-. ED 122 057

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPOILS AGENCY

PUB DATEGRANTNOTEAVAILABLE PROM

DOCUMENT BENUE

CE 006 914

Einnich, Stephen D.The Planned Implementation of Nutual AgreementProgramming in a Correctional System. ResourceDocument $9: Manual.American Correctional Association, College Park, Nd.Parole-Corrections Project.Employment and Training Administration (DOL),Washington, D.C. -Feb 76DOL-89-24-72-02; DOL-92-24-72-3785p.Publication Office, American CorrectionalAssociation, 4321 Hartwick Rd., College Park,Maryland 20740 (No price given)

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.83 HC-$4.67 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Adult Education: *Correctional Education:

Correctional Rehabilitation: Counselor Role;Educational Programs; Education Vouchers; *Guides;Institutionalized Persons: Manpower Development:Models; *Performance Contracts: *Prisoners: *ProgramAdministration: Program Descriptions: ProgramPlanning

IDENTIFIERS MAP; *Mutual Agreement Programing

ABSTRACTThe Mutual Agreement Programing (MAP) process, as

currently used in corrections, provides for the use of a legallybinding contract between the inmate and the Paroling Authority. Thecontract outlines future inmate performance in the areas of skilltraining, education, institutional behavior, treatment, and workassignment or employment. It also establishes a definite parole datecontingent upon successful completion of the contract terms by theinmate. The concept relies on the philosophical base that theParoling Authority can relate positive performance in these goalareas as' an indication of parole readiness. The manual is intended toprovide a practical guide to correctional agencies contemplatingusing the MAP process. The over-all HAP process is described indetail from orientation, through contract negotiation, and up toparole follow-up. Descriptions of role changes in Parole Boards,Correctins, and inmates are contained as well as the role of the NAPCoordinator. The manual also provides a description of educationalvoucher services for NAP inmates. Correctional agencies will finduseful appendixes containing examples of the MAP model, MAP forms,and MAP /Voucher policy. (Author/LH)

Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes everyeffort to obtain the best copy aysikble. Nevertheless, items of mumble' reproducibility are often encountered and this affects thequality of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes mailable via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS).EDRS is not responsible for the quality of the oe.glosi document. Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made fromthe original.

RESOURCE DOCUMENT Y9

MANUAL:

THE PLANNED IMPLEMENTATION OF MUTUAL

AGREEMENT PROGRAMMING IN A CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM

by

Stephen D. Minnich

PAROLE-CORRECTIONS PROJECT

AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION

February 1976

U.S. DEPARTINENTOF HEALTH.EDUCATION &WELFARE

Cr- NATIONAL INSTITUTE OPEDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO -

O OUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN.ATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY REPRE.SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

e_) 2

",EMISSION 70 REPRODUCE THIS COPY-

RIGHTED MATERIAL HAS SEEN GRANTED BY

TO ERIC AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING

UNDER AGREPAENTEHATH THENATIONAL IN-

STITUTE OF EOUCATIoN FURTHER

PERM

REPRO-

DUCTION OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM RE-

OuMES ISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT

OWNER."

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This Resource Document is the result of many monthsof work that would not have been possible without theguidance and support of many people. With the risk ofoverlooking someone, it would still be remiss of me not toexpress my gratitude to these individuals.

Leon Leiberg has been a source of constant supportin my efforts on this project. His insight and knowledgehave helped to formulate much of my thinking for MAP.have also been fortunate to have worked with an outstandingMAP staff in Maryland and they deserve much credit, especiallyRon Drechsler for his administrative work with the MAP/Voucher process. Earl Gillespie has aided my understandingof the evolution of a MAP information and data system.Ellen Dunbar, Gerry Mills, and Tom Kernan all have providedvaluable review comments on the final draft material. Andmy wife, Mary Ann, has tolerated the use of our time forthis project.

Finally, many thanks to the men and women of theMaryland Department of Public Safety and CorrectionalServices who have made MAP a reality in Maryland.

Stephen D. MinnichFebruary, 1976

3.

3

The American Correctional Association

O. J. KellerPresident

Anthony P. TravisonoExecutive Director

**********

ACA PAROLE-CORRECTIONS PROJECT

Leon G. LeibergDirector ,..

Mary E. TozziAdministrative Assistant

4

0/111.10GRAPHIC DATA 11. Ito For1 74,0.SHEET

3. Reequent's Aeeesmon No.

4, Tule and Subtnie Resource Document 09MANUAL: THE PLANNED IMPLEMENTATION OF MUTUAL AGREE-,MENT PROGRAMMING IN A CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM.

s.moo.tom,

sphri,Ary 107Ae.

7. Ainhorfs1Stephen D. Minnich, MAP Coordinator Maryland

5. Performing Ortameatroo Rept.No.

4. Petforminit Organmitoon Name and AddressACA ParoleCorrections Project4321 Hartwick RoadCollege Park, MD 20740

1e. Project/Task:INA Unto No.

11. Conuaer/Grant No.

92-24-72-3789-24-72-02

11, Sponvoung Oramuzalron Name and AddiesS

U.S. Department of LaborOffice of Research and DevelopmentEmployment and Training Administration601 D Street, NW, Washington, DC 20213

13. Type of Report ot PeriodCovered

Manual 197614SupplementsNTIS PB 211187/AS

15. Supplemcmaly NO.Prepared under contract wirh Parole-Corrections ProjectAmerican Correctional Association

16. Abetters

This manual is intended to provide a practical guide ro correctionalagencies contemplating using the MAP process. The overall MAP processis described in detail from orientation through contract negotiationup to parole follow-up. Descriptions of role changes in ParoleBoards, Corrections, and inmates are contained as well as the roleof the MAP Coordinator. This manual also provides a description ofvoucher services for MAP inmates. Correctional agencies will find-useful appendices containing examples of the MAP Model, MAP forms,and a MAP/Voucher policy. Along with the previous Resource Documentsfrom the ACA Parole-Corrections Project, this manual should be avaluable aid in the implementation of MAP in a correctional system.

17. Key herds and Document Ann Imps. 17o. Desermuors

MAP, Mutual Agreement Program, Model, Vouchers, Corrections, ParoleBoard, Inmate, Manpower, Probation, Parole, Parole-Corrections Project,American Correctional Association.

176. Idenmfbeta'OperrEnJell Ionia

Training Practices, Corrections, Prison, Handbook, Employment Coordina-tion.

!h. COSATI Poe Id Group

DA Amu lobilny Statement Available from Publication

Office, American Correctional Association4321 Rartwick Rd. , College Pk, MD 20740

19. Security Class (ThisReport1

uNcutssingn

21. No. of Poses

84Bisemkyclassirms

PlINCLASSIF IRD

12.Prige

IM./0 ENDORSED DY ANSI AND UNESCO.

e)

THIS PORN MAY DE REPRODUCED WMCW.M.00OUIVPMI

This document on a special manpower projectwas prepared under Grant Nos. 92-24-7237and 89-24-72-02 from the Office of Researchand Development, Employment and TrainingAdministration. U. S. Department of Labor.

Organizations undertaking such projectsunder Federal Government sponsorship areencouraged to express their ovra judgmentfreely. Therefore. points of view oropinions stated in this document do notnecessarily represent the officialposition or policy of the Department ofLabor. The contractor is solely respon-sible for the factual accuracy of allmaterial developed in this document.

Copyright 1976. by the American Correctional AssociationReproduction in whole or in part permitted by

agencies of the United States Government

4321 Hartwick Road. College Park. MD 20740(301) 277-3722

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

INTRODUCTION

SECTION I -

SECTION II -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

AN OVERVIEW OF MAP PLANNING ANDDEVELOPMENT

THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MAP MODEL

Open NegotiationLegal ContractObjective Contract TermsDefinite Parole Date

SECTION III - THE MAP PROCESS

OrientationPre-NegotiationNegotiationMonitoringRenegotiationCompletion

SECTION IV - ROLE CHANGES IN THE MAP PROCESS

SECTION V

What is a MAP CoordinatorCorrectional Counselor RoleParole Authority RoleInmate RoleConclusion

- THE RESOURCES IN THE MAP CONTRACT

Institutional ProgramsCommunity ProgramsOther State and Federal AgenciesParole Agency

SECTION VI -

SECTION VII -

SECTION VIII-

APPENDIX A -

APPENDIX B -

THE MAP PILOT PROJECT

MAP WITH VOUCHERS

SUMMARY

AN EXAMPLE OF A STATE MAP MODEL(MARYLAND)

EXAMPLES OF FORMS USED It THEMAP PROCESS IN MARYLAND

APPENDIX C - VOUCHER CONTROL POLICY (MARYLAND)

APPENDIX D - BIBLIOGRAPHY

7

i.

