|
Week 4a Readings
|
Week 4a: Correctional Staff
Readings:
The study of corrections is not complete without a look into how programs are designed and operated. It is also important to look at correctional programs from the perspective of the correctional worker.
It is important to note that administration, organization, and management are under-examined and under-researched. Such aspects should not be neglected because all correctional agencies operate in an administrative environment. In addition, many failures and poor practices have been linked to inadequate management and leadership (not unclear goals or inadequate programs).
How Are Correctional Agencies Organized?
Almost every correctional agency can be defined as a bureaucracy. Max Weber defined a bureaucracy as an organization that is designed to lead to maximum effectiveness. Nevertheless, today’s bureaucracies are known for delay, unnecessary duplication of tasks, and unwanted “red tape.”
It is important to examine the characteristics of a bureaucracy. The characteristics listed below summarize, in general, organizations that can be termed bureaucracies.
· A hierarchy of authority exists, coupled with a downward flow of power. · A division of labor exists with each position; there is no overlap of duties and responsibilities between positions. · There is a reliance on formal rules and procedures. · The work climate is impersonal. · Employment and promotional decisions are based on merit, with career tracks clearly defined.
In addition to the characteristics listed above, it is important to note that bureaucracies emphasize rationality. Members are to assume that rules and procedures are correct, and follow such without question.
In theory, bureaucracies should posses several strengths, such as efficiency, defined standards of conduct, and documentation procedures. Yet, weaknesses often prevent bureaucracies from operating at their full, intended potential in the correctional world. Weaknesses include the failure to adapt to non-routine daily occurrences, time wasted on simple, unnecessary tasks, and the inability to deal effectively with growth and change. Furthermore, individual and personal needs of staff are often ignored in a bureaucratic environment.
Who Administrates and Manages In Corrections?
Who are the administrators in corrections? Generally, the policy makers and chief executives fulfill the administrative role. Specifically, the warden of a correctional facility and directors of specific programs carry out administrative duties. State agencies have directors (or commissioners, as they are sometimes denoted), and the head administrator of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is known as the director.
Who manages in correctional facilities and programs? Many ranks, even the line officers, fulfill managerial roles within correctional organizations. In addition, some scholars, such as Sykes (1958), claim that inmates fulfill managerial roles central to institutional control and operation (see readings from Week #6).
Generally, promotions in corrections come from within a given institution or agency. However, recently, a number of administrators and higher-level managers have come from other institutions or agencies. This practice is used to avoid limited views concerning issues, problems, and solutions that correctional officials may, and often do, face. Many correctional practitioners agree that education and management experience (regardless of the field) should be considered when examining candidates for available administrative positions.
The Decentralization of Correctional Programs
Historically, state correctional departments have operated from one central office. Moreover, prisons have been centrally managed by one hierarchical structure. Nevertheless, excessive growth in correctional populations has led correctional administrators from centralization toward decentralization.
One form of decentralization that is growing in use in prisons in the United States is that of unit management. Unit management consists of small, self-contained housing units that operate in a semi-autonomous fashion within the confines of a larger institution. These units are often termed functional units. Inmates usually are housed in units designated by a particular function (i.e., treatment or security level). Thus, the typical hierarchical management of the traditional bureaucracy is “flattened.” In turn, junior administrators experience direct contact with inmates. Unit management has been well received in light of recent growth in prison populations; however, functional units have difficulty coordinating with centralized components of institutions such as laundry and food service.
Correctional Officers
Correctional officers, from the line staff to those fulfilling administrative roles, perform a myriad of duties in any given day on the job (see the Lombardo selection in Latessa et al.). Some roles are custodial in nature, stressing prison/inmate/staff security. This is the public image of the correctional officer. Other duties performed by prison staff are based within a therapeutic function. These roles are often hidden from public view. In fact, the studies by Lombardo and Cullen et al. (readings in Latessa et al.) support the fact that many correctional workers strive to make a contribution via the provision of human services. In fact, in the piece by Cullen et al., it is noted that prison wardens experience high levels of job satisfaction because of their role in the provision of therapeutic services, the fact that their roles de-emphasize custodial functions, and the increased use (and success) of decentralization.
The Public Image of the Correctional Officer (Johnson, Chapter 7)
The public image of the correctional officer is that of brutal custodian; in other words, a person who will resort to violence to gain compliance from inmates. In reality, only about a quarter of line officers fulfill their role via brutal behavior and methods. Throughout history, line officers have been blamed for inmate abuse, and thus have often been stereotyped as uncaring/unconcerned with inmate needs (i.e., treatment and sanitation). Today, abuse by line officers is less common, in part to the correctional rights movement of the 1960s. However, the stereotype of the brutal correctional officer persists publicly.
When one examines the research literature concerning correctional administration, organization, and management, it is clear to see that correctional line staff are largely ignored by penologists. Too often, scholars choose to focus on “sensational behavior.” (For more information, visit the Stanford Prison Experiment Website at: http://www.prisonexp.org/index.html). Furthermore, journalists tend to focus their efforts on exposing abuse in prisons.
Correctional line staff will often report that they would prefer a different job, as little satisfaction is derived from the work they do. Many become alienated in the same fashion that inmates do, as they are searched, “talked down to” by prison administrators, and share the prison environment on a daily basis with inmates, thus becoming “uniformed prisoners.” The use of discretion in daily duties contributes to the stress (and thus, alienation) that line officers experience, as does the balance many officers must strike when trying to satisfy the needs of administrators AND inmates. Alienated officers may resort to violence and form cliques with other alienated workers in the prison facility. In turn, inmate resistance may ensue, which creates situations where line officers may resort to more violent measures to maintain control in the facility.
The Private Agenda of the Correctional Officer (Johnson, Chapter 8)
Many correctional officers do not fulfill the role of the brutal custodian; in contrast, many in the correctional work force aim to promote security in the inmate population and a positive, therapeutic regime with the facility. These staff members do what they can with resources provide to them; furthermore, they cope maturely with circumstances and problems they face on a daily basis. In turn, many officers who fulfill the role of human service agent feel less stress and more rewarded in the daily duties they perform.
Authority does not have to have a negative connotation. Those in authority can promote an atmosphere of guidance and nurturance. Line officers can, and do, engage in activities that provide guidance and nurturance to inmates. Some officers feel that their work is worthwhile, and continually aim to develop their skills.
The relationship between officers and inmates can be critical to the operation of the prison facility. The trust and guidance that embodies the correctional officer can be critical in disturbances, as violence can only escalate through the use of brutal and demoralizing measures. In turn, officers gain more authority and satisfaction with their jobs. What roles does the correctional officer fulfill? He/she is involved in the provision of goods and services for the inmate. In responding regularly to inmate needs, the officer denotes him or herself as stable and predictable. The correctional officer also serves as an advocate, as he or she may negotiate for appropriate treatment services for inmates. When funding for treatment services is at a minimum, the correctional officer can act as a “lay counselor.” Officers can also collaborate with one another to form “helping networks” with one another to expand their knowledge and access to many services within the facility. Furthermore, because an officer interacts with inmates on a daily basis, he or she can recognize crises before they escalate. In turn, he or she can begin to build trust with inmates experiencing such crises. This will affect the social nature of the institution in the long term.
|