Correctional Services under Political Siege
When the survival of the political class seems threatened both genuinely or falsified, their anger is projected to institutions they deem worthy the reproach. In political asylum, institutions suffer the most, being recipients of unwarranted dismissal. Change, both in policy and management, is inevitable. This dynamism notwithstanding, the political class will always need to be appreciated, involved and consulted. This multifaceted approach to policy development and adoption poses the formative challenge in management.
The correctional services are not exempt from this political reproach. Correctional Services under Political Siege The central objective of any correctional service institutions is to change the perception of life by the inmates, not torture. The response should be centered on this cardinal correctional service principle. The political class is ordinarily full of contradictions even in matters they well know the guiding principles, except they want to be felt as being in control.
The response though, principally designed, should have the political class appreciated. Formative in responding will be a dire need for an apology. The apology should lay a ground for the explanation and the elaboration of the policy in details to the political class (Peak K. J. 2010). The pros and the cons to either approach to rehabilitation of the inmates should be presented to the political class in way so elaborate yet persuading enough to have the leadership see the essence of the implementation of the correctional policies.
While the political class will seek to have the policies they term retrogressive terminated, the response should seek their opinion on the policies. In seeking their opinion, the political class will feel as part of the process and hence rather than refuting the policies, will propose their probable approaches to the implementation of the policies. Surrender would present a challenge for the prison warders and management. Perhaps the best approach, at the very extreme, would be the review of the implementation approach.
In addition, with the due incorporation of the political class, and the winning of their support, the prospects of continued implementation would be assured. In all aspects, the lack of support and the questioning of the policies thereof, results from the lack of involvement and not the effectiveness of the policies (Peak K. J. 2010). By any standards, the legal advisers of the prison management take into consideration all the legal considerations before the policies are adopted for implementation. The argument that the room for negotiation with the governor lacks isn’t administratively realistic.
Provided the policies are designed with due consideration of humanitarian, legal and political considerations, the room for negotiation is sufficiently accessible. The legal department of the correctional service should prepare a paper on the pros of the policies being implemented and have them presented by the top management, with the director inclusive, to the governor. Where the governor will see a dire need for review, the trade –off will be the adoption of the governor’s proposals in phases (Peak K. J. 2010).
While the policies adopted may be slightly stringent on the inmates, for purpose of constructive prison reforms, the policies will be developed such as can be reforming and not torturous or punitive. However, the crux of the matter in doing this will be winning the will of the political class. Ideally, the fervent adoption of the systems approach throughout the implementation process of all correctional policies would be incidental in ensuring the restrictions imposed by the political class to not dwell much blow on the efficiency and efficacy of the correctional institutions.
The support of the policies within and without any organization largely determines the effectiveness of the implementation process and the attainment of the policy objectives thereof. To determine the extent of the probable success of the policies, internal evaluation of the systems support and external evaluation of the policy support is tidal. It is from this evaluation that management can enthusiastically defend their policies, based on the popularity amongst the stakeholder (Peak K. J. 2010).
In establishing the policy support, both internal and external, data will be collected from the warders on their take about the new correctional policies that have been put in place. The opinion of the general public on the utility and the effectiveness of the policies adopted will also be sought through interviews and questionnaires. If the opinion shows that both the warders and the general public are in favor of the policies, this statistical data will form a basis for the defense of the policies particularly to the governor.
The opinion of the ex-prisoners on the matter will be of equal validity. If they feel the policies are better in terms of rehabilitation, given the practical orient of this, due leverage will be given to the policies (Peak K. J. 2010). State will always utilize instruments such as the intelligence to determine the practicability and the support of programs, if the research does show that the policies have all the support, the governor’s stand, our defense notwithstanding, will be informed accordingly.
The success of any policies will always be evaluated through a thorough motoring and evaluation process (M&E). In the monitoring process, the administration to the correctional institutions will countercheck the institutional records, both accounting and schedule to ensure that due parameters are lived to and that the deviations from the set targets are minimal or at best, non-existent. Conclusion At the designation of the policies, the management sets objectives.
To evaluate the success of the implementation process and the attainment of the set objectives, the management will review the extent of attainment of the objectives (Peak K. J. 2010). Where such set targets are ardently reached, the director will have sufficient reason to hang on the policies and sought appropriate approaches for bringing on board the opponents of the policies (Peak K. J. 2010). The life feature of former inmates under this policy regime would just suffice the policy support of the correctional services.
Summarily, it is hard to have the administrative and the political class tore a similar line of working. Nevertheless, where there is empirical proof for the course, the administrators would find it easy-going to convince and bring on board the opponents, the civil and the political class alike. References Peak K. J. (2010) Justice Administration: police, courts and the correctional management, Prentice Hall, Pearson Education Inc.Sample Essay of Paperial.com