1

5

11

12131414

16

161720212224

27

272931

3333

34

34353636.39

42

44

45

53

66

74

Introduction

Reform and change movements in American prisons areas old as prison itself. In fact, the first prisons inAmerica were born out of a reform movement seeking analternative to capital punishment which in Pennsylvaniain 1776 was the penalty for 16 crimes including treason,sodomy, witchcraft, and arson.' The establishment of prisonsand the ethic of rehabilitating the criminal was a changein philosophy in the criminal sanction system that in theeighteenth century was used primarily for vengeance anddeterrence. Prisons and the idea of rehabilitation thusentered the criminal sanction field on a wave of moralisticreaction to the maiming, branding, whipping, and killingby the state. Regardless of the early failures (and therewere many) prisons were a moral alternative to capitalpunishment on a large scale. Despite the well documentedhorrors and abuses of prison (even solitary confinementwas treatment oriented) , prisons continued to developlargely in irrational fashions. With no scientificknowledge of human behavior change, moralist rehabilitatorsinitiated reform movement after reform movement all callingfor increased efforts toward rehabilitation of the criminal.Rehabilitation through solitude and prayer was followedby other reforms in a somewhat interchangeable orderdepending on the group that was proposing the reform. Hardlabor, discipline, skill training, psychiatry, education,electric shock, counseling, behavior modification, sociologyall have been methods in rehabilitation reform movements.But the fact is the only reform that has survived acrossthe country is the first one, prison itself.

Following a great national reaction during the early1960's to racial disturbances and a soaring statisticalcrime rate, our country produced an abundance of commissions,studies, conferences, grant programs, and models aimed atdefining and solving the crime problem. Among the resultsand conclusions of all these activities was a central ifsomewhat evasive answer that something was basically wrongwith our prisons. Curiously, without any examination ofthe philosophical basis of prisons, we collectively andself-assuredly launched yet another massive attack on ourprison system with the central stated goal of making prisonswork. Ramsey Clark, with words that would have warmedthe hearts of our Quaker prison founders, boldly proclaimed:

'Orlando F. Lewis, The Development of American Prisonsand Prison Customs, 1776-11M (Montclair, New JerseysPatterson Smith Publishing Company, 1967).

1

8

"We know that corrections can rehabilitate . . .America Is a nation with skills and resourcesto provide the necessary elements of rehabil-itation: physical and mental health, all theeducation a youngster can absorb, vocationalskills for the highest trade he can master,a calm and orderly environment away fromanxiety and violence, living among peoplewho care, who love -- with these a boy canbegin again."2

This reaffirmation of our tired prison ethic camewith only one string attached. Nith the infusion of billionsof federal dollars, corrections was required to becomescientifically results oriented. Seldom used terms likecontrol group, statistically significant, follow-up, cost-benefit became the new nemesis of the reformers.

Almost a decade later the prison ethic of rehabil-itation behind walls stands at its lowest ebb. In theabsence of any objective rationale, for the past 200 years,men have taken power over other men under the guise ofbenevolence and the result, accentuated by our most recentefforts, is that the ethic of our criminal sanction systemis currently suffering a credibility gap of enormousproportions. It has become a standard literary style ofcurrent critics to quote prison officials of past days asthey recorded their unfulfilled promises of rehabilitation.The contemporary nature of their words of reform andrehabilitation lends itself to much irony and sarcasm.

The administration of criminal sanctions in thiscountry is now on the threshold of another change. Thebywords of the new reformers are terms like due process,inmates' rights, equal treatment, and class action. Farmore radical than any reform in the past 200 years, thisnew change is in the power relationships of the principals(keeper and kept) in the prison experience. The changeis not a results oriented change, but rather one of processwith emphasis on how one does it rather than what one does.

The courts have played a major role in thischange movement. Traditionally the courts have grantedgreat latitude to correctional administrators in controllingthe prison experience. But following the 1960's, affirmativecourt decisions against correctional administrators and

2Ramsey Clark, Crime In America (New York: Simonand Schuster, 1970).

2

9

Parole Authorities could be found on almost every decision-making point in corrections. Even the courts could nolonger ignore the fact that the rehabilitation ethic ofprison was no longer valid to justify such unbridleddiscretion over human beings.

Decisions handed down by courts have establishedprocedures that are to be followed in revocation of paroleand probation, procedures governing due process in prisondisciplinary hearings, and procedures governing transfersbetween institutions. The courts have also ruled againstprison limits on free speech, mail censorship, access tothe courts, and the exercise of religion. The discretionof Parole Authorities has been limited by the courtsrequiring written reasons for denial of parole release.Some courts have even established minimum due process forthe parole hearing itself. With few exceptions, the courtshave dealt with the procqss surrounding these decisionpoints rather than the 'substance or results of these decisions.

With the focus, of this current change movementbeing on the process of administering criminal sanctionsrather than the results of such sanctions, the effect onprison systems may be chaotic and regressive. Thesupporters of the change are a curious blend of liberalsand conservatives with no central spokesperson. ACLUlawyers are supporting the change on constitutional grounds,liberals are supporting the change for humanitarian purposes,and conservatives are supporting the change to rationalizeconfinement in prison. Prison administrators cannot helpbut be anxious regarding the potential effects on thesystem.

One thing that seems certain in the face of such acoalition is that the rehabilitative model of prisonscannot survive intact. Change is upon us and now is thetime for prison administrators to modify their impossiblemission of inmate rehabilitation and begin to set realisticgoals for their operations; goals that can be managed andattained. Prison administrators must prepare to managethese change forces for the benefit of the entirecorrectional community. Strategies and responses shouldbe designed to take advantage of this time in our development.

An important element of an administrative approachto the problem will be the involvement of inmates as thenew shareholders of power. Whether the goals be rehabil-itation or punishment, treatment or custody, in today'sprison experience inmate involvement is a reality and,therefore, must be programmed and managed.

Without programmed responses such as MAP, any merits

3

10

of the current correctional process will be lost in a mazeof litigious activity necessitated by the current emphasison process. The involvement of inmates in their own correc-tional planning should not be accompanied by a negativereaction from administration. Rather, the benefits of skilltraining, education, therapy, and employment can be maintainedin a treatment program if it is developed through fullparticipation of all concerned parties. The MAP program,with its strict attention to due process concerns, offersan adequate forum for full participation and agreement oninmate treatment programs in the correctional system.

This manual in intended to present one practicalmethod of managing the change that is occurring in ourfield. It presumes that the reader has accepted the factthat the power relationships in corrections are changingand that effective administrative and program responses areneeded to provide for transition. It is also assumed thatthe reader has a firm philosophical background in MutualAgreement Programming (MAP) previously presented in otherAmerican Correctional Association resource publications.Rather than providing insight into corrections, this manualis designed to provide administrators with the "how to"aspects of Mutual Agreement Programming.

4

SECTION I

AN OVERVIEW OF MAP PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

There are many principles and procedures of goodplanning that must be present when a change in an organizationis undertaken. Many of these philosophical considerationswere previously addressed in the Resource Document #3, TheMutual Agreement Program - A Planned Change in CorrectionalNe Delivery. This materiii-Fiiains both current andTrseiiiifor MAP implementation. Elements that are particularto the MAP process and its successful implementation are theprimary concern of this manual.

First and foremost, the administrative leadershipof a correctional system must have a thorough understandingof the change elements that are affecting the currentoperations of our nation's prisons. As postulated in theIntroduction, this change is best characterized as a changeof the administrative process of corrections rather thanits results. Administrators must recognize the possibleimpact that this change of process may have on the overallsystem. With a conscientious recognition that this newemphasis on process will occur, administrations in theirplanning efforts should attempt to manage this change forthe maximum benefit of overall agency objectives.

In correctional systems that are often comprised ofinterrelated yet semi-autonomous agencies. arriving at aconsensus opinion on this matter of change may be a majortask. Parole Authorities have traditional direct ties tothe Governor of the state while other correctional unitssuch as prisons, parole supervision, and probation servicesmay have more complex administrative structures.

Even if a state correctional system, including theParole Authority, is organized under one chief administrator,it would be advisable to gain an open concurrence on theneed for a MAP process from administrators of all theagencies in the system. A process as complex as MAP withits requirements for in.Wr-agency cooperation will not farewell if only mandated by a chief administrator.

Special attention should be directed to the ParoleAuthority during the formulation of an administrative.ommitment to MAP. Few Parole Authorities have set criteriafor decision-making. This means they are virtuallyautonomous in their patterns of parole release decision-making. It is therefore, critical that unanimous supportfor The MAP process be sought from the Parole Authoritymembers. A commitment to the MAP process by the ParoleAuthority is an irreplaceable element in the total administrativecommitment.

5

12

This administrative decision to utilize MAP shouldrecognize MAP as a process to manage the change that isoccurring in corrections. The chief administrators shouldview MAP as a planned response rather than a defensivereaction. The MAP process makes the correctional systemmore manageable and possibly more productive while meetingthe basic requirements of the new emphasis on due process.

