Project Topics
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
CHAPTER 3 UNIT MANAGEMENT IN CORRECTIONAL CENTRES
INTRODUCTION
The management of correctional institutions is part of the last phase of criminal justice systems around the world. Correctional institutions have to perform various tasks, namely; to ensure that offenders understand the implications of their actions and are accountable for the harm they have caused, to rehabilitate offenders and promote their successful reintegration into the family and community, to ensure that offender rights are protected while serving their sentences, and to ensure that offenders become law abiding citizens after their release. Many approaches need to be adopted in order for individual offenders to be properly rehabilitated. To achieve the abovementioned goals, governments and correctional services around the world had to undergo various transformational processes.
The perception that correctional institutions are warehouses in which offenders are dumped should change to allow for an institution in which offenders are reformed and become better members of their communities after their release. The unit management approach may be the effective management approach to a proper and well organised management of correctional centres. Therefore, the main focus of this chapter will be on the concept of unit management in correctional centres and how unit management influences the development of youth offenders while serving their sentences.
THE BACKGROUND TO UNIT MANAGEMENT
Unit management, in correctional centres, was first practiced in American correctional systems. The implementation of unit management was influenced by many developers in corrections, especially within the Federal Bureau of Prisons (Levinson, 1999:3; Coyle, 1994: 23). The formal establishment of unit management took place in 1966 at the National Training School for boys in Washington D.C (Corrections Corporation of America, Undated: 3; Seiter, 2002:196). Inmates incarcerated at the National Training School for boys were housed in single living units. Moreover, this institution implemented innovations such as case managers, case load and correctional councillors (Luyt, 1998:34; Carlson and Garrett, 1999:143). However, the first institution to fully implement unit management was the Robert F. Kennedy Youth Centre in Morgantown, West Virginia. This facility was architecturally designed according to a unit management concept. According to Levinson (1999:6), Roy Gerald was the first of warden of this institution.
After a comparative study of inmate and staff attitudes towards the facilities and correctional programmes at the Kennedy Youth Centre and the State Residential Treatment Centre for Delinquency, it was clear that unit management contributed to more a positive attitude amongst both staff and inmates. Therefore, the Bureau of Prisons took a decision, in 1970, to adopt unit management in their correctional centres (Houston, 1999:321). Houston (1999:321) further indicates that unit management was also seen as a vehicle to assist the Bureau of Prisons to overcome their challenges, namely:
To reduce tension and reduce violence and to protect weaker inmates who were vulnerable to more violent inmates; and
To deal actively with substance abusers (Houston, 1999:321).
Many states in the United States of America also expressed their interest in unit management and its approach to inmate management. Acceptance of, and significant growth in the practice of unit management, commenced from the establishment of the concept. Since then, other systems have followed suit. Today, the world‘s most successful prison systems- the US Federal Bureau, Canada, the Dutch and the Swedish utilize unit management in all their correctional centres (Levinson, 1999:7; Luyt, 1999:35).
THE DEFINITION OF UNIT MANAGEMENT
Unit management is used as a management tool by many correctional systems around the world to achieve the broadened philosophy of incarceration and to improve the management of correctional centres. The definition of unit management varies between the institutions that have implemented the concept (Houston, 1999:321). Unit management can be defined as a decentralized approach to institution and inmate management that divides a correctional centre population into small, manageable entities in order to:
Improve control over inmates;
Foster good relationships and inmate development; and
Deliver an effective correctional service within ideal architectural structures (Luyt, 1999:32).
Unit management can also be defined as an approach to inmate and institutional administration designed to improve control and relationships by dividing a large institution population into smaller, more manageable groups, in order to improve the delivery of correctional services (Levinson 1999:3; Corrections Corporation of America, undated: 2). In his view, Levinson (1999:3) defines unit management not as a programme, but as a more effective way of managing programmes. He further indicates that decentralized management is at the heart of unit management. Unit management is further defined as a small, self-contained, inmate-living and staff office areas, which operates semi-autonomously within the confines of the larger institution, and constitutes:
A smaller number of inmates (50-120) who are assigned together permanently,
A multi-disciplinary staff unit manager, case manager (s), correctional officials, full or part time psychologist and clerks whose offices are located within the inmate housing unit and who are permanently assigned to work with the inmates of that unit,
The unit manager has administrative authority over all unit aspects and supervisory responsibility for the unit staff,
The assignment of an inmate to a unit may be based on age, prior crime record, specific behaviour, a need for specific type of correctional programme, such as drug abuse counselling or on a random basis.
