NO PLAGIARISM DUE MONDAY OCTOBER 21, 2019. ATTACHED ARE RESOURCES TO ASSIST WITH ASSIGNMENT

06CH_Corrections_Stojkovic.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >NO PLAGIARISM DUE MONDAY OCTOBER 21, 2019. ATTACHED ARE RESOURCES TO ASSIST WITH ASSIGNMENT

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to

▪ Discuss correctional administration from different analytical perspectives. ▪ Understand common concerns for management, including bureaucracy, budgets, managing, decision making, and both informal and formal aspects of organization.

▪ Discuss prominent management issues that arise in a typical maximum security prison and a probation field office.

▪ Identify issues associated with the changing nature of correctional administration.

Charles Rex Arbogast/Associated Press

Correctional Administration

Analytical Levels for Correctional Administration

Introduction “Administration is most often discussed as the art of getting things done” (Simon, 1976, p. 1). In the context of prisons, administration is the process of managing a correctional organiza- tion. Indeed, correctional managers and leaders have a great deal to do. They must be con- cerned with leadership, planning, organizing, managing internal and external environments, decision making, budgets and fiscal management, program implementation and assessment, human resource management and development, and related areas. Correctional leaders and managers are responsible for directing correctional staff as they accomplish specific goals (Stojkovic & Farkas, 2003). They are expected to maintain a safe and secure environment for both staff and inmates, to provide sanctions to offenders while also providing services that might “correct” their behavior, to “do more with less” as budgets become tighter, and to respond to both internal interests (such as the concerns of unions) and external interests (such as those of courts, legislative bodies, and others; Stojkovic & Farkas, 2003).

This chapter explores selected aspects of correctional administration—ones we think can help develop a fundamental perspective from which to ask questions about why things hap- pen in corrections the way they do. With this aim in mind, it is important to realize that there is a great deal of diversity among corrections organizations and their administration; yet there is also much common ground. For example, Cerrato (2014) notes that certain goals, such as stability and order, are common across all correctional institutions.

6.1 Analytical Levels for Correctional Administration In the United States corrections efforts are not centralized at the national level—there is no single, organizational pyramid with a designated center for coordinating, controlling, and allocating resources. Rather, the United States has a system of federal, state, and local correc- tions efforts. At each level of government, various corrections agencies—such as the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services, each of the State Departments of Corrections, local jails, locally organized probation agencies, and other local agencies—must work within different realms of jurisdiction and responsibility, respond to different external political forces, and deal with different arrangements for funding. Each state has a Depart- ment or Division of Corrections, the typical organization of which is discussed later in this chapter. This section looks at American corrections from different analytical levels of analysis, which include societal, Department of Corrections (DOC), and service delivery. Our primary interest in this discussion is to gain a clearer idea of the context(s) in which correctional organizations are administered and identify some relevant implications for administration.

Societal Level The United States is a diverse society, composed of individuals and groups who hold all dif- ferent types of beliefs and opinions, many of which are often in direct conflict. Americans are also vastly different in terms of their wealth, power, and influence. Therefore, in an orga- nizational sense, we must think about society in a broad manner as providing the “major option-setting context” (Perrow, 1986, p. 263) within which corrections organizations and administrators must operate.

Section 6.1

Section 6.1Analytical Levels for Correctional Administration

Although corrections has no organizational pyramid extending from the national to the local level, it is important to consider the types of forces and factors that shape policies and actions in corrections at the broadest level. At this societal level, we must consider the political, eco- nomic, and cultural conditions that affect the administration of corrections.

Political Considerations Politically, correctional administration is shaped by the distribution of power. Power is the ability to influence or obtain compliance, either as a result of formal authority or the develop- ment of informal influence. Our governmental and social arrangements, and the ways people respond to and think about these arrangements, are crucial facets of the overall context for correctional administration.

In American society, power is distributed among many sets of persons at various levels of government. There are many ways to develop and apply influence and power at each level. Individuals and groups with different interests and unequal influence use a variety of tech- niques to ensure their interests are reflected in the policies that shape the direction of correc- tions. The policies that emerge are political resultants that reflect the power and influence exerted at different levels of government; Allison (1971) used this term to refer to decisions that result from bargaining among key decision makers.

The policies that result are developed gradually. Past decisions, policies, actions, and beliefs have great force and form the base on which current policies are argued, expressed, and implemented. Just as there is no single theory that covers all causes of crime, there is no singular approach to corrections. Those who hold different beliefs about crime’s causes and effects, and about appropriate approaches to corrections, may participate in a complicated set of processes that direct the correctional endeavors in this nation. Those with sufficient influence tend to have their preferences expressed in policy and put into action.

Correctional administrators operate in a societal context characterized by controversy, com- peting interests, and persons and groups who have varying degrees of power. These people and groups seek to “use” corrections organizations to further their beliefs, visions, and inter- ests. Because of the complexity of the U.S. government, there is the possibility for, and the actuality of, competing beliefs, visions, and interests to pull corrections in many directions. Correctional administrators must report to those who have direct control over their opera- tions (for example, the state governor, the legislature’s Corrections Committee or Appropri- ations Committee, and more) and to those who influence those who directly control their operations (for example, powerful political constituents who want a new prison sited in their community, or leaders who see a political advantage in building more prisons rather than finding community alternatives). Powerful, well-organized interests may also include correc- tional officer unions, among others. (See more examples later in this chapter, and consider the issues raised in the feature box, Applying Criminal Justice: Unions, Budgets, and Job Concerns: Powerful Interests.) Remember too that most Americans know very little about corrections, and if they engage with correctional issues at all, it is usually in general ways regarding gen- eral notions about how government operates—or they might respond to select information that is made available by those who have specific interests in government or corrections.

Section 6.1Analytical Levels for Correctional Administration

Economic Considerations Economically, the most prominent corrections-related concerns pertain to the general state of the economy and its potential impact on matters related to correctional administration. During national recessions, there are generally fewer resources available to perform govern- ment work. Conversely, times of rapid economic expansion may result in increased resources or surpluses. It is far easier, many say, to administer an agency or organization whose budget is “fat.”

Applying Criminal Justice: Unions, Budgets, and Job Concerns: Powerful Interests

Correctional departments sometimes face sudden and unanticipated budget reductions, which may force officials to reconsider their capacity for administration and staffing. In some cases, unions may be able to powerfully respond to politically backed budget changes and other correctional administration issues.