Once the administrative decision is made, a system-wide MAP Coordinator should be selected. Each system willhave to determine specific personnel qualifications butattention should be paid to the description of the role ofthe MAP Coordinator contained in Section IV. A personselected for this position will need to have a broadknowledge of the current operations of the system. Allagency administrators should participate in the selectionprocess and the final selection should be approved by allagencies. Since the role of the MAP Coordinator is bothadministrative and programmatic, selection should be basedon both considerations. The implementation of MAP restsheavily on the Coordinator's performance in the actual MAPprocess. Any MAP Coordinator selected must believe in theconcept of inmate participation in the MAP process or theoutcome will be a creation of an elaborate network forprescription programming for inmates.

Initially, however, the MAP Coordinator must assumeresponsibilities of development and adaptation of the MAPModel and orientation and training of agency staff. Inorder to perform these functions, the MAP Coordinator shouldbe administratively placed in the organization to allow forwide latitude in cross agency communications. If thereexists a single chief administrator for all correctionalagencies, then the placement should be at that level. Ifthe agencies are split in their administrative reportingfunctions, then the MAP Coordinator should have a placementin the organization that is agreed to by all agencies. Thekey to the placement in any case must be free flowingcommunication access between the MAP Coordinator and thevarious agency administrators.

The MAP Coordinator must then translate the previousadministrative commitment to MAP into a functional policyand operations statement -- the MAP Model. Due to thevarious state parole laws and existing administrativeprocedures, MAP Models will differ from state to state.The MAP Coordinator should adjust the principles of MAP tothe procedures and laws of the particular state. In SectionII a further discussion is provided on those elements ofthe MAP process that. must rot be compromised. Every otherelement of the MAP Model shoqld meet local requirements.Initial drafts of the MAP Model should be exposed to the

6

1.3

largest review possible within the correctional system. Inall cases, the Attorney General of the state should reviewthe MAP Model and approve the final format. An opportunityfor inmate groups to have input into the MAP Model is alsoimportant. This is not only programmatically helpful butit will begin to emphasize the spirit of shared responsibilityof the MAP Model. It may also be considered as a wiseaction to involve the local ACLU office or Legal Aid Bureau.Since any litigation regarding the MAP process will mostlikely involve such groups, early involvement may savefuture misunderstandings.

The final MAP Model, once approved by all correctionalagencies and the Parole Authority, then should be formallyratified by all parties as binding policy until furthernotice. Any recisions, changes, or updates to the MAP Modelshould be made in a similar manner as the initial Modeldevelopment. Since it is a joint policy all agencies mustagree to any adjustments. If any changes are requiredafter Model implementation, caution should be exercisednot to alter any MAP Agreements written under the previousModel.

After the MAP Model is established, the policy shouldbe distributed as widely as possible. All agencies shouldsee that any employee who may deal with the actual MAP processor come in contact with inmates under MAP Agreements hasa copy of the Model. Additionally, large scale orientationsto the MAP process should be held by the MAP Coordinatorfor agency employees. The MAP process must be understoodby all personnel since it may change record keeping andprocedures for employees who may not be directly involvedin negotiations. If the MAP process is at least understood,problems may be averted before they occur.

Training sessions should be developed for the staffmembers who will be directly involved in the MAP process.The content of this training should emphasize the specificMAP process (Section III), the changes in role (Section IV),and changes in forms and information flow (Appendix 13).Special training and orientation should be held for theParole Authority dealing with their role changes. Bothcorrectional personnel and Parole Authority members shouldbe thoroughly briefed in the setting of objective MAPcontract criteria as opposed to subjective criteria.Substituting quantities in terms of grades, counseling sessions,and weeks of work may take considerable practice from peopleaccustomed to the use of subjective terms such as "verygood," "tried hard," or "satisfactory."

The training and orientation in these areas may proveuseful, but in a process such as MAP that is so different

7

14

from existing policies and procedures many people willonly learn by doing. This segment of the training can beaccomplished by a pilot project (Section VI). Choice of apilot project site must closely reflect the reality of theoverall system and thereby produce a miniature version ofthe MAP process. In addition to providing an on-the-jobtraining experience for all parties involved includinginmates, the pilot project will allow for an analysis ofthe process as it will materialize for the larger system.By representing the MAP process in a real situation, anopportunity is presented to examine the interrelationshipsof the process with the system elements. Information andfollow-up data from the pilot project will be critical tosystem-wide application of the MAP Model.

During the pilot phase it is important to establisha system of information flow and follow-up data collection.If the forms are properly constructed and integrated intothe MAP process, then the process should generate all datanecessary for program evaluation. All the forms in AppendixB ..ire directly tied to the actual MAP process. In order toenter a negotiation, a Pre-Negotiation .Summary must becompleted. There can be no negotiation without the Summary.All the other forms also correspond to a particular MAPprocess function. In order for the process to occur, thecorresponding form must be 'completed. Anyone with experiencein data collection in corrections can appreciate the conceptof the actual process generating the data necessary forevaluation rather than relying on unrelated follow-up forms.The MAP process forms record inmate background, initialinmate proposal, any compromise during negotiation, counselorobjections, actual contract performance, reasons for non-performance, and final contract completion. Only post-release performance must be gathered by traditional follow-up forms.

The information, once compiled, should be distributedto all agencies involved in order that MAP procedureadjustments may be proposed as necessary. Later theinformation should be used in an evaluative form to determinewhen and where system-wide expansion efforts should begin.

Information flow in the MAP process will be a drivingforce. If the MAP process is viewed as an input/outputsystem, the information flow is critical. With the conversionmechanism in the input/output system being the parole MAPnegotiation session, all information flow prior to negotiationwill comprise input and all information flow after negotiationwill be output. A breakdown in information flow will causea corresponding breakdown in the MAP process.

Following the pilot project experience and an analysis

8vt

of the feedback information, the correctional system isready to make decisions on system-wide application. Allthe traditional considerations of cost-benefit and feasibilityof any operation moving from a pilot demonstration to full-scale implementation must be made. But for MAP in corrections,two major considerations are also critical. One isavailability of resources for inmates to propose at MAPnegotiations and another is large scale information flow.

Availability of resources will be crucial and shouldencourage innovation on the part of corrections. Movinginmates closer to their own communities in residentialcenters will aid in resource acquisition. Also. experimentalprograms in vouchered services (Section VII) may provide thediversity needed to meet MAP Agreement requirements.Expansion of work and study release programs and homefurloughs all will aid in resource location.

Additionally, before any large correctional systemuses the MAP process on a wholesale basis, a complex systemof information flow must be developed. Ideally, such asystem would utilize computers and electronic printers orcathode ray terminals in order to display the informationretrieved in a useful fashion. Such information as acatalog of all resources, prerequisites, length of courses,number and frequency of classes, current and futureenrollment, institutional bed space and other relateddata should be kept current and be available at any timeduring the MAP process.

Despite the fact that no correctional system currentlyhas an operational computer information system that has thecapability to handle all system information and futuremovements regarding all MAP inmates, the technology doesexist. Just as airlines, hotels, and colleges have adaptedtheir information and reservation systems to computers,one day with a MAP format in place, corrections will alsobe able to use computers in a similar manner.

But to facilitate this progression, correctionsmust first develop a manual system of information flow.In the past, corrections programs, even witLin the samedepartment. have often jealously guarded information regardingtheir activity. Too often, institutions in the same systemare unaware of the resources and services available toother facilities. Before an information system can becomputerized it first must, in fa,lt, exist.

The establishment of a central location inventoryof all system resources, prerequisites, capacities, andlocations, and theipresentation of this information in a

9

16

catalog format will be an essential step in an informationsystem's development. Rather than viewing such an activityas primitive it should be regarded as an essentialdevelopmental stage. This catalog coupled with some sortof index card system on spaces in each resource is thebeginning of the reservation system for MAP within Corrections.

Good planning, administrative commitment, consensuson MAP policy. extensive training and orientation, testingin a pilot demonstration, comprehensive information flowand solid evaluation will be the elements that will allowa state correctional system to give the MAP process a fairtrial. The theoretical advantages of the MAP process,however attractive, will not materialize if an unplannedimplementation is attempted. The natural inertia of thesystem will quickly capitalize on lack of information andpoor planning to retain the status quo.

17

10

SECTION II

THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MAP MODEL

The MAP process, as currently used in corrections,provides for the use of a legally binding contract betweenthe inmate and the Paroling Authority. The contractoutlines future inmate performance In the areas of skilltraining, education, institutional behavior, treatment,and work assignment or employment. It also establishes adefinite date parole contingent upon successful completionof the contract terms by the inmate. The concept relieson the philosophical base that the Paroling Authority canrelate positive performance in these goal areas as anindication of parole readiness.

Under the MAP process, the contract is developedthrough an open negotiation with the inmate, the Departmentof Correction, and the Parole Authority. The CorrectionsDepartment is involved because it in most instances becomesthe agency responsible for the delivery of the servicesto enable the inmate to accomplish his/her contractobjectives.

