An affective accreditation process should seek to address those areas in which our correctional systems are lacking and recommend changes to address those concerns. It should establish baselines to measure competencies which are universally applied, should acknowledge and promote best practices with an eye towards nationwide implementation, and should monitor correctional facilities at regular intervals.

Many correctional agencies are reluctant to expose themselves to such a process, often espousing that such exposure could compromise safety. That is a false premise, one that most professionals working in the field readily recognize. Corrections is not rocket science. Those of us who patrol our nation's prisons and jails understand that there are very few secrets behind the walls. Corrections is not just about "us," the Officers, observing "them," the inmates. It is also about "them" observing "us." The "trade secrets" of our profession…are in plain view of the inmate population when an incident occurs. No one knows our staffing levels, vacancy and attrition rates, training inefficiencies and departmental policies better then the inmates themselves. For 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, we are monitored by the inmate population-- nearly as effectively as we monitor them.

Incarceration, the authority to deny an individual their freedom, is the greatest power a government has. There should be no loopholes and no veil that shields our citizens and politicians from the realities of life behind the walls. We need to be firm and uncompromising in the evaluation of our correctional facilities. We need to expose those facilities that do not meet our basic security and societal needs while fostering progressive change to address the concerns of the public, correctional staff and the inmates confined behind those walls.

Excerpted from a written statement submitted to the Commission