In a 2012 news article, the Hanford Sentinel reported that in response to a bill passed by the California legislature aimed at reducing costs, lead- ers at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) had ordered reductions in the number of guards at Corcoran State Prison. Corcoran is a maximum security facility operated by the CDCR, and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA), one of the most powerful unions in Califor- nia, had serious concerns regarding the reductions.

Leaders of the Corcoran chapter of the CCPOA were particularly concerned about potential safety issues associated with the reductions and upset that the CDCR had not responded to these concerns. The article explained the situation as follows:

Rene Hernandez, the chapter’s vice president, said the major problem is the state is cutting important armed positions such as maximum security guards, compromis- ing the safety of the public and other staff.

“We’re trying to get state legislators to see the concerns of the staff and how many critical safety positions are being eliminated,” he said.

Hernandez said the CCPOA has tried to voice its concerns to prison administration as well as to state legislators, but have been ignored. (Luiz, 2012, para. 3)

The concerns presented by the Corcoran CCPOA chapter describe a confrontation between the union and CDCR administration. This union is well funded, has articulate leaders, and employs skilled attorneys. The CCPOA lobbies the California legislature and important politi- cal figures; it also tries to strategically place its members on important policy making boards and commissions to influence the CDCR.

Imagine you are the secretary of the CDCR, an organization with over 22,000 correctional officers. How would you envision creating a “win-win” from a situation like that presented here? How could your organization work with a union to address labor interests? What would be your overall strategy regarding labor relations?

Drew Perine/The News Tribune/Associated Press

Section 6.1Analytical Levels for Correctional Administration

Resources, budgets, and operating costs are often used to frame issues pertaining to correc- tional administration. In general, corrections agencies must compete with all other agencies for available resources. Correctional administrators often think their organizations receive too little or less than adequate resources.

A significant challenge for correctional administration revolves around the fact that, looking at aggregate profiles of those funneled into the correctional system, the “business” of correc- tions largely involves correcting persons from society’s lower socioeconomic levels. Correc- tions agency leaders are tasked with designing strategies, programs, policies, and actions that “correct” people, while being unable to do much about the environments from which offend- ers emerge and to which they most often must return. Corrections is often a frustrating busi- ness, in terms of whether correctional staff can achieve impact or be effective in situations in which outcomes are to a large extent dependent on social, economic, and political forces that are beyond their ability to harness or control. For example, Turkington (2017) notes that Louisiana’s high rate of incarceration is influenced by a variety of sources, including the state’s use of mandatory minimums, recidivism, a shortage of public defenders, and “incen- tives to keep the state’s incarceration rate high” (p. 570).

Cultural Considerations Culturally, we must consider the attitudes, orientations, and beliefs that predominate dis- cussions of just what corrections is supposed to accomplish. Correctional administrators are often forced to engage in a balancing act. They are often placed in no-win situations, stemming from debates and political maneuvering over what options to pursue. They are faced with reinforcing the image of the government as acting to “solve” large problems in the absence of viable “solutions” and in situations in which policy development and implementation must often be derived from a compromise negotiated among those with competing interests and varying degrees of influence over decision makers. There are cyclical calls to “reform” correc- tions—to pursue different options. However, traditions, customs, habits, and past practices can have a very strong pull. It is often very difficult to gain widespread acceptance to pursue new or different options. The overriding political approach to corrections often features a “don’t hurt me” agenda, which means that administrators make as few waves as possible, appeasing any significantly competing interests while trying to show that something con- structive is underway—all while maintaining an acceptable image.

The DOC Level We have chosen to call a second level of analysis the DOC (Department or Division of Correc- tions) level. Our primary concern at this level is for the administrative contexts of Depart- ments or Divisions of Corrections, which are normally structured as major elements of state government, and the large organizations established to carry out corrections efforts for the federal government (e.g., the Federal Bureau of Prisons). Few of these “systems” could be called centralized; that is, various state and federal corrections functions are not organized under a single administrative identity or one large agency. Nonetheless, these large, com- plex organizations are primary elements in the delivery of corrections services in the United States, and it is important to understand the concerns and issues related to administration at this level.

Chapter 2 discussed variations in the structure of state and federal departments/divisions of corrections. As you read, keep those variations in mind. Figure 6.1 shows a typical DOC: a

Section 6.1Analytical Levels for Correctional Administration

large, complex governmental organization structured to provide an array of correctional ser- vices under the authority of a state government. The state represented also has correctional services (such as probation, in its largest cities; community correctional centers; jails; and some other community-based services) organized under local government authority, but the focus of our attention is the big state agency.

Figure 6.1: Internal and external environments that affect the DOC

The DOC is a complex, state-run governmental organization that must address numerous, often competing, concerns from both internal and external environments.

In terms of its organization, the DOC has an internal environment (the composite of formal and informal aspects within the organization). We will further discuss the internal environ- ment of corrections organizations in upcoming sections on common concerns and institu- tional management. For now, it is important to note that the DOC is highly differentiated, it has several major subdivisions, and many of its members work in specialized subunits. In effect, the issues, problems, and tasks the DOC must address and carry out are subdivided, and its structure reflects this.

Organizational Interests Those who manage and work within each major subcomponent and specialized subunit tend to concentrate on their own portion of the organization and to selectively prioritize their roles, their share of the overall problems, and their organizational interests as the most important.

Top-level management must ensure that the entire organization functions as a well-integrated entity. As might be expected, many difficulties stem from having a differentiated structure.

State legislature State governor

External

Internal

Other exec agencies

Field services Field services Field services

Media Interest groups Other CJ agencies

Federal courts

DOC

State courts

Division of community correctionsJuvenile institutionsAdult institutions

Section 6.1Analytical Levels for Correctional Administration

Top-level management must allocate resources for the entire organization, often using a limited budget. At budgeting time, those in charge of administering the major subcompo- nents and specialized subunits often compete with each other for slices of the budget pie, and budget maneuvering can cause organizational tension. Top-level management is ultimately accountable for distributing resources throughout the organization, and difficult decisions must be made about internal issues that rarely satisfy all those concerned. Similar difficulties emerge when trying to coordinate and control the operations of the DOC.

Different Locations The DOC’s subelements are physically located across the state. Their operations do not take place in a vacuum, and they are subject to the influences of their immediate environments. This makes controlling and coordinating the organization a very complicated undertaking. Consider a probation field office operating in a particular city. This office must establish work- ing relationships with nearby law enforcement agencies, courts, district attorneys’ offices, and more. These relationships may include both formal and informal working agreements that require the cooperation of all who are involved.