Since the process may be subject to judicial review,each jurisdiction that proposes to use the MAP process mustfirst develop an explicit MAP policy and procedure statementthat will serve as the MAP Model (Appendix A). Also, MAPis a process designed to take advantage of the decision-making points in corrections and all available resourcesitherefore, the local MAP process must be formally presentedin order that all parties to MAP will know the rules. Justas the MAP Model in the Appendix of this manual is anadaptation of the national Model developed by the ACAParole-Corrections Project, all jurisdictions will findthat certain procedures will have to be localized. Proceduresdealing with Parole Authority review of MAP proposals,content of reports dealing with pre-negotiation, eligibilityof inmates to negotiate and information flow for MAP allmust be tailored as closely as possible to the existingsystem and clearly detailed in the MAP Model.

MAP procedures and workload should not create aparallel system that causes existing personnel to be over-burdened. In the case of a parole hearing, if the ParoleAuthority members normally receive psychological reports,pre-sentences, and institutional history, then they shouldreceive the same quality and quantity of information asusual. The only difference may be that the informationshould be relevant to future goal setting of the inmaterather than attempting to predict future behaVior.

11

18

All of the correctional agencies involved in theMAP Model should have an opportunity to review the proposedModel and make any suggestions or changes. As previouslymentioned, unanimous agreement from Parole Authorities,Corrections Departments, Parole Supervision Departments,and Inmate Grievance or Ombudsman Organization will benecessary to implement the MAP process. Each agency shoulduse appropriate means to gain full staff input previousto any finalization of the MAP Model.

Also, the MAP process will benefit if inmates orinmate organizations had an opportunity to review the MAPModel and have a chance for input. Model development andfinalization must also be an effort in mutual cooperationand shared responsibility among Parole Authority, Corrections,and inmates.

Following the review by the agencies involved, thejurisdiction's law office, Attorney General, or solicitorshould review and approve the Model. Since the MAP processshould result in a legally binding contract then it mustmeet the minimum tests of a legal review. With this reviewcomplete, and all departments and agencies in agreement,the MAP Model can then be formally adopted by all departmentsas existing policy until such time as all departments wouldmeet for updates or changes to the Model.

This procedure of local adaptation of the MAP Modelwill insure that the MAP process is workable under theexisting laws and allow all agencies input in the planningprocess from the beginning. Although procedures and contentof the MAP Model may vary between jurisdictions, certainprinciples of the MAP Model must remain intact if the MAPprocess is to work. These- principles are open face-to-facenegotiation of MAP Agreements, finalizing the MAP Agreementin a legal contract, stating the contract terms in objectivecriteria, and establishing a fixed definite parole date.

Open Negotiation

The MAP Model provides the establishment of theposition of MAP Coordinator. One of the duties of theCoordinator is to insure open negotiation. The MAP theorystates that an inmate's MAP Agreement must not be aprescription that is developed and forced upon him/her.The inmate is responsible for developing his/her initialobjectives and selecting a proposed parole date. Correctionalcounselors are responsible to aid the inmate in proposinga plan that is responsive to the inmate's needs. The MAPCoordinator's role is to insure that the proposal is responsiveto the inmate's desires as well. If there exist differencesbetween the inmate's proposed plan and the counselor's'

12

19

evaluation, the MAP Coordinator must attempt to resolvethem. However, the inmate at this stage of the negotiationmust be allowed to make his/her own proposal.

The inmate's MAP proposal, including programobjectives and a future parole date, is then presented tothe Parole Authority in an open hearing involving the inmate,the MAP Coordinator, the correctional representative, andthe Parole Authority members. It is during this negotiationthat the inmate explains his/her plan and proposed paroledate and the Parole Authorities react with their needs forparole readiness. Any differences are negotiated to themutual satisfaction of all concerned and if no agreementis reached, the inmate returns to the normal parole processwithout prejudice. The benefit from open negotiation isthat the inmate expresses his/her own objectives and thatthrough this process a higher degree of individualizationand motivation can be accomplished. Each inmate has theopportunity for direct confrontation with the decision-making process rather than dealing in a second hand mannerwith authority.

Parole Authorities and corrections may be apprehensivetoallow totally open negotiations. Counselors may notwant to allow inmates to bring MAP proposals to the MAPnegotiation that they consider unreasonable. Although goodcounseling requires the counselor to provide insight tothe inmate and the MAP process demands that counselorsshare any final dissent about the MAP proposal with theParole Authority, inmates must be allowed to present anyworkable plan. Only unlawful elements or clearly impossibleelements may be excluded. Such an experience for an inmatewill be an opportunity to test firsthand his/her perceptionsabout reality. Options exist in the MAP process for ParoleAuthorities to negotiate compromises on unrealistic plans,refer them for further development or refuse to agree ifthe inmate remains adamant. The best MAP Agreements willbe produced when inmates compromise on unrealistic goals,and in turn the inmate sees the Parcae Authority compromiseon what is perceived as an unrealistic requirement.

Legal Contract

The agreement that is reached in the MAP negotiationsmust be finalized in a legal binding contract. Thisprovides the element of proof or trust for the inmate inthat if he/she accomplishes the otijectives outlined, thenparole will be guaranteed. Additionally, the legal contractinsures accountability on the part of the correctionalauthorities to deliver the services necessary for the inmateto accomplish the objectives on time.

13

20

With a contract the inmate is assured that lack ofperformance through no fault of his/her own will not affectthe parole date. If, for example, the agreement callsfor the inmate to attend group counseling sessions for 12weeks during the agreement and the group leader is absent,then the inmate cannot be penalized. The Department ofCorrection must provide a substitute leader or re-schedulethe group otherwise the inmate is still under agreement forthe agreed parole date.

Objective Contract Terms

The inmate's MAP Agreement must be stated in objectivemeasurable terms. These terms must not be subject tointerpretations. Subjective words to describe performancesuch as "very hard," "good," "satisfactory," or "excellent"must not be used. Performance must be measured in quantifiedterms. If an inmate must have counseling, then he /she mustbe required to attend a certain number of sessions. Intraining programs, a specific number of hours of trainingmight be required. In institutional behavior, the inmatecould be allowed no convictions for violation of institutionalrules. Parole Authorities have been known to allow disciplineclauses stating that the inmate may have only one or twoconvictions of institutional rules. In any case, the termsmast be objective in order that each party to the agreementknow exactly what will be expected.

The requirement of stating all MAP Agreement termsin objective criteria must not be compromised. Theconfusion that will be caused if MAP Agreement terms arenot objective would render the MAP process unworkable.Counselors will find it difficult, however, to accept aninmate treatment objective as one stating; Inmate mustattend one group counseling session once a week for fifteenweeks with no absences to be allowed. Counselors would muchprefer to see a treatment objective state: Inmate mustattend group counseling sessions and develop insight in hisproblems regarding his relationship with authority figures.For contract purposes, the problem with measuring the secondobjective would be impossible. Each and every inmate couldclaim new insight however meager and experts could be calledon both sides. Even if a phrase was added to give thecounselor sole authority to determine change, the counselorand the inmate simply revert back to the manipulativerelationships of parole hearing preparation. Althoughobjectivity is not without faults, the MAP process will notwork without it,

Definite Parole Date

Finally, the MAP Model requires a fixed definite

14,

2 1

date parole. Since the MAP contract describes futureobjective performance by the inmate that the Parole Authoritybelieves will indicate parole readiness, then the paroledate must be definite. This increases the motivation ofthe offender and eliminates the psychological hardshipassociated with not knowing when parole release will begranted. If any one aspect of the MAP process gains abroad acceptance, it is the definite date parole. Inmates,administrators, counselors, service programs, parole board,and legal authorities all express support for the definiteparole date.

These elements of open negotiation, a legal contract,objective criteria, and fixed date parole make up the substanceof the MAP Model. They assume that individual change willonly occur when the change is voluntary and motivated by anobtainable objective.

Regardless of the differences in procedures andstatutes that affect correctional institutions and ParoleAuthorities, these principles must remain intact. Becauseof minimum sentence laws or laws governing classificationand security movements of inmates, certain elements of aMAP program may be predetermined. However, in most jurisdictions,classification and security movements are directly affectedby a possible parole date. Since MAP establishes a firmdate of parole, all other considerations are potentiallynegotiable.

Once the MAP Model is adapted and finalized, theMAP Model should be reproduced and distributed to alloperational employees and be made available to all eligibleor potentially eligible inmates. This will insure thewidest possible distribution of the policy under which MAPwill operate.

2215

SECTION III

THE MAP PROCESS

The MAP process can be separated into six distinctareas of activities. These areas are:

1. Orientation2. Pre-negotiation3. Negotiation4. Monitoring5. Renegotiation6. Completion

Once again, procedures may vary from jurisdiction tojurisdiction; however, every MAP project should follow asimilar outline of activity.

