NCJ Number
86541
Journal
Corrections Magazine Volume: 8 Issue: 6 Dated: (December 1982) Pages: 20-26
Date Published
1982
Length
5 pages
Annotation
A letter of resignation from the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections (CAC) notes weaknesses in the CAC's operations, and comments by two members of the CAC challenge these criticisms.
Abstract
In resigning his position on the CAC, David Bazelon argues that the CAC (1) has repeatedly refused to open up the accreditation process to public scrutiny and participation, (2) uses audit techniques and deliberative procedures that are inherently unreliable, (3) is unwilling to accommodate constructive criticism and the possibility of meaningful change, (4) has priorities that are fundamentally flawed, (5) has pervasive conflicts of interest with the facilities it is charged with monitoring, and (6) has permitted the accreditation movement to be transformed into a propaganda vehicle for corrections authorities. In answering these criticisms, the chairman and the executive director of the CAC maintain that during the past year the CAC has considered a wide range of policy issues necessary to keep accreditation feasible, relevant, and effective. Each issue is said to demonstrate the CAC's commitment to promote broad public and private, professional and lay participation in the development of standards and their application in the accreditation process. Further, it is announced that the CAC has been seeking financial support for a study to test the reliability of audit outcomes. In the absence of a formal study, it is advised that there are strong informal indications that a significant measure of consistency and reliability has been achieved. Many tasks are indicated to remain for the CAC to streamline and strengthen the accreditation process: reassessing the current requirements for written documentation of compliance with standards, reaffirming existing policy which allows applicant agencies to strike proposed auditors only for cause, reducing the redundancy in documentation requirements, expanding the pool of auditors, and reviewing the procedures for reaccreditation. Each of these efforts is said to be strengthened by the support and participation of correctional practitioners and administrators.