Top-level management may issue general policies to guide the field office’s operation, but lower level managers are usually tasked with executing such policies and dealing with the details of day-to-day operations. In addition, field offices across the state will encounter vari- ous situations. Even this cursory illustration should help us begin to understand the dele- gation of authority (the legitimate power inherent in a position to manage, sanction, and provide incentives) and the existence of discretion at all levels of management. These are important aspects of the internal environment. Coordinating and controlling such a large agency is difficult, and considering the many aspects of DOC operation (budgeting, personnel decisions, task accomplishment, etc.), administration is neither simple nor easy.

The External Environment DOC administrators must also confront the external environment, which encompasses the significant forces outside the organization that affect its operation. Most top-level correc- tional administrators recognize that they operate in very political contexts. As important and time-consuming as their activities are in terms of confronting and resolving the organiza- tion’s internal issues and problems regarding its day-to-day functioning and the accomplish- ment of tasks, most top-level managers are primarily focused on interacting with significant people in the external environment. At the system (department or division) level, there are numerous significant relationships to be maintained with other organizations, groups, and individuals important to the operation of the DOC. The slate of “significant relationships” may vary somewhat from state to state and per the issues or problems that directly involve the DOC. It is important to think about such relationships and how the external environment affects administration. It is not necessary to exhaustively list all potentially important “signifi- cant others,” but we offer the following as examples.

The DOC is an agency within the executive branch of state government. Its top administra- tor is appointed by the governor; therefore, the governor has significant influence over the direction of overall policy for the DOC. Here, policy means a formally expressed practice or strategy of action.

Section 6.1Analytical Levels for Correctional Administration

Do not lose sight of the fact that governors are elected and respond to influential constituents; they also have many demanding responsibilities. Under one governor, a DOC might have a top administrator who has a strong corrections background and is inclined to “do something con- structive” with offenders; under another governor, however, the top administrator may have a corporate or “big government” background and be primarily inclined to operate an “efficient agency.” It may be somewhat uncharitable to say, but many governors develop a “don’t hurt me” agenda regarding the DOC’s operation—meaning that the top administrator is expected to keep a low profile for the DOC, satisfy as many interests as possible, keep operations stable and efficient, and otherwise avoid having problems surface.

The state legislature is another critical player in the DOC’s external environment. The DOC’s budget is dependent on the action of the legislature, and top-level administrators must attempt to maintain relationships that put them in a good position to lobby for funding. Also, the legislature passes laws that directly affect the DOC’s operations. Top-level administrators must maintain relationships that put them in a strong position to lobby for or against legisla- tion important to them and the organization. The legislature has committees, subcommittees, and individual members (those who are particularly interested in corrections, for whatever reason) important to the DOC. The DOC’s top-level administrators are particularly concerned with relationships with finance committees, judiciary committees, corrections commit- tees, and individual legislators who take a keen interest in corrections—either as allies or antagonists.

Both state and federal courts are also sig- nificant to those who control the DOC. Regarding the courts, many correctional administrators view themselves as gener- ally on the defensive, responding to litiga- tion (and even possible litigation) that may arise from various sources. Consider a hypothetical DOC currently operating under a consent decree, a settlement of a lawsuit in which the administration agrees to take certain actions without admitting fault or guilt for the situation that gave rise to the suit (Oran, 1983). This decree is issued by a federal district court, stem- ming from a class action lawsuit filed by inmates. It should be noted that this situa- tion is not far-fetched—almost all state DOCs have had a federal court order issued against either the entire system or one or more of the major institutions. In such a situation, the DOC’s administrators, under a plan agreed to in court, are required to take action in a number of areas to alleviate conditions the federal judge has found unaccept- able. The court will monitor progress. The DOC’s top administrators will respond directly to ongoing inquiries made by the federal judge. In addition, other litigation is continually pend- ing. A great deal of top management’s energy is thus focused on maintaining a management posture and creating sets of policies and operating procedures that can provide a strong array of defensible positions to litigation.

Alex Wong/Getty Images News/© 2009 Getty Images The media plays an important role in corrections administration because their coverage influences how the public views the DOC. How can an administration use the media to regulate its image?

Section 6.1Analytical Levels for Correctional Administration

The media must also be recognized as an element of the external environment affecting the DOC. The media, and its various elements, are powerful: It helps set the tone for opinions of the DOC and pursues issues that can result in either criticism of or favorable publicity about the DOC and its administration. The DOC’s top administrators are concerned with image management—the process of designing and controlling an organization’s representation, which involves policies and procedures regarding interactions with media personnel and the release of information. Controlling image management is difficult given the organization’s size, and the fact that its subelements and personnel are spread throughout the state, offering many points of potential access and interaction.

The general public is also an important part of the external environment. After all, tax dollars support the organization, and the “public” may quite rightfully be termed the “clients” (or purchasers) of the services the DOC provides. However, as noted earlier, the public is com- posed of individuals and groups that have and advocate for diverse interests and opinions and have varying degrees of access to and influence over important decision makers.

There are a variety of interest groups within the external environment. These are organized groups of people who want their preferences expressed in policies or actions—in this case those that pertain to corrections organizations.

Examples of potentially important external interest groups are

• inmate rights groups; • various reform groups (e.g., neo-retributionist reformers); • professional groups with vested interests (e.g., the American Correctional

Association); • unions (e.g., correctional officer unions); • community interest groups (e.g., those seeking or opposing the location of a particu-

lar prison); and • private-sector interest groups (e.g., those interested in vendor contracts, private sec-

tor financing arrangements, or institutional facility management contracts).

The external environment may also produce technologies that inform aspects of correctional administration. Bargaric, Hunter, and Wolf (2018) explore how emerging technologies could be used as substitutes for incarceration, which could potentially reduce the number of pris- ons and alter how correction is administered.

Top-level DOC managers must interact with those seeking to influence the organization’s operation. Often, these external “significant others” are quite powerful and have a broad base of political support. However, many external groups are relatively underpowered; that is, they may act in “good conscience” but have not amassed the power or support to swing a great deal of weight. The difficulty for top management lies in determining to whom to respond, and how. Occasionally, top management may wish to use external interest groups to further its own aims. In this case, management issues center on developing and maintaining alliances that are considered critical for the organization’s support and management’s perceptions of the DOC’s interests.

Beyond this, the DOC’s external environment includes several other organizations important to its operation. Other criminal justice organizations are important in the sense that they

Section 6.2Bureaucracy in Corrections Organizations

provide a larger process, of which the DOC is a part. Policies (such as sentencing changes) are important to the DOC and its leadership. The DOC’s administrators must stay aware of poten- tial shifts and may need to provide input on other organizations’ policies.

