under the leadership of the
late Susan Hunter, Ph.D., the National Institute of Corrections began
funding research on female offenders in institutions and proposing new
approaches. Other government agencies, including BJS, OJJDP and NIJ, followed suit.
The NIC research culminated in the very informative
report, Gender-Responsive Strategies: Research, Practice, and Guiding
Principles for Women Offenders (2003) by Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara
Owen, Ph.D., and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D. It established the following
six guiding principles to ensure correctional agencies provide gender
responsive management, supervision and treatment services for women:
-
Acknowledge that gender (being female) makes a
difference;
-
Create an environment based on safety, respect and
dignity;
-
Develop policies, practices and programs
incorporating the fact that women are
relationship-oriented;
-
Address substance abuse, trauma and mental health
issues in a comprehensive, integrated and culturally relevant manner
in services and supervision;
-
Provide women an opportunity to improve their
socioeconomic status; and
-
Establish a system of community supervision and
reentry with comprehensive, collaborative services.
National correctional policy began to change as more
data became available on women and girls. The most recent version of the
ACA policy 'Public Correctional Policy on Adult and Juvenile Female
Offender Services,' extensively revised in 2006, reflects the NIC
guiding principles and calls for 'gender responsiveness in the
development of services and programs for adult and juvenile female
offenders.' Rather than simply import services designed for males, it
specifies, 'programs must be designed and implemented to meet the needs'
of the female population.
To implement programs reflecting the basic principles
of gender responsiveness and ACA public policy, everyone from top
administrators to line-level staff must agree that gender does make a
difference. Correctional administrators need someone at the
policy-making level in central office who will say, 'What is the impact
of this policy or procedure on women and girls?' For example, to save
money, a number of systems now charge for sick call. This means women
and girls who statistically come to correctional facilities with more
medical problems than do males will have to pay extra for something that
is a result of being female. In addition, disciplinary policies do not
always work out as planned. An agency that decided to place inmates in
pink jumpsuits to punish them for inappropriate sexual relationships did
not anticipate that women inmates would relish wearing pink over dull
prison beige. Having every inmate leaving a maximum-security institution
wear belly chains and leg-irons may make sense for males. This practice,
however, can be dangerous for women in advanced stages of pregnancy. It
can also be time consuming and unnecessary for minimum-custody women who
are in a maximum-security facility because it is the only place to house
them.
Women-centered approaches, such as those in New Mexico
described in the article by Helen Carr, are difficult or impossible
without central office leadership and
support. The positive benefits of a central office
focus on women and girls was illustrated recently in South Carolina when
the director of the Department of Juvenile Justice, Judge William Byers,
made better services for girls a priority and assigned a senior staff
person to make it happen. As a result, the number of incarcerated girls
dropped from the 90s to the 30s.
As noted in the article by Marilyn Moses and Ellen
Kirshbaum, currently 14 states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons have
directors of women's services. Unless these positions are written in to
law, they are very vulnerable to leadership changes or budget cuts,
which happened recently in Minnesota and North Carolina and
earlier in Florida. They are also subject to having other
responsibilities added to their job descriptions that negate their
effectiveness.
As the articles on PREA by Andie Moss and ethical
issues and training staff to work with girls and women by Joanie
Shoemaker illustrate, recruiting and preparing talented people who want
to work with women and girls is a major challenge. Many corrections
professionals believe the stereotype that women and girls are more
difficult to work with than males. Former Idaho Warden Bona Miller said
it best in a 1998 article in the December issue of
Corrections Today, noting
that women are 'different not more difficult.'
An emphasis on implementing gender-responsive programs
in the community is critical. Most women and girls under supervision are
not in institutions but are assigned to probation, parole (aftercare) or
other community-based programs that historically have received the least
attention. Judy Anderson, warden of the Camille Griffin Graham
Correctional Institution in Columbia, S.C.,
Rita Rhodes, Ph.D., from the University of South Carolina and
Joann Morton, DPA, held focus groups with women within 30 days of
leaving South Carolina, prisons and with those who had just returned.
They found that women had unrealistic expectations about what would go
well when returning to the community from prison and also that
relationships with family and community supervisors were critical to
reducing technical violations that would return them to prison.
