ACA accreditation sounds like you have achieved something, at least up front. Of course, with all of the smoke and mirrors, it is not what it is supposed to be. Accreditation by the Association is at best not what it may have been intended to be. All agencies have an accreditation spin doctor. CCA is not immune to this.
The "Corporate and Facility Policy" that can not be changed without 'corporate' approval will get changed in the blink of an eye at one facility to appease the viewpoint of an auditor. Running ahead of the auditors and making sure that things are just so was always cute too. I thought that was so fun to have to do. Of course, it was even better to get to take them to speak to certain inmates so that they would hear what you wanted. Of course, to make it seem like this was not what you were specifically trying to do, you had housing units or dorms set up with specific inamtes that they could 'talk to'.
Bear in mind that this was not just one or two facilities. I have personally seen these types of tactics used at multiple facilities. Of course, these practices are not isolated to just ACA.
ACA accreditation should be something to be proud of, because you have brought a facility to a level of excellence in operations. The sad part is, some line personnel may be naive enough to believe that operations have been bolstered to these levels. Sadly, they are being decieved much like the accrediting agencies are doing.
Oh well, enough of my insight for now. Have a good evening all.
out of it that is what you get with a lot of crap to clean up afterwards. If you run by the standards on a daily basis, you get a better running facility everytime. This is the fourth facility I have worked at I know. If your warden allows you to run one way then puts own a new face one month before the audit he or she is doing the department mor harm than anything else. If the warden does not buy in how can he or she expect the staff to do so. When I go on a audit, I talk to any inmate I choose. We visit the cell blocks, the infirmary, and the isolation cells. If there is abuse it sticks out like a sore thumb. That comes with time in the business.
One last point, if you change policy without corporate approval that is a violation of several mandatory requirements. I too have seen these type of activities, they get wrote up every time.
ACA is something to be proud of, for those who use it for what it is intended. Sadly you are so naive enough to believe that some instituions do not reach and maintain these levels of excellence.
I like the reference phrase you used. A "dog and pony show" was a very prudent term. However, I am far from naive about accreditation. I have worked at five facilities over the course of my career.
It is a violation to change CCA Corporate and Facility Policy without prior approval. However, the ones that I know of changing it, never did receive a PSN for their action. Why? They were a corporate staff member. And, no, they were not of the level that they are the one's that authorize corporate policy changes, but they did have them at their disposal to manipulate at the time of the audits to appease the auditors whims or views.
Some institutions may achieve and maintain these levels, but I am also aware that many of the standards are allowed to dropped by the wayside until the re-accreditation audit in three years. I believe that ACA standards were introduced with good intentions. However, it is also a shame that we can so easily manipulate and auditors views by taking them to dinner a time or two while they are in town or taking them out for a few drinks. I know the tricks we use AW0099, I have been part of them several times. I have been through several ACA audits. The times we couldn't manipulate our way through audits, were when the infractions were so blatant that the auditors stood too much of a chance of being found out.
Put your mind at ease though, I know that some government agencies do the same things and are allowed to slide on issues. You are right that government agencies do not receive near the scrutiny that we do on a regular basis over essentially any issue from staffing to escapes.
Also, just a friendly word of advice from me to you, put 'sparks' on ignore. You don't need to continue trying to refute his foolishness. If he had anything to speak of to take to anyone, he would not be threatening it on a public forum. I know that you are already aware of this, because you have already told him yourself. Just let him keep on babbling and do not keep empowering him by responding to his tangents.
The reason we invest is to make gains by buying under valued securities. Intelligent investors try to limit risk balanced by opportunity.
In the case of CXW the common has more risk than the pfd A. And the pfd A has good opportunity. Buying a $25 face value pfd security for a market price of $7 that has accrued a $2 dividend and continues to accrue $2 each year until the dividend is paid has the right balance between risk and opportunity.
The common is way back in line as the pfd A will receive all the accrued dividends in cash before the common gets any dividends or has any real fundamental value. If the common ever has value than the pfd A collects all the $2 yearly dividends owed and then the pfd A increases in price based on current yield. Why would any one consider the common at $1 per share over the pfd A at current discounted prices?