Alabama, Vermont, and Virginia were selected for an analysis of the impact of MFR implementation on corrections managers because they respectively met criteria for assessing the impact of low, moderate, and high implementation of MFR. Government Performance Project surveys, interview transcripts, and content analysis provided a significant amount of background information on the MFR system in each State, but provided only limited information on its implementation in corrections beyond the availability and type of performance data. Consequently, the author visited each State to conduct in-depth interviews with key participants in the MFR process. These included operational managers in correctional institutions, senior managers in the Department of Correction (DOC), and managers in the State management and budget office. In all three States, the leadership of the DOC shaped how MFR mandates were viewed and used. Each DOC complied with the performance-reporting element of MFR, creating and distributing performance information; however, there was significant diversity in MFR outcomes in the three States, suggesting that such mandates will not produce uniform performance outcomes. The agency leadership tended to interpret and use MFR mandates in ways that reflected their agenda for the organization, as well as the organization's challenges and opportunities. The outcomes in Alabama compared with the other two States also reflected the role of resources in MFR implementation. Chronic inadequacy of resources virtually guarantees the failure of MFR. Based on these three case studies, there is sufficient evidence of the value of MFR to warrant "guarded optimism." 4 notes and 27 references