Single-gender caseloads and gender-responsive policies
for women and girls in community programs might help alleviate
alienation from supervisors. They certainly can save money. The Maryland
Department of Juvenile Services, for example, implemented single-gender
caseloads for girls more than 10 years ago, and in two years, they
reduced the number of girls from Baltimore being sent to
juvenile facilities by 90 percent.
As the descriptions of programs for females in this
issue illustrate, gender-responsive services cannot be successful
without the support and involvement of others. Multidisciplinary task
forces on female offenders, which have been established in a few states
and by the South Carolina Correctional Association; women's
organizations such as state commissions on the status of women;
community domestic violence programs; and organizations such as the Girl
Scouts of the United
States of America have already
committed to help. Seeking out and building alliances with academic
institutions, medical and mental health organizations, other
governmental agencies, individuals, and groups in our community is
essential in implementing meaningful gender-responsive services for
women and girls in the criminal justice system. By sharing information
and program ideas, implementing the principles of gender-responsive
programming, and following the policies and standards established by ACA
and related organizations, we can ensure that correctional systems
nationwide will met the needs of women and girls.
The Best Professionals Partner With the Best Technology
By J. Daron Hall
ACA Vice President
Sheriff, Davidson County Sheriff's Office
Nashville, Tenn.
June 2007, Corrections Today
The corrections professionals submitted for this year's Best in the
Business issue have gone above and beyond their required duties, and
represent all facets and levels of corrections. They work on the line,
in the central office, in the kitchen, in the community and on their
time off. Some accomplished heroic feats. Others developed innovative
technologies or programs. Those with generous hearts served the
community, and many demonstrated overall excellence on a daily basis.
Davidson County Sheriff's Office employees strive daily to make our
agency a model for others to follow. Of course, setting the goal of
being the best makes every day a challenge. Taking assistance wherever
one can is important - and necessary. Technology is an area about which
we have learned a great deal through the years. Hopefully, sharing our
best practices will help others advance toward being the Best in the
Business.
It was about 20 years ago when I heard the saying, 'I've never seen a
camera jump off a wall and help anybody.' I think our profession has
learned that technology can play a vital role in the world of
corrections, so long as staff exhibit the utmost professionalism. No
matter how good the technology, people are what make facilities safe and
secure.
Technology certainly will never replace a correctional officer, but
it can enhance an officer's ability to do his or her job. The same
cameras that can't jump off the wall, can be mounted in strategic
locations that may help defend an officer in a lawsuit or may encourage
staff to act appropriately in difficult situations. In addition to
enhancing security, technology can track inmate movement and statistics,
reduce paperwork, and make inmate institutional history easily available
for classification purposes.
The Davidson County Sheriff's Office has come a long way since our
jail management system was implemented in 2001 and our first security
electronics system came online in 2005. We just completed installation
of another security electronics system (three facilities in two years),
and because of what we learned previously, this installation went much
smoother. We learned that when implementing technology in a correctional
setting, it is necessary to consider five areas: 1) Determine the needs
to match the resources available. When determining your needs, it's
important to distinguish between critical needs and the 'nice to have'
items. In other words, do you really need a Mercedes when a Chevy will
do? Once you establish your budget, you can determine how you can best
meet those needs with the resources at hand. When starting a technology
project, you should first determine what your essential criteria are and
if you have the resources - in terms of funding and staff - to implement
and maintain the system you choose. 2) Research and select a reliable
vendor with a proven product. It is important to select a vendor who
will provide a technology that has been proven in the correctional
setting. Some questions you may ask are: Who else is using that product?
Does the vendor have a history of supporting their technology in a
correctional environment? 3) Select a knowledgeable internal
coordinator. One area often overlooked is the role of the internal
coordinator. The internal coordinator bridges the gap between the world
of technology and the operations of corrections. He or she must identify
and prevent breakdowns in communication, keep the project on task and on
time, and ensure the technology meets the needs and expectations that
you initially defined. When selecting this person to coordinate between
the vendor and the jails, you should look for someone who understands
the technology, communicates well, works without constant direction and
understands the needs of a correctional environment. 4) Be flexible
throughout the implementation. Expect change and react positively. How
you handle changes will have an enormous impact on your project. In the
middle of implementing an electronic security system in our largest
jail, we were surprised to find that the floor plan on our touch screen
system - displaying door locations, intercoms and cameras - did not
completely match the building layout. Operations had chosen to move two
doors, which were not reflected in our documentation or in the software.