Orientation

Once an inmate becomes eligible under the terms ofthe existing MAP Model, he /she should be scheduled to meetwith the MAP Coordinator for a formal orientation to theMAP process. This orientation can take place in a groupsetting or on a one-to-one basis depending on the localeligibility intake procedures. The objectives of thisorientation session should be to provide the inmate withinformation about the MAP process, define the roles of theinmate, the Parole Authority, the Corrections Department,and the MAP Coordinator, and to indicate to the inmateoptions available under the MAP Model. For many inmates,this orientation is critical. Just as the staff of Correctionsand the Parole Authority members will have their rolesaltered, the inmate also must now realize that his/her roleis to be altered by MAP.

The inmate should be given a copy of the actual MAPModel that is the existing policy under which the MAP processwill take place. The orientation should provide as muchinformation as possible and make very clear that the processis optional for the inmate. Although there are clearbenefits to the MAP process for the inmate, the pressuresand disadvantages of shared responsibility should be madeclear. At this point the inmate should also be providedwith any available statistical follow-up on success ratesof MAP Agreements. This type of information will aid theinmate in making his/her choice.

The new roles of the correctional personnel, ParoleAuthority members, and a MAP Coordinator must be thoroughlyexplained to the inmate. The inmates will be skeptical at

16

23

first and a general tendency for inmates is to place greatpressure on the other principals to revert to their oldroles. Inmates will ask counselors to write their plans,expect Parole Authorities to dictate terms and will assumethat the MAP Coordinator is part of corrections and reactto the position accordingly.

The MAP Coordinator must establish his/her role withthe inmate from the outset. The inmate must realize thatthe MAP Coordinator will serve as an advisor to the inmateregarding the actual negotiation, the format for the termsof the HAP proposal, and the selection of a parole date.The MAP Coordinator must maintain a non-directive role inorder that the inmate may make informed choices. In thecorrectional setting, it will be very frustrating for manyinmates to deal with the role of a non-directive personwhen such a key issue of parole release is concerned. Theinmate must accept the MAP Coordinator as an advisor orstrategist and eventually an advocate. Many inmates aresurprised to see such a non-directive role turn to enthusiasticsupport during the actual MAP negotiations.

During t,e Orientation, the inmate is given aworksheet for tha MAP proposal (Appendix B). With the processexplained, the inmate is now given the option to make aproposal or follow a normal route to a regular parole hearing.The inmate is encourased by the MAP Coordinator to make theproposal in his/her win words. Once again, the inmate mustunderstand that only if asked will the correctional counseloractually develop MAP proposal terms. Also at this timethe inmate should be informed of any parts of the agreementthat are not negotiable, such as minimum sentence dates orsecurity classifications set by law. The correctionalcounselor during any contacts with tne inmate should encouragediscussion on the MAP proposal, but from the point oforientation to actual negotiation the correctional counselorand all other correctional personnel should serve asresources for the inmate. The more work completed by theinmate on the proposal, the more individual it will be.

Finally, during orientation the inmate must clearlyunderstand the timetable involved if he /she decides topropose an agreement. The inmate must be informed when theMAP Coordinator will meet with inmate and counselor toactually finalize the MAP proposal and when it will benegotiated. The MAP Coordinator should be available asrequested during these periods to deal with any concernsand insure inmates the opportunity to make their own proposals.

Pre-Negotiation

Following orientation, the phase of pre-negotiation

17

24

begins. This is the most critical phase of the MAP processbecause the inmate, corrections, and the Parole Authorityall have an opportunity for input. Additionally, duringpre-negotiation the inmate with the aid of any counselorsor program representatives puts together the substance ofthe MAP proposal that will be sent to negotiation. TheMAP Coordinator's role in pre-negotiation is left up tothe request of the inmate or staff. Only at the designatedtime of the MAP proposal finalization does the MAP Coordinatorhave to be involved.

Prior to the finalization meeting between inmate.counselor, and MAP Coordinator the inmate is encouraged todevelop his/her proposal on the MAP Worksheet. Any trainingprograms, education, work assignments, or institutionalmoves must be verified by the inmate. It is during thistime that most inmates will necessarily need the aid oftheir counselors in order to develop the proper sequenceof events and movements in the proposal. Ideally, when theinmate seeks this counseling it will produce a more validproposal than the use of traditional prescription programming.Counselors at this stage of pre-negotiation may feelreluctant to allow the inmate any degree of self-determination.It is important, however, to remember that the MAP theoryrelies on inmates having the opportunity to select a planand attempt to negotiate it with the Parole Authorityhopefully resulting in a MAP contract.

On the other hand, counselors must not remain passiveobservers during the pre-negotiation process either.Counselors should find that they have a unique opportunityin the correctional setting to be true counselors and notmerely processors. The experience of setting realisticgoals for inmates will be one of trial and error and anexcellent opening for any good counselor to begin amaturation process in an inmate. Most of the day to dayoperational pressures of corrections prevent this type ofinteraction between counselor and inmate. With MAP,during pre-negotiation the emphasis is changed from "Whatare you going to do to help me" to "What are you going todo to help yourself." Counselors should welcome thisopportunity and allow inmates as much choice as possible.

After the inmate has developed the initial MAP proposal,the finalization meeting takes place between the MAPCoordinator, the inmate, and the correctional counselor.During this meeting the MAP Coordinator must determine ifthe proposal is the inmate's plan, does the correctionalcounselor fully agree with the proposal, is the proposalwritten in objective terms, and does the proposal correspondto the proposed release date.

If the inmate disclaims support for the proposal,

18

41 :4-0...so"

the MAP Coordinator must clarify the points not supportedby the inmate. If they are points that were previouslypart of those enumerated as non-negotiable then nothingcan be altered. If they are points that were forced on theinmate by correctional staff, then the MAP Coordinator mustsee that they are restored to the proposal in order thatthe inmate has an opportunity to negotiate them.

Any disagreements between the inmate and thecorrectional counselors must be attempted to be reconciledat this finalization meeting. If they cannot be reconciled,then the inmate's MAP proposal must be finalized in his/herterms as long as they do not violate laws or standard policy.The dissent of the counselors to the MAP proposal at thispoint is extremely important and must also be encouragedby the MAP Coordinator. Following the actual finalization,a written MAP Pre-Negotiation Summary is completed on eachinmate (Appendix B). This summary should contain a sectionfor written counselor dissent. The counselor should berequired to state the objection to specific parts of theinmate's MAP proposal and propose an alternative 'objectiveand provide reasons as to why the alternative would betterserve the inmate's needs.

After the MAP proposal is finalized and the Pre-Negotiation Summary is prepared, this material is forwardedto the Parole Authority in advance of the MAP negotiationdate. In some jurisdictions a classification committee ofthe Corrections Department must also review the material3n order to approve the MAP proposal for the Department orsuggest changes. Regardless of the procedure, one personrepresenting the Department of Correction must be at theformal negotiations and have the authority to commit theDepartment to the MAP Agreement.

Ideally, the MAP Coordinator should then meet withthe Parole Authority members who will be the negotiationpanel and discuss the inmate's MAP proposal. This allowsfor the MAP Coordinator to justify or clarify any pointsof the proposal, and allows the inmate the advantage ofParole Authority reaction prior to negotiation. It allowstime for the inmates to develop the further rationale orsupport for their proposal if they know in advance thatthe Parole Authority will question the absence of a drugtreatment program or a skill training program. The MAPCoordinator at this meeting has no authority to agreeto any changes that the Parole Authority might suggest.The Coordinator must support the proposal and relate anyfeedback to the inmate regarding the MAP proposal. Thus,pre-negotiation ends with the inmate's proposal intactand the inmate having any negative feedback from bothcorrections and the Parole Authority.

19

26

Negotiation

The stage is now set for face-to-face negotiationson the inmate's MAP proposal. The Parole Authority members,the inmate, the MAP Coordinator, and a representative ofthe Department of Corrections meet to negotiate the proposal.Once again the inmate should be encouraged to present his/herMAP proposal to the Parole Authority panel. If necessary,the MAP Coordinator may speak for the inmate. For MAP towork all parties must bargain in good faith. Since theinmate has no real power base, the MAP Coordinator mustinsure that the Parole Authority will compromise or makecounter-proposals. When the Parole Authority reaches whatthey feel is a non-negotiable item it is up to the MAPCoordinator to elicit s ecific rationale from the ParoleAuthority panel as to w y they consider a point to be arequirement of a MAP contract. Only through this process,elevating the decision to an open forum and requiring arationale of each party's position, can an inmate expectopen negotiation.

Point by point of the MAF proposal is subject tonegotiation. Changes to the proposal are made during thenegotiation and recorded on the actual contract form(Appendix B). If all parties are in agreement, then thecontract is signed by all participants and the inmate leavesthe negotiation knowing exactly what must be accomplishedand when parole release will occur.

