Reflect on the most two valuable takeaways
California’s Department of Corrections

Alonso Davis

Columbia Southern University

MCJ 5390: Critical Analysis of Criminal Justice Administration

Dr. Charles T. Kelly Jr.

7/29/21

1

California’s Department of Corrections

Correctional facilities operate under a formalized organizational structure comprising interlinked departments. Each section is responsible for maintaining the prisoner’s welfare by implementing tasked roles per the agency’s mission and goals. The California Department of Corrections (DOC) and Rehabilitation operates one such facility consisting of four central departments: Secretary, health services, administration and offender services, and operations. Each section utilizes underlying subsections to manage imamates. While the organization structure of California DOC presents a detailed layout of subsections, the charts in the book have fewer subdivisions and varied formations to enhance facility effectiveness through personnel roles. The best universal structure for maximum organization effectiveness adapts to changes in population and considers the security and welfare of prisoners.

Part 1

Figure 1

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Organization Structure

Part 2: Review of Organizational Charts

The Comparison of Charts 10-1, 10-4, and 10-6 With California DOC Chart

Differences in the Models and Organization Efficiency

Variations in the charts depend on each organization’s overall efficiency. Figure 10-1 presents the organizational structure for a correctional central office. The charts’ main features include the Board of Prison Commissioners and the director of corrections. The board harmonizes decisions made before tasking the director with the implementation role. The chart is different from the California DOC, which relies on a secretary as the sole decision-maker. While the secretary represents over 3 million people in the state, the decisions made are less subject to bias. Additionally, chart 10-4 shows a jail serving 250,000 people, with an effective organizational structure, including two sheriff assistants and an admin secretary. Besides, it has the training department to improve the personnel’s functional skills when handling the high population compared to California DOC. The third chart 10-6 has seven direct departments under a chief and deputy chief. The individual’s speed task delivery compared with California’s DOC and rehabilitation, which accumulates the roles on the secretary.

Numerous organization models for correction facilities facilitate efficient service delivery depending on the role of the institution. According to O’Hare (2018), some corrections demand more activities, leading to employee burnout if a universal structure is adopted. For example, the regional parole and probation center in 10-6 is more engaging than the structure in correction central office 10-1. Hence, each facility works best with its model.

Most correction personnel work by reporting to seniors. An alternation in the organization structure might slow task performance and interfere with work schedules. Hence, the change will confuse employees and cause redundancies. For example, a line officer in 10-6 might have challenges working when introduced to the 10-1 structure due to the lack of direction over the chain of command. Additionally, a nurse tasked with serving inmates might find it challenging to deal with operation supervisors in parole and probation centers. Hence, changes in organizational structures disrupt efficient service delivery.

Part 2: A Universal Organization Structure of Corrections

Correctional facilities can operate on universal organization structures. The design incorporates changes in location, demography, and population. The suggested structure is the example given in 10-4. This facility performs the role of accepting inmates and rehabilitating them. Convicts require essential services involving eating, monitoring, and health protection. The jail structure for the 250,000 people can accumulate resources to serve either a lower number or a more significant number in comparison to the stipulated capacity.

This jail structure is suitable to function universally compared to California’s DOC. Specifically, the latter handles operations and administrative services. It lacks guidance on essential services, including line security in charge of monitoring convicts and cooks to ensure food supply. Duwe (2017) recommends the inclusions of educational programs in corrections to improve literacy, enhance rehabilitation, and prevent repeat offenses. The 10-4 models accommodate this requirement by providing libraries and learning programs in jails. Paroles and probation centers can also adopt this structure to improve the quality of rehabilitation for a better nation. Hence, the 10-4 structure can fit in various correction facilities in the United States.

The United States government deserves a functional universal organization structure comprising medical and security watch guards. The nurses and medical officers attend to prisoners by providing healthcare to mitigate mortality due to injuries. The individuals responsible for mitigating risks of uprisings, chaos, and riots are watch guards. Under the leadership of lieutenants and training personnel, any correctional facility can manage inmates depending on the area population and demographics. Therefore, this universal organization structure considers individual welfare to deliver quality correctional services.

Conclusion

Overall, the three given organization chart models differ from California’s DOC and rehabilitation framework. Universal organizational structures might work efficiently for differing correctional facilities, although it sometimes works when effectively designed to consider essential prisoners’ needs. The two crucial mandatory elements aimed at facilitating rehabilitation include education and safety. The California DOC’s organization structure might lack guidance on such features, but they are required. Hence, the best universal design for the United States facilities is the 10-4, which demonstrates the quality service delivery necessary to produce change.

References

Duwe, G. (2017). The use and impact of correctional programming for inmates on pre-and post-release outcomes (Vol. 48). US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

O’Hare, K. (2019). Impact of organizational structure in corrections: Recommendations for correctional leaders. [Masters Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Platteville]