Chat with us, powered by LiveChat what would you do? | Abc Paper
+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

As a correctional officer assigned to manage a 40-man housing unit in a maximum-security prison, what problems might you face? How would you handle them?As the superintendent of a prison, what sort of management problems do you face? Which people can help you solve them?Post in depth (3-4 paragraph) APA cited posts with in text/reference list (Quality is key)(APPLY THE BOOK AND AT LEAST ONE OUTSIDE SCHOLARLY SOURCE, CITING (IN TEXT AND REFERENCE LIST) AND PARAPHRASES AS WELL AS THE RESEARCH)Chapter 13 from the book is the uploaded filePlease make sure that what you write uses the critical thinkingprocess. Make sure what is written doesn’t just address peripheral issues butuses analysis and creative thought. Don’t just recite facts/textual informationbut be sure to also address the issues being questioned with analysis and creative thought. Make sure what iswritten is articulate/understandable and free from errors in grammar,punctuation and/or usage.
ac_ch_13.docx

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Chapter 13
Clear, Todd R.; Reisig, Michael D.; Cole, George F.. American
Corrections. Cengage Learning. Kindle Edition.
THE DEFENSEATTORNEYand his client sat quietly and listened to the prosecutor
address the court in New Brunswick, New Jersey. The defendant, Luis Roman, had
been accused of masterminding a vast criminal enterprise that distributed cocaine,
heroin, marijuana, and prepaid cell phones inside the Adult Diagnostic and
Treatment Center and at the Northern State Prison in Newark. Roman, who pled
guilty to racketeering and other charges, was not an organized crime boss, nor was
he a powerful prison gang leader. At the time of his indictment, Roman was an 18year veteran state correctional officer.1 It is no secret that much of the contraband
found in prisons comes in with staff. Researchers have talked about the corruption
of prison officer authority for more than 50 years. For example, Gresham Sykes
observed that prison officers sometimes tolerated minor rule violations in exchange
for inmate cooperation.2 And, more recently, investigations have focused on
identifying and describing different types of officer–prisoner relationships that
violate departmental policies. Such actions not only jeopardize prison order,
constitute an abuse of legal authority, and violate public trust, but they can also
result in criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits. The Roman case involved a lot
more than an officer looking the other way while an inmate engaged in low-level
misconduct. Prison inmates used their contacts on the outside to obtain contraband.
Roman would pick up the goods, stuff them in his boots and under his protective
vest, and then smuggle them inside the walls. He would next hand the contraband
over to inmates in the kitchen and laundry for distribution. In all, authorities believe
Roman’s operation involved 35 people, including other officers, inmates, and even
Roman’s ex-wife. Regarding the matter, Corrections Commissioner Gary Lanigan
said, “I’m appalled that a member of this department would place his fellow
employees, as well as the public, in danger by smuggling contraband including cell
phones into a prison for personal gain.”3 Roman was ultimately sentenced to five
years in prison without parole for his transgressions.4 The prison differs from
almost every other institution or organization in modern society. It has unique
physical features, and it is the only place where a group of employees manage a
group of captives. Prisoners must live according to the rules of their keepers
and with restricted movements. When reading this chapter, keep in
mind that prison managers 1. Cannot select their clients 2. Have little
or no control over the release of their clients 3. Must deal with clients
who are there against their will 4. Must rely on clients to do most of
the work in the daily operation of the institution— work they are
forced to do and for which they are not paid 5. Must depend on the
maintenance of satisfactory relationships between clients and staff
Given these unique characteristics, how should prisons be run?
Further, wardens and other key personnel are asked to perform a
difficult job, one that requires skilled and dedicated managers. What
rules should guide them? Remember that a wide range of institutions
fall under the heading of “prison.” Some are treatment centers serving
a relatively small number of clients; others are sprawling agricultural
complexes; still others are ranches or forest camps. Although new
facilities have opened in recent years, many prisons remain as large,
fortress-like institutions with comparable management structures
and offender populations. In this chapter we look at how institutional
resources are organized to achieve certain goals. At a minimum,
prisoners must be clothed, fed, kept healthy, provided with
recreation, protected from one another, and maintained in custody. In
addition, administrators may face the tasks of offering vocational and
educational programs and using inmate labor in agriculture or
industry. To accomplish all this in a community of free individuals
would be taxing. To do so when the population consists of some of the
most antisocial people in the society is surely a Herculean
undertaking, one that depends on organization.
