U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Comprehensive Accountability Model for Correctional Programming

NCJ Number
75251
Date Published
1977
Length
140 pages
Annotation
Results are reported from an evaluation of the therapeutic and educational processes of the unit management system of Memphis Correctional Center (Tenn).
Abstract
The evaluation examined both minute details and secondary variables of the service delivery system, and went beyond normal systems analysis procedures conducted in correctional institutions. The organizational structure of the Memphis Correctional Center (MCC) is unit management under which inmates live in relatively small groups in separate housing units, based on the needs and characteristics of each inmate. All major inmate activities are planned and conducted according to each unit's own schedule and objectives. The major focus of all units is on appropriate functional behavior at all times. The study considered inmate demographic variables, program implementation, diagnostics, behavioral indexes and trends, educational activities, inmate and staff perceptions of the institutional environment, and attrition rates. In the area of program implementation, general hiring goals were met, but reception goals were about 2 months behind schedule. Positive shifts of such diagnostic indicators as IQ and educational achievement were achieved. Behavioral analysis showed positive trends in the learning curve, indicating the acquisition of functional, appropriate behaviors. Residents and Staff felt positively about environment and program. Attrition data showed that MCC is within the range characteristic of Tennessee. In the area of educational advances, repeated administration of the California Achievement Test showed a mean gain in grade level of 8 months. No other educational data were available. A cost delineation and comparison are provided. Recommendations for improvement are proposed. Supplementary material is appended, and tabular and graphic data are provided. (Author abstract modified)