We did not panic or complain; we talked with operations, who informed us
that this was a valid and necessary change that better suited their
workflow. We assessed the cost to our budget and timeline and moved
forward. 5) Plan for support after implementation. Now that your system
is in place and your users are trained, life is good. Suddenly, the
phone rings at 2 a.m., and your technology is broken. This is the wrong
time to be thinking about how to repair and support your new technology.
Support has to be addressed at the same time you are identifying your
needs and resources. The level of support you need (whether it is
next-business-day or 24/7) will depend on how critical the system is to
your operations. You may choose to contract with your vendor for support
or to educate your in-house staff, depending on the cost. Technology is,
for the most part, a behind-the-scenes tool that assists all of us
daily. In this issue, we recognize many corrections professionals whose
behind-the-scenes efforts protect offenders, staff and the public.
The Kansas Offender Risk Reduction and Reentry Plan
By Roger Werholtz
Secretary of Corrections
Kansas Department of Corrections
April 2007, Corrections Today
More than four years ago, Kansas started developing strategies to
reduce the rate at which offenders returned to or entered prison for
noncompliance under supervision. At that time, the largest group of
admissions to prison was parole violators with no new sentences, or in
corrections jargon, 'technical violators.' Through internal planning,
and work through several topic-specific technical assistance grants
(condition violators, offenders with mental illness, sex offenders), we
began to realize how complex the issue of reentry really is. Kansas,
like many states, received federal funds through the Serious and Violent
Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI), which provided an opportunity to
establish a geographic-specific comprehensive reentry program.
This program identifies high-risk offenders scheduled for release to
Shawnee County (where the state capitol is located) and recruits and
engages those offenders for intense case management and classes
beginning the year before release and concluding six months after
release. Reentry case managers work alongside facility counselors and
parole officers to address individual's specific risk and need areas.
Case management is supported by volunteers and specialty staff in the
areas of housing, substance abuse, employment and cognitive work. More
than 50 community partners joined the effort, including law enforcement
(where a specialized reentry police officer was placed), service
providers, property managers, employers and community organizations. The
Shawnee County Reentry Program (SCRP) provided an example of how to
effectively implement reentry practices.
As SCRP began to show positive results, with return rates among the
offenders participating remaining at or below 20 percent (compared to a
statewide rate of more than 50 percent four years ago, across all risk
levels), the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) worked with various
national, state and local partners to develop a comprehensive plan to
implement risk reduction and reentry practices throughout the state.
KDOC is employing a variety of strategies to infuse risk reduction
practices into the organization and within various partner
organizations.
The Kansas Offender Risk Reduction and Reentry Plan (KOR³P)
identifies an array of strategies to implement a 20-goal plan,
addressing housing, employment, substance abuse, mental health,
transportation, cognitive issues, capacity of community and faith based
organizations, identification (driver's license, social security cards),
legal barriers (child support arrearages, detainers), case management
and case planning, organizational culture, data, evaluation, marketing,
and legislative support. KDOC has developed strong and productive
partnerships with state agencies and organizations, including
legislative and cabinet members, which led to the formation of the
Kansas Reentry Policy Council(KRPC). KRPC has hired an executive
director and will be working closely with the department of corrections
to establish a multidiscipline steering committee to help implement this
plan.
Risk reduction and reentry impacts every area of operation in the
department and depends on the participation of many key state and local
partners. Many corrections professionals, and professionals from other
disciplines, are already engaged in risk reduction work, though they may
not call it by that name. Effective communication, engaging offenders in
participating in their own compliance and success, and working with
other service systems are activities taking place every day in the
department. The risk reduction and reentry plan is designed to formalize
these processes, add tools, develop skills, deploy and develop
resources, and establish policies, practices and procedures in
corrections and other systems to support and enhance this work.
