4. Who is scrutinizing correctional performance?

5. The PUBLIC knows little about prisons, but most have strong opinions about crime, and respond to information about the prison issue of the day with votes that affect the quality of prison administration.

6. The MEDIA have been known to publish sensational stories about prisons, sometimes using questionable figures to support erroneous conclusions which undermine administrators’ efforts. Absence of good data creates a disconnect between “reality and what is reported.”

7. The absence of good data and research creates a vacuum. Something always moves to fill a vacuum. In our case, SPECIAL COMMISSIONS, like Vera and PREA, have relied on anecdotes to fill the void.

8. GOVERNORS’ BUDGET OFFICES press for expenditure justifications, imposing cut after cut to provide more money for schools and other priority projects. Directors often have no standard performance numbers available to demonstrate critical needs.

9. Legislative bodies research and use data to call administrators to task. For example, “Why does a prisoner’s food cost more in our state than in other states?”

10. Courts issue orders against corrections that are based on data that might have been erroneous or taken out of context.

11. Methods for arriving at measures vary among agencies, for example, recidivism rates. Agencies define terms differently, for example, “assaults.” The numbers may appear the same, but the meanings are different.

12. Without uniformity in defining measures and counting according to the same rules, comparisons of measures among jurisdictions are an “apples and oranges” proposition. Consequently, the meaning is lost. = 0

14. During the ’90s, these issues were regularly discussed at ASCA meetings and trainings. Everyone agreed that ASCA jurisdictions should come together to develop uniform measures of correctional performance.