Formal Organization The University of Texas, the General Motors
Corporation, and the California State Prison at Folsom are very
different organizations, each created to achieve certain goals.
Differing organizational structures let managers coordinate the
various parts of the university, auto manufacturer, and prison in the
interests of scholarship, production, and corrections. A formal
organization is deliberately established for particular ends. If
accomplishing an objective requires collective effort, people set up an
organization to help coordinate activities and to provide incentives
for others to join. Thus, in a university, a business, and a correctional
institution the goals, rules, and roles that define the relations among
the organization’s members (the organizational chart) have been
formally established. Amitai Etzioni, an organization theorist, uses
the concept of compliance as the basis for comparing types of
organizations. Compliance is obedience to an order or directive given
by another person. In compliance relationships, an order is backed up
by one’s ability to induce or influence another person to carry out
one’s directives.5 People do what others ask because those others
have the means—remunerative, normative, or coercive—to get the
subjects to comply. Remunerative power is based on material
resources, such as wages, fringe benefits, or goods, which people
exchange for compliance. Normative power rests on symbolic
rewards that leaders manipulate through ritual, allocation of honors,
and social esteem. Coercive power depends on applying or
threatening physical force to inflict pain, restrict movement, or
control other aspects of a person’s life. Etzioni argues that all formal
organizations employ all three types of power, but the degree to
which they rely on any one of them varies with the desired goal. Thus,
although the University of Texas probably relies mainly on normative
power in its relationships with students and the public, it relies on
remunerative power in relationships with faculty and staff. Although
General Motors is organized primarily for manufacturing, it may
appeal to “team spirit” or “safety employee of the month” campaigns
to meet its goals. And although the warden at Folsom may rely on
remunerative and normative powers to manage staff to make this
facility the best correctional facility in the United States, in working
with prisoners he relies primarily on coercive power. The presence in
high-custody institutions of “highly alienated lower participants”
(prisoners), Etzioni says, makes the application or threat of force
necessary to ensure compliance.6 Coercive power undergirds all
prison relationships, but correctional institutions vary in their use of
physical force and in the degree to which the inmates are alienated.
Correctional institutions can be placed on a continuum of custody or
treatment goals. At one extreme is the highly authoritarian prison,
where the movement of inmates is greatly restricted, staff–inmate
relationships are formally structured, and the prime emphasis is on
custody. In such an institution, treatment goals take a back seat. At
the other extreme is the institution that emphasizes the therapeutic
aspect of the physical and social environment. Here the staff
collaborates with inmates to overcome the inmates’ problems.
Between these ideal types lies the great majority of correctional
institutions. However, this custody–treatment continuum may
neglect other aspects of imprisonment. After all, we expect a lot of
prisons, including rehabilitate the deviant, punish the wretched, deter
the motivated, and restrain the habitual. Broadly speaking, the
purpose of imprisonment is to fairly and justly punish convicted
offenders through periods of confinement that are commensurate
with the seriousness of the offense. Thus, the mission with respect to
prisoners has five features: 1. Keep them in: The facility must be
secure, such that inmates cannot escape and contraband cannot be
smuggled in. 2. Keep them safe: Inmates and staff need to be kept
safe, not only from each other but from various environmental
hazards as well. 3. Keep them in line: Prisons run on rules, and the
ability of prison administrators to enforce compliance is central to
the quality of confinement. 4. Keep them healthy: Inmates are entitled
to have care for their medical needs. 5. Keep them busy: Constructive
activities, such as work, recreation, education, and treatment
programs, are antidotes to idleness.7 Prison work entails
accomplishing this mission in a fair and efficient manner, without
causing undue suffering. The state may run correctional institutions
with other goals as well, but these are the main ones. The
Organizational Structure For any organization to be effective, its
leaders and staff must know the rules and procedures, the lines of
authority, and the channels of communication. Organizations vary in
their organizational hierarchy, in their allocation of discretion, in the
effort expended on administrative problems, and in the nature of the
top leadership.