Depending on the inmate's MAP proposal and theinmate's background, negotiations will vary from very complexsessions to a ratification of the inmate's original MAPproposal. The character of these negotiations is much morefuture oriented than normal parole hearings. Goals areexamined in relation to past deficiencies rather than alengthy rehashing of criminal record and institutionalperformance.

During the actual negotiation, a great deal ofpressure is on the Parole Authority panel. They must relateobjective performance and length of contract to a determinationof parole readiness. Since they are not only required toreact to inmate MAP proposals but to negotiate to asatisfactory agreement, they must encourage inmates to setfair goals. If the Parole Authority requires a certainminimum amount of incarceration for a particular inmate,then that inmate should understand this fact and be allowedto set goals of a MAP proposal accordingly. Inmates toooften have honestly pursued rehabilitation goals when ParoleAuthorities would not grant parole until enough time wasserved. If this is a reality in a specific case, then MAPwould also allow a pragmatic approach to this type of

20

2 7

negotiation. With inmates that will not be paroled at afirst hearing due to the nature of their crime or criminalbackground, then an open approach to setting a minimumamount of incarceration time with MAP Agreement is soundprovided that all other program aspects of the MAP processare still observed. The inmate will simply know that aMAP release date is not negotiable below a certain lengthof sentence.

During a negotiation, if more work is needed on theMAP proposal, then the parties can reschedule the negotiationon the next regular negotiation date. Many times theParole Authority may require more background information,,a psychological or a more detailed MAP proposal. All ofthese would necessitate further pre-negotiation time. Theprocess would follow the pre-negotiation procedures alreadyoutlined and the revised MAP proposal would be negotiatedat the next negotiation session.

From time to time an inmate or Parole Authority willnot agree on a proposal. Regardless of which party willnot compromise further, the negotiation will end with noMAP Agreement. When this occurs the inmate should be allowedto continue institutional progress toward the normal parolehearing. Any penalties or sanctions for not reaching a MAPAgreement will seriously retard the open nature of thenegotiations. Therefore, inmates should not be penalizedin any fashion after an unsuccessful negotiation session.

Monitoring

Once a MAP Agreement is signed it then becomes theresponsibility of the MAP Coordinator to monitor the progressto the objectives of the contract. Mcnitoring the agreementis important to detect violations, to point up areas ofpotential problem, and finally to certify completion ofthe MAP Agreement. During any pilot project of MAP,monitoring will be simple due to the small number of contractsinvolved. However, once there are a large number of MAPAgreements in force, then the MAP Coordinator will need asystem of follow-up. In the absence of a computerizedmonitoring system, the MAP Coordinator should require asystem of exception reporting by the various staff personswho are responsible for the deliveryof the contractedservices. Each staff person who has a role in the completionof the inmate's MAP Agreement should receive a statementfrom the MAP Coordinator outlining the objective and thetime frame in which the inmate must complete that objective.Preferably, the entire contract should be distributed toall concerned.

21

However, if the contract calls for the inmate toattend three educational classes per week for fourteenweeks and to take the high school equivalency test duringthe thirteenth week, then the education instructor mustbe responsible for reporting absences and also schedulingthe test. Any variation not specifically allowed in theMAP Agreement must be reported to the MAP Coordinator.

For MAP to be effective the monitoring functionmust be strictly observed. Contract terms should be writtenwith sufficient objectivity to allow for no interpretationof the clause. If there is any doubt regarding a potentialdefault or violation of the MAP Agreement, then it mustbe reported to the MAP Coordinator. Staff and programpersonnel must not have the latitude to interpret MAPclauses. If interpretation is needed, then the MAP Coordinatorshould refer the problem back to renegotiation or to anarbitration panel if one is provided by the MAP Model.

Renegotiation

Renegotiation in the MAP process is the element thatallows flexibility in inmate goal setting. It can only beinitiated by the inmate either by request or by violationof the MAP Agreement. In either case, renegotiation is theinmate's responsibility. It is the part of the MAP processthat allows inmate and Parole Authority to establishdifficult criteria in the MAP Agreement. It is also theprocess that is a fail-safe for an inmate who aspires toa goal beyond his/her reach. Renegotiation allows the ParoleAuthority to weigh the reasons for lack of performanceagainst the established goals.

Inmates may negotiate achievement goals that laterprove beyond their capabilities of achievement. Goals inthe areas of educational advancement or skill trainingachievement may be established at levels that are impossiblefor an individual inmate. In such cases, trainers andeducators should advise the inmate to request renegotiationof the goal. These requests should be supported by staffwith the documented attempts of the Inmate to accomplishthe goal. On the other hand, lack of inmate.performancemay not be caused by inmate deficiencies but rather controllablecircumstances. An inmate may fail to attend educationclasses by his/her own choice. Work release jobs may belost due to poor work attendance. In such cases, theviolation of the MAP Agreement would be the responsibilityof the inmate.

When a violation of a MAP Agreement is reported ona MAP Violation Form (Appendix B), the information that is

22

29

reported to the MAP Coordinator must include:

1. Clause(s) of Agreement in Violation2. Facts Surrounding the Violation3. Inmate's efforts to Avoid Violation4. Staff's efforts to Avoid Violation5. Inmate's Proposal for Renegotiation6. Staff's Recommendation

In order to conform with due process, this report is distributedto the inmate so that he /she will have a copy of theinformation which is the basis of the violation. Violationscaused by inmates setting goals that were too high willclearly be revealed to the Parole Authority in such a format.In such cases, the facts of the violation, the inmate's andstaff's efforts to achieve the goal will be consistent.On the other hand, violations caused by lack of performanceby the inmate will also be revealed by the reported effortsof staff and inmate being opposite. Finally, the ParoleAuthority will also know when the violation is caused by apoor effort by the staff personnel. If the inmate's effortsare standard and staff cannot account for any positivesteps, contract violations may be held accountable to staff.In such cases, Parole Authorities have been known to continueMAP contracts or even grant parole on the specific contractdate in spite of the services not delivered by correctionalstaff.

Regardless of the cause of MAP violation, eachViolated MAP Agreement must be renegotiated even if theresult is to close the Agreement as violated. This willallow for a face-to-face confrontation between the originalparties to the Agreement and insure due process requirementsin the recision of the future parole date. In many casesof violation for serious behavior problems, Parole Authoritieswill close the MAP Agreement as violated and the inmatemust return to the normal parole hearing process. Inother cases, where resources or program achievement havenot been accomplished then alternative MAP plans arerenegotiated into a new MAP Agreement. Many times the newAgreement will have the same parole date. In some casesthe date may change to reflect a penalty or a need'for :Acretime to complete the new objectives.

Renegotiation must take place in the same face-to-face setting as did the original negotiations. The MAPCoordinator is once again an inmate spokesperson if necessary.After a MAP Agreement has been renegotiated, the samemonitoring procedures would apply for the MAP Coordinatoras previously described.

23

30

Completion

Depending on the normal process required to issueparole release orders and the institutional procedures toclose out inmate accounts and records, certification of MAPAgreement completion should allow sufficient time for allpaper work prior to the specific parole date. A CertificationForm (Appendix B) should be completed by the counselorstating the specific MAP contract achievements and whenthey occurred. This form should be forwarded to the MAPCoordinator for final approval. In many cases this leadtime may cause a Certification Form to contain informationthat is not fully complete. An objective of a MAP Agreementmay state that the inmate will remain on a work release jobthrough the end of the Agreement. In this case, it wouldbe the responsibility for the counselor to report any MAPAgreement violations to the MAP Coordinator that occurbetween filing the Certification Form and actual parolerelease.

In any case, it is critical to the MAP Model thatinmates not experience any time delays from their agreedrelease. date. This date is not only an important motivationalfactor, it is sometimes a key to transition from prisontraining to community employment. Many post-release plansmay be disrupted by such delays. It is also critical thatinmates trust the MAP process and know that just as theymust abide by the MAP Agreement, so must corrections andthe Parole Authority.

All staff and inmates should be aware of these MAPprocedures and understand the responsibilities of MAP. Asshown on the flow chart at the end of this section, thereare key points in the process at orientation, pre-negotiation,negotiation, and renegotiation when an inmate may electto return to the normal parole process. These pointsaccentuate inmate choice and responsibility. Also, theinformation report forms (Appendix B) required of thestaff of corrections will highlight staff accountability.Pre-Negotiation Summaries, MAP Violation Reports, and MAPCertification Forms all require written explanation ofcorrectional actions. Finally, the Parole Authority duringthe negotiation observes a process that produces specificwritten objectives that guarantee an inmate's parole releaseon a specific date. If negotiations do not produce thisresult, then the inmate has the opportunity to be presentedwith the options and to make a choice.

The MAP process meets all of the major concernsexpressed in the new emphasis on process change in corrections.While meeting these requirements, MAP also provides asystem that will allow correctional objectives to survive.