Other government agencies, such as a Department of Administration, or Management and Budget, are also important. The DOC’s administrators must comply with the policies and pro- cedures of outside agencies when resulting actions affect the DOC. Again, the DOC’s top man- agers may need to have input concerning the development of policies and procedures that affect them; they also may need to establish and maintain good working relationships with the administrators of other agencies to help facilitate the DOC’s smooth operation as a part of the larger network of government organizations.

Service-Delivery Level The service-delivery level includes single organizations that are directly involved with correc- tions-related operational activities—these include correctional institutions, probation field offices, and other organizations established to provide various correctional programs. These organizations may be component parts of DOCs, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, or any one of the organizations established and controlled through a local government (i.e., that serve limited areas and populations). Correctional administration can also include indirect govern- ment delivery of services, which “combines the authority, legitimacy, and resources of the government with the management capabilities of more flexible and theoretically more cost efficient private sector entities” (Ferrandino, 2017, p. 55). The privatization of corrections is explored further in Chapter 10. An extensive list of the many facilities associated with the Federal Bureau of Prisons can be found at https://www.bop.gov/about/facilities/. As you review this list, think about how various facilities in the Federal Bureau of Prisons contribute to correctional operations.

Earlier, we used the term system to refer to the DOCs. In the terminology of organizational the- ory, system can refer to a large, multifaceted organization such as a DOC; to a smaller, single organization and its component parts; or to any of the component parts analyzed unto them- selves. In other words, a correctional institution may be viewed as an organizational system with an internal and external environment, in the same way we viewed the DOC as a system.

6.2 Bureaucracy in Corrections Organizations Whether we are considering a DOC, a prison, a probation field office, or a particular program- delivery organization, corrections organizations should be understood as complex, bureau- cratic organizations. Corrections organizations are not unique in this sense; that is, govern- ment organizations, and most private sector organizations, may be generally characterized in the same way.

Bureaucracy refers to a ubiquitous organizational form, characterized by hierarchy of authority, written rules and procedures, specialization, and expertise. Most of society’s orga- nizations are to a large degree bureaucratic. Their structures and activities are based on the following:

Section 6.2Bureaucracy in Corrections Organizations

• a division of labor, • a multilevel formal structure with a hierarchy of positions or offices, • dependence on formal rules and procedures to ensure uniformity and to regulate

the behavior of job holders, • an impersonal nature, • employment decisions based on merit, • career tracks established to allow for advancement and secure commitment of

employees, and • supposedly the separation of the organization member’s work affairs and his or her

personal affairs. (Robbins, 1987, p. 233)

These characteristics illustrate the classical perspective on organization proposed by Max Weber in 1947. They illustrate “Weber’s ‘ideal’ type of rational [goal-oriented] and efficient organization” (Robbins, 1987, p. 233). An investigation into any corrections organization will reveal formal design features that to a large extent reflect the above characteristics. However, it is important to note that the Weber “ideal” is just that. It is not a factual description of how most organizations operate (Robbins, 1987). When considering the internal environments of a corrections organization, we find the formal frameworks to be bureaucratic, both in terms of their structure and expected behaviors. Nonetheless, the operation and administration of these organizations does not necessarily match the ideal in all respects.

As an organizational design, bureaucracy has many strong and positive qualities. For example, at the very least, lines of for- mal authority and accountability, duties, and responsibilities are specified and made clear. Standardization—the con- sistency in operations resulting from the use of rules and procedures for recurring situations or aspects of operation—is the central theme of bureaucracy, and the var- ious mechanisms associated with stan- dardizing operations help coordinate and control the activities of large numbers of people.

On the other hand, the bureaucratic form itself can give rise to many organizational dysfunctions. For example, rules and regu- lations can become more important than the ends they are designed to achieve, employees may become alienated by the impersonality inherent in bureaucratic design, and there may be impediments to adaptation or change that stem from the effort to standard- ize and regulate behaviors by developing routines and repertoires of action (Robbins, 1987; Rainey, 2009; Bibas, 2017). These are among the many criticisms of bureaucracy as an orga- nizational form.

The formal foundation for corrections organizations is bureaucratic. This foundation in part shapes the context within which correctional administrators operate. However, there is more

Rogelio V. Solis/Associated Press Bureaucracy is a key part of the corrections system. Here, Mississippi’s corrections commissioner addresses members of the House Corrections and Judiciary Committees. Why is bureaucracy necessary in correctional organizations?

Section 6.3Management Issues for Administrators

to consider in thinking about the internal environment and administration. Notably, there is an informal dimension to life in complex organizations. Patterns and networks of commu- nication, influence, and power, along with norms and expectations concerning work group performance and behaviors, are among the many aspects of administration and operation that arise as informal facets of organizational life that get overlaid and intertwined with the formal design. The informal may supplement, complement, or compete with the formal. Cor- rectional administrators must attempt to live with, understand, confront, utilize, and perhaps even change the formal and informal dimensions of their organizations.

6.3 Management Issues for Administrators The generic functions of management include planning, organizing, leading, and controlling (Robbins, 1984; Rainey, 2009). We have noted that corrections organizations are bureaucratic and hierarchical. In other words, manage- ment positions exist at various levels of these organizations. If we refer to the DOC example, we see that there is a top level of management for the entire organization, another level at the major subdivision level, and another at the single subunit level (for example, each prison has a war- den or superintendent and deputy war- dens or deputy superintendents, and each probation field office has a chief probation officer and perhaps a deputy chief proba- tion officer). Within each subunit organi- zation are levels of management (from the subunit’s top managers, such as wardens and deputy wardens, through supervi- sors, such as shift supervisors or living unit managers). Some organizations have more levels of hierarchy (more levels of management) than others.

It is important to think in a broad sense about what managers at different levels do. They all make decisions, as well as plan, organize, lead, and control (Robbins, 1984). But as we move from an organization’s lower, operational levels (where service-delivery tasks are carried out by line workers) to its upper, policy-oriented levels, there are differences in terms of the nature of problems that arise, what managers need to focus on, and the nature and scope of the man- agement functions performed. Supervisors are most likely to be concerned with technical problems associated with carrying out specific sets of tasks on a day-to-day basis. Their man- agement activities tend to primarily involve leading or controlling by directly supervising line employees. Upper level managers are most likely to be concerned with problems or issues that often are not well defined, that involve a large number of interested parties, and that primarily involve resolving questions of value or preference in selecting and organizing options to pursue. As our focus moves from middle-level management to top-level manage- ment, we would expect to see managers devoting more time to planning and resolving very broad issues, as well as organizing to pursue the appropriate options, and less time directly leading and controlling the activities of subordinates.

