Detention centers, prisons, and jails differ in terms of management and running. Some are federal, state and local-run while others are private. As such, they vary by function and inmate classification. The common goal for all of them, however, is to ensure maximum efforts with regards to reduce recidivism and rehabilitate. Prisons provide programs and opportunities to address the various needs of inmates in various aspects in their lives.
In preparation for return to their communities and reduction of recidivism, states provide inmates with programs to address health needs and develop life and work skills. Admittedly, quite a high number of prisoners have committed offenses such as being in possession of illegal drugs. Through substance abuse and mental health treatment, states are able to educate prisoners while incarcerated on how to live a better life after release from prison. One such approach is the client-centered psychological treatment that concentrates on strengthening the motivation of prisoners to change (Ahmed et al, 2019). Other crimes such as sexual offenses are addressed through cognitive-behavioral therapies that help reduce the risk for potential harm associated with reducing this population back to the community.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It is worth noting that prisoners come from diverse social and cultural backgrounds. As such, the differences have affected grouping in the prisons. The culture is both of importation and indigenous factors (Rudes & Magnuson, 2019). The rationale stems from the fact that facets of human behavior as well as vicious cycle of inmates in and out of the prison. From an importation standpoint, distinctive language is one culture associated with groupings. Often prison language is used to refers to different groups of inmates and is indispensable in the identification of stable roles within the culture in the prison. These are the kind of roles that inmates relate to each other. Sykes in is study reveals that there are argot roles within the prison that gave inmates informational organization or rather groupings (Tetrault, Bucerius, & Haggerty, 2019). The study points to use the of words such as “wolves, punks, and fags” to govern sexual relationships in the prison.
Another explanation of groupings in prisons can be comprehended through the importation model. Coined by Donald and Irwin, the importation model posits that pre-prison experiences are critical in shaping development of inmate subcultures (Ortiz, 2017). Grouping in prisons are therefore not as a result of deprivations and adjustments that come with being confined, but their exposure prior to prison life. Such groups include thieves, hustlers, dope friends, and square johns (Ortiz, 2017). Their association with each other due to peculiar personalities imported into the prison propel them to fit in their respective groups.
Due to the dynamic interrelations between social groups within the prison, it is critical for the workforce including the administrator, warden, deputy warden and other staff to comprehend a suitable form of leadership. Besides prisons are complex and therefore there are many ways in which to structure, organize and run them. Nevertheless, most prisons are either decentralized or centralized with chains of commands enforced (Lambert et al, 2018). In a state run prison, centralization would rely on the chief administrator to make directions and provide directions for the work force. A decentralized prison, on the other hand, would rely on various heads at different levels to give a chain of commands to their subordinates down the hierarchy. In a private prison, decentralization would be effective because there are not as many inmates as in state prisons. Decentralization, however, requires open and free communication.
In conclusion, prisons are diverse in terms of population and way of running. As such management of both workers and prisoners can either be centralized or decentralized. Most prisons, however, should be equipped with both because a complete extreme of one is not possible. A balance between the two should be maintained.
References
Ahmed, R., Johnson, M., Caudill, C., Diedrich, N., Mains, D., & Key, A. (2019). Cons and pros: prison education through the eyes of the prison educated. Review of Communication , 19 (1), 69-76.
Lambert, E. G., Liu, J., Jiang, S., Zhang, J., & Kelley, T. M. (2018). The antecedents of job involvement: An exploratory study among Chinese prison staff. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice , 54 , 21-33.
Ortiz, J. M. (2017). Inmate Code. The Encyclopedia of Corrections , 1-3.
Rudes, D. S., & Magnuson, S. (2019). Scapegoating culture: Misunderstanding organizational culture as the problem in carceral institutions and beyond. Sociology Compass , 13 (2), e12657.
Tetrault, J. E., Bucerius, S. M., & Haggerty, K. D. (2019). Multiculturalism Under Confinement: Prisoner Race Relations Inside Western Canadian Prisons. Sociology , 0038038519882311.