All unit staff is scheduled, by the unit manager, to work in a unit in the evenings and over weekends, on a rotating basis, in addition to the presence of the unit correctional officer (U.S Bureau of Prison, 1977:5-6; Smith and Fenton, 1978:45; Maghan, 1981:9).
According to Gerald (Levinson, 1999:3), ―unit management is an approach to inmate and institutional administration designed to improve control and relationships by dividing a large institutional population into smaller, more manageable groups, in order to improve the delivery of correctional services‖. Finally, according to the White Paper on Corrections (2005:84), unit management is the approach of dividing inmates into smaller, manageable units with direct supervision and the desired method of correctional centre management.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNIT MANAGEMENT IN SELECTED COUNTRIES
According to Levinson (1999:7), the successful implementation of unit management in many states in the United States of America has drawn interest from other countries that wish to adopt unit management as their approach to inmate management. Therefore, this section offers a detailed discussion of the implementation of unit management in various countries.
The United States of America and other countries
The United States of America is one of the leading dominating countries in the field of penology throughout the world. As discussed in section 3.2, the inheritance of unit management in correctional centres is linked to the United States of America. Before the 1950s, newly admitted inmates within the Federal Bureau of Prisons where supposed to appear before a committee of institution departmental heads. The committee was responsible for the classification of new inmates. The committee consists of the chief of classification, the director of education, the correctional centre industries‘ superintendent, the medical doctor, the chief of psychological services and the chief of security (Levinson, 1999:3). The main purpose of this committee was to inform newly admitted inmates about the programmes and work which they will be involved in during their period of incarceration. Through the recommendations of this committee the traditional way, in which individual staff members were responsible for the classification of an entire inmate population, was discouraged. According to Levinson (1999:4), during the late 1950s, the Federal Reformatory at the Federal Youth Centre in Ashland, Kentucky (under Warden John Galvin) developed classification teams. Each team consisted of a departmental head and a case manager‘s case load of inmates who resided in living quarters that were scattered throughout the institution. The first institution to implement the concept of unit management was the Kennedy Youth Centre in Morgantown, West Virginia. Roy Gerald became the first warden of this institution and everything from the architecture was totally different to that of typical correctional centres (Luyt, 1999:34).
A study was conducted on the effectiveness of unit management, including staff and inmate attitudes, as well as their opinions about the facilities, management and correctional programmes. The data obtained from this study was compared to similar information from comparable federal youth centres and two non-federal centres; one which used the traditional management and treatment approach and the other an approach similar to Kennedy Youth Centre. The results from this study show more positive attitudes, on the part of both staff and inmates, and a more positive opinion about facilities management and correctional programmes. According to Levinson (1999:6), the positive results of this study led to the expansion of unit management, in 1970, to all youth facilities within the federal prison system. Houston (1999:85) supports the concept of unit management by stating that it was seen as ―OK for the kiddies‘ joint‖. Unit management was officially introduced into federal penitentiaries in 1976 and many states across the United States began expressing interest in unit management as their approach to inmate management. Acceptance and growth continued from 1980 to 1990. At an international level, the following countries indicated their interest and implemented unit management in their selected prisons:
United Kingdom
In 1984, the Prison Services‘ Control Review Committee made a recommendation that a new system of special units designed to control violent inmates be established. Through this initiative, the United Kingdom prison services realized that the concept of unit management can bring about prison reform. According to Luyt (2010:6), unit management under Britain consists of fairly small groups of 50 to 100 inmates that are assigned to the care of multidisciplinary team members. This team has maximum decision-making authority that encourages permanent contact between inmates and staff. Due to this permanent relationship there are more interpersonal relationships and more knowledgeable relationships.
