The Virginia Department of correction and its prison entry organizations are one of the oldest correctional facilitators in the United States of America. The department has been in existence since late 1700 when it started its operations in Jamestown as its headquarters. However, the administrative town later changed to Richmond as the place had better facilities to be used. After the US revolutionary war suggestions were raised so as to enhance better service delivery in the correction of individuals in the community. For instance, Thomas Jefferson recommended that the department construct a penitentiary house for holding better and efficient services (Clear, 2018). However, this was not received by the authorities in a good way since they rejected it. For a couple of years, the state didn’t respond to the suggestion till 1796 when the Virginia legislature in conjunction with Benjamin Latrobe approved it.
The construction began in around 1800 whereby it took approximately three to four years to construct it and to start functioning fully. Sources argue that the department started receiving prisoners and other state offenders in 1804. The organization has since then grown in its operations by providing corrections to various individuals in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Through its success, it has received prisoners from different states such as New Mexico, Colombia, and Connecticut to offer correctional and rehabilitation to individuals. However, some complained against the unfair treatment of offenders and relocated them to their home states such as those from Connecticut. According to recent reports, the organization has more than 50 institutions it is working with for example the Lawrence correctional center. In addition, it has grown its number of employees from 4100 to recently having approximately 13000.
The Virginia department of corrections has adopted various HR policies and procedures that have helped it meet its goals. Some of the rules it has extracted from the US labor department and the constitution among many other sources that include trade unions. However, there are other practices that I think are not appropriate in relation to what is supposed to do (Goshin, 2017). To begin with the level of staffing and the number of employees the department has. In my research through the various complains raised by some of its employee who argued that the department has lesser employees than the required ones. Therefore it is said to be understaffed making its workforce to do a lot of work than the standard requirements by the law. For instance, those who work as prison guards are made to be in charge of many prisoners than the required number approximately a ratio of 1:15 unlike the recommended one of 1 to 9.
Secondly in relation to human resource practice the department through its understaffing it gives longer working hours for its workforce than normal. Some of its staff complained that they are forced to work for longer hours than the expected time, for instance, some said that they may work more than 10 hours a day. I think this is not the ideal work time for individuals in any organization it should be around 8-9 hours a day (Klev, 2016). In addition to that, some of its employees complain of poor management that affects employees. Some employees argued that the management doesn’t effectively conduct its roles as required this includes senior officials harassing its staff. It was realized that some officials unfairly treated its officials which is not a good practice, for instance, racial criticism and discrimination. Also, there were complaints of discrimination because of gender, for instance, most guards who are employed are the males. Therefore I suggest a change in the listed wrong HR practices by the Virginia Department of correction and prison.
First of the reasons for the recommended change is to ensure equality and fair treatment of its employees. I think it is common sense to fairly treat individuals regardless of race, gender, ethnicity and any form of human classification. This is an unfair human practice that is even against the numerous human rights that exist. Secondly, with the practice of understaffing, I think most of the overworked staff may not offer quality services as they are required (Hayes, 2018). Therefore a change needs to be done since most of these workers may be exhausted and tired due to the long hours they work. Lastly the Virginia Department of correctional facilities should make an alteration in there management because with the poor management practices it will not hinder it from attaining its goals. It needs to make changes and apply effective managers who will help the organization to work in harmony with its mission and goals. Failure to do so it will lead to poor performance and wastage of valuable resources such as human resource and time.
The following are some of the diagnostic tools that can be used to determine organizational readiness for change. To begin with interviews as tools to determine organizational readiness for change, this is one of the common ways to know how ready employees are for the change. The interviews include one on one interviews where you will be able to hear the opinions and suggestions of the current workforce in relation to the changes to be made. The second tool that can be used to determine organizational readiness for the drafted change is the observational tool. With the usage of observation, you will be able to determine if the organization is ready or not to take the required changes. This may be seen through the number of attendants in meetings that train or provide information regarding the change. For instance, if employees are ready for the change they will attend in large numbers unlike when they are not interested. The observation may also include the general behavior of these employees towards the change.
As stated early interviews are the most appropriate tools to determine organizational readiness for change since they give almost immediate feedback on the readiness. During interviews more especially one on interviews, the interviewer will get the response at that time that will help to determine the readiness of staff towards the change. Additionally, observation is appropriate because it is cheap and it doesn’t require any skill to perform the observation it is only a matter of appropriate positioning and strategy. In my research towards the Virginia department of corrections, I will highly use interviews to determine the organizational readiness for change. In the research towards the change of working hours of the Virginia department of corrections, I did one on one interviews with its staff. I used to take the interviews after working hours and at times before their working hours.
In relation to the interviews I conducted, I came to realize most of these employees are ready for the drafted changes as they reduced the working hours. Approximately 70% were ready and 20% were not ready whereas 10 % were not sure if to agree or disagree with the change. Those who agreed said that if the changes were to occur they will be relieved and have time to do other activities that needed their attention such as family time. On the other hand, those who disagreed argued that the decrease in working hours will also decrease their pay hence will be difficult for them to adapt to the change. Therefore I think the organization is ready to undertake since at the end of the day majority wins due to the large numbers of supporters.
In conclusion, the Virginia Department of correction has undertaken various changes that have enabled it to reach where it is now. This is contributed by its early leaders and managers who effectively did their jobs as it is required such as Benjamin Latrobe and Thomas Jefferson. Also the interrelation it has put in place with other state departments such as the police, courts, and correctional institutions among others. The various steps to change have also been contributed by the organizational readiness to the changes it has suggested hence the success.
References
Clear, T. R., Reisig, M. D., & Cole, G. F. (2018). American corrections. Cengage learning.
Goshin, L. S., Arditti, J. A., Dallaire, D. H., Shlafer, R. J., & Hollihan, A. (2017). An international human rights perspective on maternal criminal justice involvement in the United States. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(1), 53.
Hayes, J. (2018). The theory and practice of change management. Palgrave.
Jabri, M. (2017). Managing organizational change: Process, social construction and dialogue. Palgrave.
Klev, R., & Levin, M. (2016). Participative transformation: Learning and development in practising change. Routledge.
Nordin, N., & Deros, B. M. (2017). Organisational change framework for lean manufacturing implementation. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 6(3), 309-320.