. Concepts of Organization The formal administrative structure of a
prison is a hierarchy of staff positions, each with its own duties and
responsibilities, each linked to the others in a logical chain of
command. As Figure 13.1 shows, the warden is ultimately responsible
for the operation of the institution. Deputy wardens oversee the
functional divisions of the prison: management, custody, programs,
and industry and agriculture. Under each deputy are middle
managers and line staff who operate the departments. Functions are
subdivided according to prison size and population. Three principles
are commonly used to organize the functioning of hierarchically
structured organizations: unity of command, chain of command, and
span of control. Unity of command is the idea that it is most efficient
for a subordinate to report to only one superior. If a worker must
respond to orders from two or more superiors, chaos ensues. Unity of
command is tied to the second concept, chain of command. Because
the person at the top of the organization cannot oversee everything,
he or she must rely on lower-ranking staff to pass directives down.
For example, the warden asks the deputy warden to have custody
conduct a shakedown; the deputy warden passes the directive to the
captain of the guard, who then has the lieutenant in charge of a
particular shift carry out the search. The term span of control refers
to the extent of supervision by one person. If, for example, a
correctional institution offers many educational and treatment
programs, the deputy warden for programs may not be able to
oversee them all effectively. This deputy warden’s span of control is
stretched so far that a reorganization and further division of
responsibilities may be required. Two other concepts clarify the
organization of correctional institutions: line and staff. Line personnel
are directly concerned with furthering the institution’s goals. They
have direct contact with the prisoners; such personnel include the
custody force, industry and agricultural supervisors, counselors, and
medical technicians. Staff personnel support line personnel. They
usually work under the deputy warden for management, handling
accounting, training, purchasing, and so on. Custodial employees
make up the majority of an institution’s personnel. They are normally
organized along military lines, from deputy warden to captain to
correctional officer. The professional staff, such as clinicians,
teachers, and industry supervisors, are separate from the custodial
staff and have little in common with them. All employees answer to
the warden, but the treatment personnel and the civilian supervisors
of the workshops have their own titles and salary scales. Their
responsibilities do not extend to providing special services to the
custodial employees. The top medical and educational personnel may
formally report to the warden but in fact look to the central office of
the department of corrections for leadership. The multiple goals and
separate employee lines of command often cause ambiguity and
conflict in the administration of prisons. For example, the goals
imposed on prisons are often contradictory or unclear. Conflicts
between different groups of personnel (custodial versus treatment
staff) and between staff and inmates present significant challenges to
prison administrators. The Warden The warden is the chief executive
of the institution. The attitude that he or she brings to the job affects
the organization. Not long ago the prison warden was an autocrat
who ran the institution without direction from departments of
corrections or the intrusion of courts, labor unions, or prisoner
support groups.8 Things are quite different today. Contemporary
prison wardens need a broad set of skills to manage large groups of
employees and to operate facilities in a way that keeps inmates, staff,
and society safe. The primary duties and tasks of prison wardens are
summarized in Table 13.1. The prison warden is the institution’s
main contact with the outside world. Responsible for operating the
prison, he or she normally reports to the deputy commissioner for
institutions in the central office of the department of corrections.