Kevin G. Gilbert/Herald-Mail/Associated Press Management is an important role that exists at every level of a bureaucracy. How do the roles of managers along a hierarchy work together to benefit correctional policies?

Section 6.3Management Issues for Administrators

Decision Making and Context When it comes to making decisions in the field of corrections, it is again important to consider context. We have already discussed how the external context for decision making is political; the same is true for the context of the internal environment. As noted, those in various subdi- visions normally prioritize their own subdivision’s interests. Moreover, different individuals and groups throughout the organization may think their own individual or group interests are most essential, and these interests may not coincide with management’s perceptions of the organization’s best interests. Beyond this, the development of informal networks of influ- ence, communication, and power within the organization overlap formal groupings.

In their decision-making activities, correctional administrators engage in a process charac- terized by bureaucratic politics (Allison, 1971). Particularly at the middle and upper levels of management, most decisions may be described as political resultants

in the sense that what happens is not chosen as a [rational] solution to a prob- lem but rather results from compromise, conflict, and confusion of officials with diverse interests and unequal influence; political in the sense that the activity from which decisions and actions emerge is best characterized as bar- gaining along regularized chan nels. (Allison, 1971, p. 162)

Consider the development of a policy, such as an organization’s budget, which is the resultant of a set of decisions concerning the allocation of its financial resources. Inside the organiza- tion, in its internal environment, everyone will be affected by these decisions, and many will try to influence them. Certain managers, by virtue of their position, will participate directly in the decision-making process; their positions place them in formal networks or lines of author- ity, giving them formal responsibility for budget decisions or for input regarding these. Others may seek to influence those directly involved, either using formal communication channels or informal lines of influence. “Power,” formally or informally, is a blend of (a) “bargaining advantages,” (b) “skill and will in using bargaining advantages,” and (c) “others’ perceptions of the bargaining advantages” (Allison, 1971, p. 168) available to anyone who participates in the process.

This means that those with interests in the budget seek to sway the most influential deci- sion makers, and the influential decision makers seek to influence one another. There may be many permutations of interests and interested parties. To put it in simple terms, consider a top-level administrator who wishes to increase the number and quality of programs offered to inmates. Imagine that the correctional officer force is unionized, is strong, and has a primary interest in receiving pay increases, having job security (both in the sense of job tenure and in terms of working in a physically secure environment), and increasing the number of cor- rectional officer positions. Imagine that those with professional interests in various programs (e.g., inmate education or therapeutic programs) are seeking increases in funding, staffing, and programming. Imagine that there is a limited projected increase in monies available for salaries and positions—one item in the overall budget.

The correctional officer union has bargaining advantages tied to its strength in numbers, its connections to decision makers inside the organization who favor the union’s position, and its external connections to influential lobbyists and others. Those with an interest in securing funding for programs have similar advantages. Although they may not speak with as singular

Section 6.3Management Issues for Administrators

a voice as the union, they may present support from externally organized professional asso- ciations, have several administrators in favor of their position, and for the purposes of our example, may represent inmates’ desire for more programs.

Add to this the maneuvering of significant others outside the organization and we can imag- ine the intense debate among those who must reach a resultant decision. The overall budget decision process may involve many such difficult issues, and ultimately it may be necessary to compromise—or it may be that those with sufficient bargaining advantages may prevail in having the policy reflect their interests.

These types of complex problems are continually emerging in corrections organizations, and management must confront many such problems simultaneously. Many of the problems will have deadlines by which they must be solved, and thus management will focus its attention on meeting those deadlines, presenting “acceptable” decisions, and designing or providing incentives and controls that encourage those tasked with carrying out the corresponding actions to conform with the effort.

Correctional administrators’ legitimacy largely depends on maintaining fairly stable organi- zations that achieve something (or at least appear to). Do not disregard “bureaucratic poli- tics” as necessarily negative. Rather, consider that the extent to which formal and informal interactions involve the internal and external environment is an important factor in why things happen the way they do in corrections.

Focus on Institutional Management Much of the research on correctional administration has emphasized the management of maximum security correctional institutions. In this section we use the administration of a maximum security institution to analyze management at the service-delivery level. Keep in mind that correctional facility census data (2005) shows that approximately 20% of the con- finement facilities in the United States are maximum security institutions. Furthermore, they house approximately 33% of all inmates (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005). The average size of the inmate population in these institutions is just over 1,000 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005). Also keep in mind that there is significant variability among confinement facilities, particularly if we consider all institutions, from maximum to minimum security. Nonethe- less, correctional institutions have enough in common in terms of administration that we can extend our analysis across institution types.

Consider a typical maximum security prison—Waupun Correctional Institution in Wisconsin (see Figure 6.2). Information about the prison is available at the Wisconsin Department of Corrections website (https://doc.wi.gov/). Like most correctional institutions in the United States, Waupun Correctional is located in a small, rural community. As of April 2018, its inmate population was approximately 1,258. From July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017, the average daily cost to incarcerate each inmate was $102.30 (State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections, 2017). The prison is a rather large, complex, bureaucratic organization with a differentiated structure—there are major divisions for custody, program services, and management opera- tions, each of which is subdivided into a number of sections with several specialized subele- ments (see Figure 6.2). As of June 2017, Waupun Correctional had a total staff of approxi- mately 445, with administrative positions extending from superintendent to line supervisor.

Section 6.3Management Issues for Administrators

Figure 6.2: Internal and external environments affecting Waupun Correctional Institution

As is the case for the DOC and other large, maximum security prisons in the United States, administrators at Waupun Correctional Institution must contend with numerous influences from both internal and external environments.

As a complex organization, Waupun Correctional Institution may be said to have both an internal environment and an external environment (remember our previous discussion of the DOC and see Figure 6.1). Correctional institution managers must be aware of an array of influences or forces in both the external environment and internal environment. In this regard, the administration of a correctional institution takes place in a very complex context.

External Concerns Correctional institutions like Waupun are a part of a larger organization; in this case, the Wisconsin DOC. The institution must operate within the parameters and policies established by the DOC’s top management. The superintendents of correctional institutions are granted much freedom in setting institutional policies, depending on the degree of control their upper level DOC management deems necessary. In general, wardens or superintendents have a rela- tively high degree of autonomy. However, these administrators remain accountable to other administrators, such as the director of adult institutions and the DOC’s chief executive.