24

31

Addressing society's need for punishment with an effortat rehabilitation. corrections can set limited goals withintime frames established by MAP negotiations and measurethe accomplishments of these goals. It is the MAP processthat allows correctional administrators to manage thechange forces toward the accomplishment of the system'scomplicated goals.

25

4 2

MAP Declinedby Inmate

EligibleInmate Po ulation

MAPOrientation

\.)(Investigation of

Resources

Inmate ProposesMAP Criteria

Inmate, Corrections& MAP Coordinator

Finalize MAP Criteria

IPreNegotiation

Summaryto Parole Board

NegotiationInmate, MAPCoordinator, Corrections

& Parole Board

NoAgreement

MAP Agreement andParole Date Fixed

Program ICommences

rResourcesConfirmed

AgreementViolation

AgreementCom leted

AgreementRene otiated

New ParoleDate Fixed

ProgramContinued

ParoleBoard

Notified

26

33

1

SECTION IV

ROLE CHANGES IN THE MAP PROCESS

The roles of the principle figures in the MAP processwill undergo substantial change in order to meet therequirements of the MAP Model. Additionally, a completelynew role of MAP Coordinator is established that will beunconventional for the correctional setting. The roleadjustments are important and correctional counselor, ParoleAuthority member, and inmate must be aware of the changes.Understanding the MAP Coordinator's function will also helpto implement the MAP process with a minimum of conflict.

What is a MAP Coordinator

Curiosity, frustration, distaste, and gratitude areamong the responses by the system to the role of the MAPCoordinator. How one person can perform as an advocate,referee, advisor, and conciliator in the same position isa question difficult to resolve. But the role of the MAPCoordinator is shaped largely by the system in which he/she must operate. The ultimate goal of the MAP Coordinatoris to produce negotiation on an inmate's MAP'proposal.Operating in a system that has a great power imbalanceamong inmates, corrections, and Parole Authorities, theMAP Coordinator's role must be i fluid one.

In defining the MAP Coordinator's role, it firstmay be helpful to eliminate those frnctions or roles thatare not the MAP Coordinator's. The MAP Coordinator mustnot be a traditional corrections person with MAP duties asa collateral assignment. The role of MAP Coordinator willprove to be too complex for any individual to change fromMAP duties to correctional duties without losing credibilitywith inmates and Parole Authorities. The MAP Coordinatorshould be administratively responsible to a level that willbe able to avoid inter-agency conflict of interest. Aspreviously mentioned, if the local situation is one ofseparate corrections, Parole Authority, and parole servicesreporting to an overall administrator, then the MAPCoordinator should be responsible to that overall administrator.Since inter-agency cooperation is essential, the MAPCoordinator must be perceived as not representing anysingle agency.

Neither is the MAP Coordinator a correctionalombudsman. Although the MAP Coordinator is independentof any one agency, he/she is not independent of all agenciesinvolved but rather very dependent upon their. cooperation.In this light, the MAP Coordinator, unlike the ombudsman,

27

34

must be keenly aware of agency interests and needs whilerelating inmate needs to these agencies. Some results ofthe ombudsman role are also obtained by the MAP Coordinatorwhen during the MAP process information is required fromall points of view (inmate, Parole Authority, corrections).However, the MAP Coordinator has no investigative powersof an ombudsman and no power to arbitrate disputes.

Due to the fact that the MAP Coordinator has nopower of arbitration, he/she is not an arbitrator. The roleof an arbitrator would produce, in most states, an impossiblesituation for a MAP Coordinator. Most parole laws throughoutthe country require that the Parole Authority determineparole release criteria. If the MAP Coordinator was anarbitrator, then the MAP process would violate these lawsby having actual parole determination authority vestedin the MAP Coordinator. Additionally, the MAP Model callsfor agreement through, negotiation rather than a decisionrendered by an outside party. Where the arbitrator's rolewould lead to a binding imposed agreement, the MAP Coordinator'srole facilitates negotiation by the principle parties,inmate, corrections, and the Parole Authority.

With the MAP Coordinator not responsible to anysingle agency and not having a role as an ombudsman orarbitrator, but rather a facilitator of negotiations, thenwhy not characterize the MAP Coordinator as a mediator.The mediator seeks a voluntary agreement on an issue betweenall parties. The mediator may render advice, offer recom-mendations, or propose compromises to the negotiations.But unlike the arbitrator, the mediator cannot render anybinding decision and cannot force an agreement. The roleis almost made for the MAP Coordinator.

But the MAP Coordinator is not a mediator either.In a labor/management dispute where both sides deal frompositions of considerable power, a neutral mediator's rolemay prove quite helpful in reaching an agreement. The samerole placed in a MAP negotiation will not have the sameeffect due to the traditional power imbalances that haveexisted among inmates and corrections and Parole Authorities.Neutrality by the MAP Coordinator would produce MAPAgreements reflecting the traditional bargaining strengthof each party rather than the new shared responsibility ofthe MAP process. Inmates will undoubtedly find no realnegotiations when aided by a neutral MAP Coordinator.

The MAP Coordinator must then also be a strongadvocate for the inmate during negotiations. Lawyers arethe traditional advocates of our society. With the inmateneeding to gain a share of the power in order to bring

28

35

about open negotiations, why not characterize the MAPCoordinator's role as a lawyer, indeed, why not requireall MAP Coordinators to be members of the bar. Once againthe system has shaped the MAP Coordinator's role. A roleof strict and legal advocacy would elicit a similar responsefrom corrections and Parole Authorities. Statutory authoritywould then revert back to absolute power and the negotiationswould become impossible. Although advocacy is a criticalelement in the MAP Coordinator's role, at times it must betempered with compromise, insight, and reality. When aMAP Agreement is finally signed it should reflect the newshare of responsibility and power of the inmate in relationto the existing needs of society reflected by correctionsana Parole Authorities.

The MAP Coordinator is the person who will makethe process successful. This person must be informed enoughto be believable, independent enough to be trusted, andflexible enough to be productive. Parole Authoritieswill always be reluctant to share power. inmates willalways feel that they do not have enough, and correctionswill feel both ways. Ironically, the MAP Coordinator afterfacilitating a power balance that creates true conflicthas the responsibility to resolve this conflict andproduce a MAP Agreement.

Correctional Counselor Role

Correctional counselors, instructors, trainers, andother helpers in the correctional setting will have theirbasic role changed by the MAP process. Counselors in thecorrectional setting have always labored under a dualrole. On one hand, most counselors are introduced tovarious helping theory approaches to behavior change thatrely heavily upon client involvement and in many casesclient choice. But on the other hand, correctional counselorsare asked to conduct their counseling within a setting ofcoerced adherence to rules designed to minimize opportunitiesfor deviation from an institutional routine. Behaviorchange is hardly compatible with this atmosphere.

Orthodox correctional counselors in this settingmay be disturbed with the MAP concept of providing theinmate with an opportunity to have input in setting goals.The possibility of an inmate rejecting help from a counselor,no matter how much needed, is a prospect that may causeconsiderable conflict between the counselor and inmate.In turn, since the MAP Coordinator must assure inmatechoice in a MAP proposal, conflict will inevitably resultbetween counselor and MAP Coordinator. But the MAP

29

36

process. if examined, should result in a more reasonablerole for the counselor. MAP allows the counselor to sharethe burden of behavior change with the inmate. Thischange in itself is worth the entire MAP process. No longerwill a counselor be compelled to develop an array ofdeficiencies or "illnesses" for each inmate to be "treated"and "cured" by arsenal of inadequate resources. MAP shouldallow the counselor to put down this impossible role ofthe rehabilitation model and assume a pragmatic approachto counseling.

Many counselors will feel, however, that MAP is athreat to their competence. Counselors may feel that lessweight is being given to their opinions and less inputis being required. Many counselors' reactions to MAP havebeen to simply say "let the inmate do it" and have offeredno help at all in setting goals. On the contrary, counselorinfluence on inmates is much more needed with MAP sincean inmate who has had difficulty setting goals in the pastis now asked to propose goals that may lead to parole.Counselor evaluation and insight will be better utilizedon the inmate's behalf during the pre-negotiation processof MAP than as a subjective evaluation of past institutionalprogress.

Counselors must see their new role under MAP asproductive and beneficial. They must realize that thecounseling efforts in the coercive correctional settingtend to be one - sided, sterile, and often counterproductiveeliciting responses from the inmates that are perceivedas necessary for favorable parole recommendations.Experiments in self-determination counseling models inwelfare systems show that the clients who do seek counselinghelp enter more meaningful relationships with theircounselors. Correctional counselors under MAP must encouragethe inmate to determine his/her needs in terms of concreteprograms to be presented during MAP negotiations.