When the warden directs attention and energy outward (to the
central office, parole board, or legislature), he or she delegates the
daily operation of the prison to a deputy, usually the person in charge
of custody. In recent years, wardens in most states have lost much of
their autonomy to managers in the central office who handle such
matters as budgets, research and program development, public
information, and legislative relations. However, the warden’s job
security still rests on the ability to run the institution effectively and
efficiently. At the first sign of trouble, the warden may be forced to
look for a new job, and in some states the top management of
corrections seems to be in constant flux. In short, today’s prison
warden must function effectively despite decreased autonomy and
increased accountability. Management Bureaucracies tend to increase
the personnel and resources used to maintain and manage the
organization. This tendency can especially prevail in public
bureaucracies, which strongly emphasize financial accountability and
reporting to higher government agencies. Correctional institutions
are no exception. Bureaucratic functions often fall to a deputy warden
for management, who is responsible for housekeeping tasks: buying
supplies, keeping up the buildings and grounds, providing food,
maintaining financial records, and the like. However, some states
centralize many of these tasks in the office of the commissioner to
promote accountability and coordination among constituent
institutions. For example, buying supplies from one warehouse that
serves all state agencies has decreased the discretion of prison
management to contract locally for provisions. Most personnel
assigned to manage services for correctional institutions have little
contact with the prisoners; in some facilities they work in buildings
separate from the main plant. Only personnel who provide services
directly, such as the head of food services, have direct contact with
the prisoners. Custodial Personnel Later in this chapter we examine
in detail the role of the correctional officer. Here, simply note that in
most institutions the custodial force has graded ranks (captain,
lieutenant, officer), with pay differentials and job titles following the
chain of command, as in the military. However, unlike the factory or
the military, which have separate groups of supervisors and workers
or officers and enlisted personnel, the prison requires its loweststatus employee, the correctional officer, to be both a supervisor (of
inmates) and a worker (for the warden). This causes role conflict and
makes officers vulnerable to corruption by the inmates. Officers know
the warden is judging their performance by the way they manage the
prisoners, and they can seldom manage without at least some
cooperation from the prisoners. Officers ease up on some rules so
prisoners will more willingly comply with other rules and requests.
“Careers in Corrections” offers a view of work as a state correctional
officer. Program Personnel The contemporary correctional institution
is concerned not only with punishing but also with encouraging
prisoners’ participation in educational, vocational, and treatment
programs. Such programs have been a part of corrections since the
late 1800s, but the enthusiasm for rehabilitation that swept
corrections after World War II created a wider variety of programs,
as discussed in Chapter 14. Here we need only mention that
rehabilitative and educational personnel find it difficult to achieve
their goals in institutions whose primary mission is custody. Industry
and Agriculture Personnel Since the invention of the penitentiary,
inmate labor has been used for industry and agriculture. As we show
in Chapter 14, the importance of these functions has varied over time
and among regions. In some southern prisons, most of the inmates’
time is spent tending crops. In the Northeast, prison farms have
disappeared because they are uneconomical and ill matched to the
urban backgrounds of most inmates. Like other programs, industrial
and agricultural production is usually administered outside of the
strict custodial hierarchy. But unlike educational or treatment
programs, work in a factory or farm requires supervisors. For
example, administrators must often mediate disputes over the need
for officers in guard towers or housing units and the need for officers
in fields or factories.
The Impact of the Structure The organizational structure of
correctional institutions has changed over time. The traditional
custodial prison was run as an autocracy, with the warden
dominating the guard force and often disciplining employees as
strictly as inmates. When rehabilitation became a goal and treatment
and educational programs were incorporated, a separate structure
for programs, often headed by a deputy warden, was added. Its
employees were professionals in the social and behavioral sciences,
who frequently clashed with autocratic wardens who emphasized
custody. As some institutions began to focus on rehabilitation,
correctional planners and scholars frequently contrasted the
traditional prison organization with a collaborative model. For
example, a 1967 U.S. presidential commission report referred
optimistically to the future correctional institution in which a
dedicated and professionally trained staff would work with other
administrators and with prisoners to identify inmates’ problems and
to strive for rehabilitation.9 Such an institution would require
structural changes to deemphasize the traditionally rigid control
function, enlarge the decision-making role of treatment personnel,
and allow input from the prisoners about the operation of the facility.
However, by the 1980s it was hard to find either prisons being run
this way or correctional leaders advocating that they be so run. Some
observers say that no more than a few institutions really followed the
collaborative organizational style. Correctional institutions are more
humanely administered today than they were in the past. This change
is in part a response to the presence of rehabilitative personnel and
programs, the increased training and professionalism of correctional
personnel, the intrusion of the courts, and the growth of citizen
observer groups that monitor operations. Society will no …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

error: Content is protected !!