In addition, Waupun Correctional is situated in a small, rural community. The prison is a major local industry and, similar to an auto plant or other factory, supports many jobs in the area.

State government Local government

DOC administration

External

Internal

Custody Program services

Business management

CourtsCourts

Superintendent

Inmates

Correctional officer labor unions

MediaInterest groups

Vendors (contract services)

Organizers (Representatives)

Section 6.3Management Issues for Administrators

As of June 30, 2017, Waupun Correctional had an annual operating budget of over $46 million (State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections, 2017) and each year maintains a multimil- lion-dollar payroll. The prison’s operation depends on numerous contracts with local vendors (e.g., food service and maintenance contracts). Local community leaders are interested in the operation of Waupun Correctional. They are likely to initiate interactions with the superin- tendent or other upper level managers concerning the prison’s economic potential. Also, local leaders may initiate interactions regarding community protection or even on issues associ- ated with better understanding the prison and its operations.

Waupun’s superintendent must also interact with individuals and groups that are interested in this particular prison because of its inmates. The superintendent and other upper level managers may interface with inmate rights’ groups, their families (regarding issues such as visitation), and court officials (particularly when litigation specific to the institution is under- way). Beyond this, the prison’s administrators may interact sporadically with other inter- ested parties, such as researchers who want to enter the prison to carry out various projects, state legislators who have special interest in its operation, and members of the media. Media attention and interest may range from sporadic to continuous. Journalism regarding prisons involves topics such as escape, prison conditions and deaths, AIDS, and debates regarding punishment versus rehabilitation. Therefore, the prison’s administration must be sensitive to the fact that media might be interested in the prison, and the administration should be aware of any interactions between media and staff or inmates. In fact, many DOCs have a communications office that responds to news items and issues press releases related to cor- rectional activities. For example, Waupun Correctional’s media interactions are handled by the Wisconsin DOC’s Communications Office (https://doc.wi.gov/Pages/AboutDOC/Commu- nicationsOffice.aspx).

As a final example of a significant external interest, consider that Waupun Correc- tional’s officer force is unionized. The union is organized outside the institution and reflects interests of a constituency much larger than its members who work in the prison. The upper level managers must understand the labor contract and be prepared to interact with union repre- sentatives. Such interactions are particu- larly important—even though this inter- est group is externally organized, many of its members work inside the institution (are a part of its internal environment as correctional officers) and are vital to its functioning.

Administrators must realize the nature of the external environment and develop an understanding of the degree to which such forces may affect the institution. These administrators cannot hope to control all these forces, but they may seek to shape the environment through interactions designed to maximize favorable relationships between those connected to the institution and external parties with interest in it.

Rich Pedroncelli/Associated Press Assuring that inmates have access to recreation time is one of many internal concerns administration must consider. What concerns might administrators regard as more important than others?

Section 6.3Management Issues for Administrators

Internal Concerns Waupun Correctional has a differentiated internal environment and presents complex issues for administration (see Figure 6.2). Moreover, managing the prison requires coordinating and controlling diverse work groups (administrative personnel, correctional officers, program services personnel) and the inmate population. Administrators must plan for and manage operations in a variety of areas, some of which are listed here (adapted from McGee, 1981, pp. 76–77):

a. Inmate custody and institutional security 1. discipline 2. inmate records 3. grievances 4. visitation 5. rights and other privileges

b. Inmate care and welfare 1. classification and counseling 2. health and medical care 3. education and vocational training 4. recreation 5. religion 6. social services 7. release services

c. Inmate work programs 1. plant maintenance, perhaps construction 2. factory management 3. farm production 4. inmate wages and account system 5. hobby management and management of other income-producing activities

d. Business and fiscal management 1. budgets 2. accounting 3. procurement 4. property control 5. food services

e. General administration 1. personnel management and labor relations 2. personnel development 3. public relations 4. relations with other government agencies 5. relations with others in the DOC

Waupun Correctional also offers several rehabilitative programs, including anger manage- ment, coping skills, prerelease modules, Thinking for a Change, a behavioral health unit, building maintenance and construction, and correspondence courses (Wisconsin Depart- ment of Corrections, 2017).

We noted earlier that standardization is a central feature of bureaucratic organization. Rules, regulations, standard operating procedures, and routines provide a formal basis for much of what needs to be done. Together with the formal system of hierarchy and authority, these help coordinate and control the work of the institution. Waupun Correctional is typical of

Section 6.3Management Issues for Administrators

other institutions in that it is bureaucratized—it has several levels of hierarchy and has myr- iad policies, rules, and regulations.

Formal operation arrangements are often complemented and sometimes circumvented by informal expectations, informal policies, interpretations and use of discretion, and informal routines that develop over time. Formal expressions (e.g., policies and rules) are not always appropriate for and do not always cover every situation, which can mean those involved must interpret the situation and use their discretion. At times, formal authority associated with a person’s position gives way to informal forms of power (such as wielding the ability of an expert to influence others, being a force of personality, or using certain bargaining advantages).

Formal and Informal Concerns From an administrative point of view, managing the institution is largely a matter of recogniz- ing and utilizing the formal and informal aspects present in the organizational context. This is not simple. The formal organization refers to the explicit aspects of an organization, includ- ing its rules and policies, structure, positions, authority, and channels of communication. The informal organization refers to patterns of behavior, interaction, and power that arise from personal association in an organization beyond the explicit formal arrangements.

The formal and the informal come together in practically all of the institution’s activities. Think again about authority and power. Authority, as we have defined it, is formally present in the hierarchy of institutional positions. Most people probably conceive of the institution as controlled through the formal organizational authoritative pyramid—in other words, having a superintendent who issues broad orders or directives that are clarified and embellished as needed at the middle levels of management, then having first-line supervisors who present the ultimate orders to line personnel, who apply them in their areas of operation. This con- ception describes the essential notion for operation. It also describes a bureaucratic concep- tion of “total power,” in that it is expected that the power to reward or sanction will account for task accomplishment and control. Those lower in the organizational pyramid are usually regarded as responsible for obeying those in positions of authority.

However, maintaining an institution’s control or equilibrium is not adequately described by the above. The distribution of power does not simply coincide with the lines of formal author- ity. Rather, power is distributed in a polycentric manner, across many centers of control. At the very least, we must recognize that the institution’s management and staff are concerned with controlling a large inmate population (management and staff are far outnumbered). This inmate population has no absolute duty to obey those with formal organizational authority (Sykes, 1958). Moreover, the inmate population is not composed of a single-minded group of persons. The inmate subculture is differentiated, and power and influence within this sub- culture are distributed in a polycentric manner. Controlling the inmate population involves a complicated blend of formal authority and informal influence, power that is shared or distrib- uted among those in management, staff, and inmate groupings.