If the counselor and an inmate disagree on the MAPproposal, caution should be exercised not to coerce theinmate into adopting the counselor's proposal. It is,however, the counselor's responsibility to explain thebenefits of the proposals in dispute and aid the inmatein understanding how these proposals would aid in post-release success. If the inmate fails to see the value ofthe proposals or disagrees with the value of the proposals,then the matter should be discussed openly with the MAPCoordinator at the finalization meeting. A compromiseon the MAP proposal should be sought; however, if theInmate insists on the proposal, then thz... counselor mustallow the finalization to occur with a favorable presentation

30

37

by the MAP Coordinator. If the counselor feels stronglyenough opposed to the MAP proposal, his/her role under MAPrequires written dissent. The counselor's objectionsshould outline how the inmate's MAP proposal is not adequateand what is needed to make it adequate.

After the MAP neutiation if an Agreement is signed,the counselor's role is one of delivery of services to allowthe inmate to complete the Agreement and monitoring thecompletion of the Agreement objectives, Additional servicesnot covered by the MAP Agreement may be provided if theinmate and the counselor agree. Although the basic MAPAgreement programs must be accomplished, this does notpreclude other helping activities on the counselor's part.

In the correctional setting when Inmate achievementgoals are limited and objectivp, then accountability is anatural by-product. For many years inmates have been heldaccountable, often for matters they had little control over.On the other hand, most correctional counselors have notbeen held accountable for further criminal behavior orfuture behavior change of inmates (and rightfully so). Butnow under the MAP process, limits will be set on the timeframe of services delivered, definite objectives will be setfor those services and all of this will provide a measurefor accountability of counselor services.

Some correctional counselors may welcome the factof accountability, others may not. The fact is that fewcounselors are accustomed to having their services toinmates evaluated in objective terms. In a system oftraditional non-accountability, this factor alone is boundto create conflict. Counselors input and feedback regardinggoals in MAP Agreements will be critical to avoid problems.

Role change is always difficult. As mentionedbefore, counselors must perceive the MAP process as beneficialto their overall performance before they will makeappropriate role adjustments. Since many counselors havebeen attracted or retained by their actual job functionrather than the job description of correctional counselor,role change for many may be impossible. In these instances,counselors may find the MAP process to be extremelythreatening to their traditional role,

Parole Authority Role

If any single segment in the correctional processhas been required to perform an impossible task underimpossible conditions, it has been the Parole Authority.

31

38

In most states Parole Authorities are required to determine,without the benefit of any statutory criteria, the absolutelength of incarceration, degree of behavior change,acquisition of skills or education, possibility of futurecriminal behavior, and in some cases the possibility offuture violent behavior. All of these determinations areto be made for the most part on the basis of written reports(sometimes inaccurate and lacking substance) and a briefformal interview (the parole hearing). A task that wouldstrain the talents of a Jeane Dixon is routinely practicedin forty-nine statesl and all federal institutions.

Under the MAP process, the Parole Authority has theopportunity to make their role:a more rational one. Barringthe future possibility of enlightened sentence reform, therewill continue to exist a need in our correctional settingfor a person or a group of people to outline the requirementsfor release from an exceedingly long and unreasonablesentence. Under MAP the Parole Authority must analyze inmatedeficiencies and relate these deficiencies to objectivegoals of inmate achievement in the areas of education, skilltraining, work assignment, treatment, and behavior. Limitingthe time frame for achievement of these goals establishesthe definite parole date for the inmate. Following the MAPnegotiation the inmate and corrections share the mutualresponsibility for MAP Agreement completion.

But what about prediction of future violent andcriminal behavior. It is not that most Parole Authoritieswant to retain this task in their job deScriptions, it issociety that believes the prediction can be accurately made.The general public believes that with the insights frompsychiatry and psychology, professionals are able to predictfuture "dangerousness" of an individual. However, in areport issued in July, 1974 by the American PsychiatricAssociation on the violent individual, the summary sectionstated emphaticallys

"The clinician should not regard the preventionof future violence as WiThin his provencapability . . . Psychiatric expertise inthe prediction of "dangerousness" is notestablished and clinicians should avoid"conclusory" judgments in this regard."2

IThe State of Maine has recently adopted a Bill toabolish their Parole Board and require the sentencing judgeto hear any appeals on sentence reduction.

2Clinical Aspects, of the Violent Individual, TaskForce Report Washington, D. C.: American PsychiatricAssociation, 19710.

32

39

It would seem that the same admonishment would apply toParole Authority members that for the most part do not evenpossess a psychiatric background.

The Parole Authority's role under MAP is notcompartmentalized. To the contrary, the Parole Authoritymembers will be required to spend more time reviewing casesand negotiating with inmates and corrections. Psychologicalmaterial as well as other case reports must now be usednot only in evaluation of inmates but in goal and limitsetting during negotiation. The Parole Authority rolewill become more involved and more time consuming. Theresults should allow the Parole Aehority to find theirnew task more rational and attainable.

Inmate Role

If all other role adjustments are made and the MAPprocess is implemented, then the inmate's role will alsorequire change. In today's sociological theory, inmatesare encouraged to view their plight as something that hasbeen done to them. The MAP process will require inmates tomake decisions that affect their lives. The MAP Coordinatorwill set a climate that allows inmates to exercise informedchoice and produce realistic objectives that can withstandthe MAP negotiation process.

For an inmate who has been accustomed to themanipulation of the system, the tendency will be to avoidresponsibility and try to figure out the MAP system also.Only through an actual experience will most inmates realizethat MAP is a shared responsibility. Although the inmate'srole must be defined during the MAP orientation, the keyto MAP will be consistency of roles by the other partiesin the MAP process. If inmates encourage counselors towrite their MAP proposals and Parole Authorities to dictateterms, then an elaborate network will be established simplyto develop prescription packages.

Conclusion

A new MAP Coordinator's role and three new functionsfor traditional roles are required by the MAP process.Role change is often difficult and a thorough understandingof new roles and functions will aid immensely in thetransition. The use of the MAP process in correctionswithout the accompanying role adjustments will not allowthe proper. dynamics of the MAP Model to produce thedesired results.

33

40

SECTION V

THE RESOURCES IN THE MAP CONTRACT

The central concern of this manual deals with theprocess of MAP. Since MAP meets all the current concernsregarding the process surrounding parole determinationthis fact alone may make MAP worth implementing in a system.However, the major benefits from MAP may ultimately lie inthe programmed and coordinated delivery of services withinthe correctional setting. Traditional institutional programssuch as training, education, work release, counseling,and work details are all subject to inclusion in a MAPcontract. Additionally, because of the coordinatedadvantages of the MAP process, under used and unusedresources become vital parts in the service picture forMAP inmates. Community programs, other state and federalagencies, and parole services all can take a more definiterole in inmate parole preparation and post-release activities.

Institutional Programs

The efficient utilization of limited resources withinthe correctional institutions of a system has always beena major concern of administrators. Questions as to whichinmates should be trained and educated and in what timeframe it was to be accomplished, have largely been leftup to chance or the manipulative forces of the system.The MAP process, if implemented at an early point in aninmate's sentence, should provide the system with betteruse of these services. It should then be impossible foran inmate to move from training program to trainingprogram without any central purpose.

MAP contracts require the Bittern to make a statementof future inmate movement and programming. One canimagine what current inmate movements would read like ifthey had to be written into a plan of action. Certainly,in most cases, thinking people could not find much rationalein corrections if these plans had to gain prior approval.Consequently, when MAP proposals are being put togetherby inmate and staff, simply the fact that they are writtenplans causes them to reflect a certain minimum rationale.Corrections is forced to utilize programs of education,counseling, training, work assignments, work release,and institutional movements in an orderly and sequentialmanner.

Additionally, current institutional programs willbe subject to the laws of supply and demand under MAP.With inmates and the Parole Authority having a new share

34

41

in correctional programming, no longer will programs beassured of a constant captive enrollment. Programs ingreat demand by both Parole Authority and inmates will bereadily identifiable by the number of requests at MAPnegotiations. Conversely, programs that attract littleinterest from inmates and the Parole Authority may haveoutlived their utility or may be in need of study andrevision. This by-product of the MAP process may bethreatening to corrections program people, however, ifhandled in a proper fashion, it will prove to be anoverall benefit to the system. The system can become trulyresponsive to the needs of parole readiness.

Finally, those institutional programs that have aneed for continuity without lengthy time delays from prisonto the community have their utility increased by MAP.In particular are the training programs that must befollowed immediately by an actual work experience. WhenMAP was first created, it was an initial response to thisexact problem. It soon became evident that if only trainingprograms offered the MAP process, than inmates, whetherthey needed training or not, would want training merelyfor the assurance of definite date parole release.Therefore, MAP became recognized as an overall parolereadiness contract rather than the exclusive element ofinstitutional training.

Community Programs

Private community services and volunteer groups canbecome more beneficial to the correctional system with theadded coordination of the MAP process. Many times suchservices as addict counseling programs, job search efforts,educational facilities are anxious to aid inmates withpre-release and post-release services. Such agencies,however, suffer from funding restr