Suchergebnisse

Any time organizations undertake change processes there are questions about mobilizing support for the change (Vallas 2003). Two essential factors for mobilizing support are (1) how organizational change is framed by both the organization and its employees and (2) whether or not the change is framed in a way that aligns in any meaningful way with actors' interpretations. This article considers middle managers as first‐line interpreters of organizational policy changes and offers a look at their patterned response to reform mandates. Middle managers' interpretation of changes in organizational policy or practice provides vital information for workers about how the reform fits with larger organizational and personal goals. Using data collected in three years of ethnographic fieldwork with parole personnel in California during correctional reform, I argue that organizational and union middle managers' differing definitions of, and solutions for, policy reform create an outlet for intraorganizational frame misalignments and disputes with the potential for restricting or halting change.

AbstractOrganizational culture is an obscure and poorly understood part of organizational life. In scholarly work, researchers use organizational culture as both a catch‐all term and a black box of intrigue. The former suggests its omnipresence and ability to take the blame for all that ills organizations. The latter denotes a mythical and misunderstood invisible cloak that covers organizations and organizational life, yet is misconstrued, complex, and confusing. This paper presents a brief summary of the multidisciplinary history of organizational culture as a concept and operationalized term while simultaneously suggesting our knowledge of organizational culture remains at its infancy. Using prisons as a case study example, the authors consider how better to unpack organizational culture using sound and rigorous qualitative methods with careful attention to sampling and researcher–subject collaboration. Concluding thoughts note the importance of using culture as a dependent, rather than independent variable, so scholars will stop scapegoating culture as the answer to why organizational processes and outcomes fail and will instead recognize the study of culture as the problem itself.

Problem solving (PS) courts (e.g., drug, family, gang, prostitution, reentry) are becoming more commonplace. Today, PS courts exist or are planned in nearly all of the ninety‐four U.S. federal districts. These courts focus on integrating therapeutic jurisprudence into the courtroom environment while emphasizing group decision‐making processes among courtroom workgroup members. In this legal setting, courtroom workgroup teams, regularly consisting of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers (POs), and treatment providers engage a collective, case management approach to decision making with shared power among team members. However, despite the court's therapeutic and collaborative design, we find that POs wield powerful influence in decision making. Informed by sixteen months of qualitative fieldwork, including semistructured interviews, observation of courtroom workgroup meetings, and court observations in five federal PS courts in three federal districts, we find that POs exert undetected informational, technical, and relational power within the PS courtroom workgroup. This role and its accompanying power transforms POs into key decision makers, regardless of PS court type, workgroup dynamics, and decision‐making style. The POs' role makes them critical contributors to the outcomes in federal PS courts with important implications for punishment decisions in the federal justice system. With an increasing number of PS courts currently in the planning stages at the federal level, our study has implications for the structure and decision outcomes in these growing courtroom workgroups.

Twenty to forty percent of the US prison population will spend time in restricted housing units—or solitary confinement. These separate units within prisons have enhanced security measures, and thousands of staff control and monitor the residents. Though commonly assumed to be punishment for only the most dangerous behaviors, in reality, these units may also be used in response to minor infractions. In Surviving Solitary, Danielle S. Rudes offers an unprecedented look inside RHUs—and a resounding call to more vigorously confront the intentions and realities of these structures. As the narratives unfold we witness the slow and systematic damage the RHUs inflict upon those living and working inside, through increased risk, arbitrary rules, and strained or absent social interactions. Rudes makes the case that we must prioritize improvement over harm. Residents uniformly call for more humane and dignified treatment. Staff yearn for more expansive control. But, as Rudes shows, there also remains fierce resilience among residents and staff and across the communities they forge—and a perpetual hope that they may have a different future

How do correctional officers (COs) adhere to changing workplace philosophy and practices during interactions with inmates? This study explores COs' perceptions and interactions during organizational change to examine how different factors (such as gender, position/rank, and reason for interaction) affect implementation. Using observations and interviews with COs, our data suggest gender-based differences in CO adherence when implementing redesigned workplace practices. Gendered adherence to using evidence-based practices within custody environments is potentially impactful on the success of the reform. Future training and skill development should address these gender-based findings to improve adherence to organizational change processes.

The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) reforms correctional institutions via administrative mechanisms and represents a major shift in both correctional policy and workplace practice. Using qualitative data within six prisons in one U.S. state, finding suggest that staff view PREA as an administrative, safety, and cultural burden, which creates a misalignment of institutional logics. Rather than seeing themselves as central to eliminating prison sexual misconduct/violence, staff see PREA as interfering with their "real" custody/control work. This misalignment has major implications for the productive implementation and use of PREA and the broader shift to administrative rather than legal processes for institutional reform.

AbstractThrough constitutional amendments and case law, the United States citizens receive privacy protections. These same protections do not exist for individuals incarcerated in prisons and jails. Instead, their privacy rights are regularly replaced by larger institutional concerns for security, safety, and control. Such privacy violation measures may include electronic surveillance, recording of phone calls, opening/reading of mail, and searches of their person, cell, and property. Although it is expected that incarcerated individuals have fewer privacy rights than nonincarcerated citizens, some privacy violations may be perceived as procedurally unjust due to their severity and infringement upon incarcerated individuals' rights to dignity and respect. This has implications for the well‐being of incarcerated individuals, the legitimacy of correctional officers, and as a result, the potential safety and security of institutions.

How can evidence-based skills and practices reduce re-offending, support desistance, and encourage service user engagement during supervision in criminal justice settings? How can those who work with service users in these settings apply these skills and practices? This book is the first to bring together international research on skills and practices in probation and youth justice, while exploring the wider contexts that affect their implementation in the public, private and voluntary sectors. Wide-ranging in scope, it also covers effective approaches to working with diverse groups such as ethnic minority service users, women and young people