We must also recognize that management is differentiated, at least by level and across divi- sions. Managers in the institution are not necessarily of a single mind regarding the institu- tion’s operation and which tasks are most important, which activities should take priority, and which approaches might result in acceptable outcomes. Staff are also differentiated and represent different interests or at least different perspectives on the institution’s operation

Section 6.4A Changing Landscape for Correctional Administration: Special Populations

and their own roles within it. Consider differences such as those between program service personnel and the correctional officer force, as well as those within these nominal groupings. Think about the different potential roles, aims, perspectives, and interests within the officer force. While overall the correctional officer union from our example may present a rather singular perspective when negotiating with management, the correctional officers may them- selves present a broad set of concerns regarding the institution’s operation. This may be more apparent when we think about the activities, task assignments, and possible aims of cell block officers, those working in administrative assignments, work detail officers, yard officers, and so on. Roles within an administration may vary in part due to the focal points of persons in such roles, and even those in the same role may hold different perspectives on how the insti- tution should be operated (Ricks & Eno Louden, 2015).

It is critical to realize that informal aspects of organization and power may complement, supplement, and circumvent the formal aspects. We must be aware of the numerous con- cerns involved with the management and operation of an institution. Maintaining equilibrium or stability—control of the institution—is a primary aim. Doing so requires careful balance among many factors, especially managing a give-and-take relationship among the various work groups and between the inmates and staff.

If we conceive of stability as a primary outcome, then we may think of the various factors that affect power as variables in an equation. Changes in the balance of these factors—these vari- ables—may result in changes in the balance of power and affect stability. Successful admin- istrators understand this and carefully consider the balance of any given institution. Success- fully maintaining stability while also accomplishing something constructive requires those who manage institutions to possess technical proficiency, conceptual ability, and well-devel- oped social skills. Successful administrators understand an institution’s polycentric distribu- tion of power, as well as the nature and effects of external forces that impact this distribution.

6.4 A Changing Landscape for Correctional Administration: Special Populations

Over the past 3 decades, the landscape for correctional administration has been changing, particularly with regard to special inmate populations. In states with three-strikes laws and where the law allows life sentences without chance of early release or parole, populations of elderly inmates are growing and constitute one such special population group. Some states, as well as the Federal Bureau of Prisons, have increased the use of security housing units (SHUs) for inmates who are designated as dangerous, creating a different type of special population. (See the scenario in the feature box Applying Criminal Justice: Managing the SHU.)

In some prison systems, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C have created special populations that require special attention (Stojkovic, 2005; Iroh, Mayo, & Nijhawan, 2018). Concerns for the provision of mental health services have drawn the attention of the courts, and some prisons, even entire systems, have responded to far-reaching court orders to deal with mental health issues.

The following have become other specialized areas of concern for correctional administration (Stojkovic, 2005):

Section 6.4A Changing Landscape for Correctional Administration: Special Populations

• treating chronic diseases, such as tuberculosis, asthma, hypertension, heart disease, diabetes mellitus, epilepsy

• treating depression • addressing post-traumatic stress disorder • managing youthful offenders incarcerated in adult institutions • managing transgender offenders • managing sex offenders • managing death row inmates • providing for pregnant inmates in facilities for women

Special populations will continue to demand attention from correctional administrators. According to Stojkovic (2005):

These special population prison- ers are often unable to be effec- tively managed and supervised by correctional staff in traditional ways. Instead, the effective man- agement of special population prisoners requires either new or innovative approaches or modi- fication and alteration to existing policies and procedures. (p. xv)

Additionally, Blanck (2017) explores ser- vices, risks, and legislation associated with managing offenders with physical challenges and/or special needs. Correc- tional administrators must prepare for all such challenges.

Applying Criminal Justice: Managing the SHU

The following discussion is adapted from McGrath and Lovell, 2005.

SHUs were created to remove violent and disruptive inmates from general prison popula- tions so that other inmates would not have to fear victimization (18–2). SHU units come in different shapes and physical plant designs (18–2). They are specifically intended to isolate designated inmates (18–2–18–3). The CDCR has two types of SHU placements. The first is a “determinate” placement. Inmates may be placed in an SHU for specific misconduct or crimi- nal behavior for a time period lasting from 2 months to 6 years (18–3). The second is an “indeterminate placement.” Inmates may be placed in an SHU for an indeterminate time as the result of a pattern of misconduct/criminal behavior involving multiple violations (18–3). “These placements are reviewed on a semiannual basis to evaluate the need for continued SHU placement” (18–3). Inmates who are violent and disruptive and who have been

(continued on next page)

Rich Pedroncelli/Associated Press The number of elderly inmates in prisons is increasing, as is the cost of maintaining them. What can be done to address issues related to managing this special population?

Conclusion

Conclusion Correctional administration covers a broad set of issues. It is useful to analyze correctional administration from different levels and perspectives, focusing on the relevant administrative implications at each level. Correctional organizations vary significantly in terms of their size, budget, structure, degree of bureaucratic complexity, and scope and nature of operations. It is important to consider the societal level of analysis and identify concerns associated with the “major option-setting context” (Perrow, 1986, p. 263). At this level, attention is directed toward the overall development of aims and policies.

At a second level, which we have termed the DOC level, attention is directed toward large, complex organizations, such as the Departments or Divisions of Corrections and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Here, the relationships of these organizations to significant others in an external environment, or operating context, deserve attention. In addition, administrators need to appreciate a complex internal environment that may be characterized by bureau- cratic politics, as described by Allison (1971).

At the service-delivery level, we focus on organizations of various sorts directly involved in providing correctional services. These may be state government agencies, locally organized and administered organizations, or those that carry out broad or limited correctional func- tions. Attention at this level is directed toward managing complex internal structures and environments while appreciating the external contexts and operational and administrative requirements.

Applying Criminal Justice: Managing the SHU (continued)

validated as having gang affiliations may be placed in an SHU for an indeterminate time period (18–3). Gang members in an SHU must complete a 6-year period without evidence of continued gang activity to be designated “inactive” and be released from the SHU. Gang members may “defect” or dissociate themselves from the gang by completing a rigorous pro- cess. Any who complete this process may be considered for release from the SHU (18–4).