Canada
After the Correctional Services of Canada indicated their intention to implement unit management, several documents were developed to indicate how unit management should be implemented. The development of these documents was influenced by a feasibility study conducted by the Correctional Services of Canada. According to the Correctional Services of Canada (1990:1), the main reason for implementing unit management was the opportunity of integrating security and inmate development.
SECTION A: INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 THE RATIONALE OF THE STUDY
1.3 AIM OF THE STUDY
1.4 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
1.5 DEMARCATION OF THE STUDY
1.6 METHODOLOGY
1.7 DATA COLLECTION METHODS
1.8 SAMPLING PROCEDURE
1.9 DATA ANALYSIS
1.10 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
1.11 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY
1.12 DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS
1.13 OUTLINE OF THE STUDY
1.14 SUMMARY
1.15 LIST OF REFERENCES
CHAPTER 2 THE HISTORY AND THEORIES OF YOUTH CORRECTIONS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION FROM A PENOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW
2.3 THE PURPOSE OF PUNISHMENT
2.4 THE INTERNATIONAL ORIGIN OF YOUTH INCARCERATION
2.5 THE AFRICAN ORIGIN OF YOUTH INCARCERATION
2.6 THE CAUSES OF YOUTH OFFENCES
2.7 PROTECTION OF CHILDREN’S RIGHTS
2.8 INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS RELEVANT TO YOUTH OFFENDERS
2.9 SOUTH AFRICA AS A STATE PARTY TO THE CONVENTION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
2.10 SUMMARY
2.11 LIST OF REFERENCES
CHAPTER 3 UNIT MANAGEMENT IN CORRECTIONAL CENTRES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 THE BACKGROUND TO UNIT MANAGEMENT
3.3 THE DEFINITION OF UNIT MANAGEMENT
3.4 THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNIT MANAGEMENT IN SELECTED COUNTRIES
3.5 UNIT MANAGEMENT AND THE FOUR BASIC MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS
3.6 UNIT MANAGEMENT AS A DECENTRALISED MANAGEMENT APPROACH
3.7 ADVANTAGES OF UNIT MANAGEMENT
3.8 DISADVANTAGE OF UNIT MANAGEMENT
3.9 UNIT MANAGEMENT AS AN EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT APPROACH
3.10 UNIT MANAGEMENT AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION
3.11 A MODEL FOR UNIT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMMES
3.12 SUMMARY
3.13 LIST OF REFERENCES
CHAPTER 4 COMPONENTS OF UNIT MANAGEMENT
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 ARCHITECTURE
4.3 FUNDAMENTAL PHILOSOPHY INFLUENCING DESIGN
4.4 BASIC MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES OF DIRECT SUPERVISION
4.5 ARCHITECTURE AND OTHER RELATED FACTORS
4.6 CASE MANAGEMENT
4.7 RISK MANAGEMENT
4.8 SECURITY MANAGEMENT
4.9 HUMAN RIGHTS
4.10 SUMMARY
4.11 LIST OF REFERENCES
CHAPTER 5 INTEGRATED ROLES OF TEAM MEMBERS IN UNIT MANAGEMENT AND YOUTH CORRECTIONS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 THE ROLES OF CORRECTIONAL OFFICIALS
5.3 THE ROLE OF THE UNIT MANAGER
5.4 THE ROLE OF CASE MANAGERS AND CASE OFFICERS
5.5 THE ROLE OF CUSTODIAL THERAPISTS
5.6 THE ROLE OF EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
5.7 SUMMARY
5.8 LIST OF REFERENCES
SECTION B: EMPIRICAL STUDY
CHAPTER 6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 AIMS OF THE RESEARCH
6.3 THE RESEARCH APPROACH AND RESEARCH DESIGN
6.4 DEMARCATION OF THE STUDY
6.5 POPULATION AND SAMPLING CRITERIA
6.6 DATA COLLECTION
6.7 PILOT STUDY
6.8 GAINING ACCESS
6.9 ETHICAL CONSIDERATION
6.10 DATA ANALYSIS
6.11 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY
6.12 SUMMARY
6.13 LIST OF REFERENCES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
A PENOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON UNIT MANAGEMENT AS A REHABILITATION TOOL FOR YOUTH OFFENDERS