The following are some of the key principles guiding our work:
- Everyone is responsible for success;
- People should be accountable;
- People can change;
- Reentry is a legitimate community safety strategy;
- We can have an impact on the ability of offenders to be
successful citizens after prison;
- Change and innovation are positive and necessary;
- Targeting highest-risk offenders will have the most impact;
- Targeting multiple criminogenic risk/need areas will lead to the
best outcomes;
- Engaging offenders is a critical part of the work;
- Case management is the heart of the work;
- Reentry is a community issue, affecting victims and
neighborhoods;
- Systems integration is necessary;
- Programs and practices must adhere to the research;
- Rigorous evaluation must be part of the process, with a
willingness to course- correct as needed; and
- Information systems must support the work, including through
sharing data between agencies and organizations and providing
real-time trend and case information to practitioners.
As the chart shows above, what we are doing is having an impact. We are
excited about the opportunity to sustain this trend in the future and
demonstrate that risk reduction alongside risk containment is good
corrections practice.
Rising to the Occasion When Disaster Strikes
By James A. Gondles, Jr., CAE
Executive Director
American Correctional Association
February 2007, Corrections Today
When disaster strikes America , Americans pull together as one family
to help those most affected. We are not Republicans, Independents or
Democrats; we are not rich or poor, old or young, black, brown, red,
yellow or white - we become 'just an average American.'
Disaster struck several times a little more than a year ago in the
form of hurricanes. All of us unaffected watched with horror at the
devastation, destruction, pain, agony and loss of life in four of our
nation's wonderful states - Alabama , Louisiana , Mississippi and Texas
. All suffered, but none more than Louisiana .
This issue of Corrections Today is dedicated to the
departments of correction in these states for the sacrifices they have
made to make their homes safe and secure once again. Many of us have
heard Secretary Richard Stalder of the Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections and his staff present a moving account of their
efforts after Hurricane Katrina struck. What most of us do not know, and
never will know, is the physical and emotional toll these natural
disasters have played upon our correctional families. No songs ever
sung, no poems ever written or editorial ever read can match the
gut-wrenching emotions our brothers and sisters experienced during those
challenging times. And, as is often the case in a fast-paced world such
as ours, we soon forget what Alabama , Louisiana , Mississippi and Texas
went through. Yesterday's news is old news.
The best lesson we can learn from their sacrifices, I believe, is how
important these women and men are to all of us - not just for public
safety, but for transportation, food, medical care, housing, clothing
and other important necessities of life. They provided it all to their
fellow citizens as well as to offenders in their care.
So while hurricanes are 'yesterday's news' to most Americans, to the
corrections family it is a continuing opportunity for us to show how
much we love this nation, how much we love our fellow citizens and how
much we care about all of the great institutional foundations of
America. It is another opportunity for us to thank the departments of
corrections in Alabama , Louisiana , Mississippi and Texas . It is
another opportunity for us to say 'well done.' God bless them all.
This month's magazine is also taking a careful look at the
correctional work force and the challenges it faces in the 21st century.
This is not a new topic for ACA. We have been involved in work force
issues for several years. We have established a steering committee
devoted to studying how trends in corrections and population
demographics are changing the way departments hire and retain employees.
We are also developing a work force resource center, which will compile
and make available information that addresses these transformations.
The aging of the baby boomer generation is a popular topic in the
news these days. This demographic phenomenon can be seen in every
industry and profession, and corrections is no exception. As senior
personnel approach retirement in unprecedented numbers, correctional
agencies will face an exodus of their most experienced professionals.
ACA is committed to responding to this upheaval so that younger
employees are prepared to fill some very big shoes as they move up the
ladder.
We offer a full range of educational and training opportunities which
include the Correctional Certification Program, the Online Corrections
Academy , the Leadership Development Program, training workshops and
technical assistance. In addition, last month at the Winter Conference
in Tampa , Fla. , ACA introduced its Healthcare Professional Interest
Section. With emerging technology and an aging inmate population,
correctional health care is facing unique challenges. This new
initiative will help health care professionals and correctional leaders
join together and examine important health care issues in corrections.
Whether responding to unexpected disasters, like the hurricanes of
2005, or adjusting to the anticipated dynamics of a new century, I am
confident that the correctional work force of the 21st century will
continue to rise to the occasion. And ACA will be with all of you every
step of the way.