Consider the California SHU (a fact sheet with additional information on SHUs can be found at https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/STG/docs/Fact%20Sheet-SHU%20with%20photos.pdf ). Inmates may be in isolation for very long periods. These inmates are placed in this situation for being violent and disruptive, and the procedures for placing them there are explicitly detailed. There are many concerns for administrators regarding management of inmates and SHU placements (see McGrath and Lovell, 2005, for a full discussion). Consider this statement:

It is absolutely imperative that everyone be clear that inmates are human beings, and the job is to keep them safe, provide for their physical needs, and provide them an opportunity to change and grow. While individual choices made by inmates may limit their privileges, we are not in the punishment business. (18–6)

If you were the administrator of an SHU, what values would you want to instill in the SHU staff ? Remember the inmates are violent and disruptive and are placed there to isolate them from the general population. What would be your approach? Under conditions of isolation, how would you envision providing the opportunity to change and grow?

Conclusion

Correctional administrators face many challenges, including budgeting concerns and emerg- ing issues associated with special populations. Many correctional administrators feel intense pressure to “do something positive” while balancing the demands of a vast array of both inter- nal and external entities. This chapter is a basic foundation to developing an understanding of the complexities facing administrators in corrections.

Key Ideas • Administration as used in this chapter refers to managing organizations, specifically

correctional organizations. • Three levels of analysis are useful for understanding administration and corrections:

the societal, DOC, and service-delivery levels. • It is important to understand political, economic, and cultural considerations at the

societal level of analysis. • It is important to consider organizational interests, the internal and external envi-

ronments, and the constellation of external interests, especially at the DOC level of analysis.

• It is important to consider bureaucracy and particular management issues, including internal and external concerns, at the service-delivery level.

• The considerations discussed at each level of analysis apply at all levels, in adapted forms.

• The formal and informal aspects of organization come together in practically every- thing that is done in correctional organizations or by corrections personnel.

• Special inmate populations are changing the landscape for correctional administra- tion in the 21st century.

Critical-Thinking Questions 1. Describe the external environment for correctional administration at a societal level

of analysis, a DOC level of analysis, and a service-delivery level of analysis. 2. Relate the internal environments of correctional organizations to issues of correc-

tional administration. 3. Depict the internal and external environments of a maximum security prison and

discuss the context of administration. 4. Explain how the landscape for correctional administration is changing with regard to

special populations. 5. Discuss how correctional officer unions might impact the operation of correctional

organizations. 6. Discuss the influence of power and internal bureaucratic politics in a correctional

organization’s decision-making process. 7. Explain the bases of power in a maximum security prison. 8. Imagine you are the top administrator at a state’s Department of Corrections. What

would be your top three concerns in leading the organization? 9. Discuss the importance of understanding formal and informal aspects of organiza-

tion in managing a maximum security prison. 10. Discuss the operational context of a probation field office that is part of a State

Department of Corrections. Imagine you are the agent in charge of the office. What are your top three concerns in managing the office?

Conclusion

Key Terms administration The process of managing a correctional (or any) organization.

authority The legitimate power inherent in a position to manage, sanction, and provide incentives.

bureaucracy An organizational form char- acterized by hierarchy of authority, written rules and procedures, specialization, and expertise.

consent decree A settlement of a lawsuit in which the administration agrees to take certain actions without admitting fault or guilt for the situation that gave rise to the lawsuit.

“don’t hurt me” agenda An administra- tive strategy that advocates making as few waves as possible and appeasing any signifi- cantly competing interests.

external environment The significant forces outside the organization that affect its operation.

formal organization The explicit aspects of an organization, including its rules and policies, structure, positions, authority, and channels of communication.

image management The process of designing and controlling an organization’s representation.

informal organization Patterns of behav- ior, interaction, and power that arise from personal association in an organization, beyond the explicit formal arrangements.

interest groups Organized groups of peo- ple who want their preferences expressed in policies or actions—in this case, those that pertain to corrections organizations.

internal environment Elements within an organization that shape its policies and actions.

policy A formally expressed practice or strategy of action.

political resultants A term used by Allison (1971) to refer to decisions resulting from bargaining among key decision makers.

power The ability to influence or obtain compliance either as a result of formal authority or the development of informal influence.

standardization Consistency in operations resulting from the use of rules and proce- dures for recurring situations or aspects of operation.

Web Resources This web page includes information on correctional facilities associated with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Additional information on the Federal Bureau of Prisons may be found through the various links within the site. https://www.bop.gov/about/facilities/

This website contains a wealth of information about the administration of one of the world’s largest corrections organizations, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, including the CDCR strategic plan. http://www.cdcr.ca.gov

Conclusion

This website contains information concerning the structure and operation of a typical DOC, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, and its elements. https://doc.wi.gov

This website provides information and insight into what is perhaps the most powerful cor- rectional officers union in the world, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. http://www.ccpoa.org

The website of the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) leads to information on most aspects of corrections and other criminal justice organizations and operations. http://www.bjs.gov

The American Correctional Association website leads to many sources of information on correctional administration and the operation of corrections organizations, including standards. http://www.aca.org

Additional Resources This article studies the impacts of the three-strikes legislation in California, with regard to deterrence and incapacitation.

Datta, A. (2017). California’s three strikes law revisited: Assessing the long-term effects of the law. Atlantic Economic Journal, 45(2), 225–249.

This article explores ideas that address cost challenges in California’s correctional institutions.

Fuetsch, H. (2017). The progressive programming facility: A rehabilitative, cost-effec- tive solution to California’s prison problem. University of the Pacific Law Review, 48(2), 449–473.

This article explores power and objectives associated with prosecutors and sheriffs, within the context of elements that may inf luence incarceration rates.

Hoeffel, J. C., & Singer, S. I. (2015). Elections, power, and local control: Reining in chief prosecutors and sheriffs. University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender & Class, 15(2), 319–328.

This book provides an interesting approach to examining the administration of public organizations. It provides excellent background in organizational theory and concerns for managing complex organizations.

Rainey, H. G. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

This article considers how inmate participation in a vocational activity may impact self- perception during and following incarceration. Changes in this regard may affect correc- tional administration.

Rogers, K. M., Corley, K. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2017). Seeing more than orange: Organiza- tional respect and positive identity transformation in a prison context. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(2), 219–269.

Conclusion

This anthology illuminates criminal justice administration from a number of perspectives and includes several articles specific to correctional administration.

Stojkovic, S., Klofas, J., & Kalinich, D. (Eds.). (2010). The administration and manage- ment of criminal justice organizations: A book of readings (5th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

This is a classic work on bureaucracy and the nature of public bureaucracies.

Wilson, J. Q. (2000). Bureaucracy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.