The organizational assessment strategy
The most appropriate assessment plan for the Florida Re-entry subdivision should have four elements that will assist the organization in using its resources more effectively and creating successful re-entry programs. These elements are starting early, considering individuals as clients, not offenders, reassessing frameworks, and insisting on evidence. An assessment plan with these elements will ensure that the subdivision’s re-entry programs offer inmates the best possible results.
Starting on time will ensure that the subdivision is predominant in releasing programs and prevent ignoring the importance of pre-release programs. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ philosophy, release preparation should start on the first day of imprisonment, and correctional institutions should concentrate on a re-entry program for convicts intensifying at least 18 months before release (Hummer, 2020). Successful re-entry programs rely on helping ex-offenders change their attitude, address mental issues, provide educational opportunities for job training, and connect them with community resources. Therefore, early preparation is an assessment that ensures the subdivision begins re-entry programs before an individual is released.
When an individual is considered a client, not an offender eliminates serving up a one-size-fits-all approach that does not fit anybody. This evaluates whether the subdivision’s employment programs go beyond traditional services (Berghuis, 2018). Referring to ex-convicts as clients also helps assess if individuals with underlined attitudes towards work and crime successfully get and keep jobs and reduce their chances of reoffending. Offenders do not share similar risk levels; learning how to evaluate their attributes and deliver customized assistance accurately is crucial in successfully assisting individuals’ reform from criminal justice. Hence, treating them as usual clients helps to show if the re-entry program yields successful results.
Florida re-entry subdivision is committed to learning what works to improve the lives of low-income individuals; there is an enhancing consensus that re-entry plans are built on a structure called Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) (Villanueva & Cuervo, 2018). The system aims to assist the subdivision in evaluating individuals’ risk levels for recidivism and offer the necessary level of response. In addition, the subdivision should also incorporate a model such as Hawaii Opportunity for Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) which evaluates if the perspective of probation and post-incarceration observation is changing (Hummer, 2020). In most cases, recidivism occurs due to technical violation of parole; this is a crucial part of the re-entry procedure to assess. Therefore, reassessing the structures of the subdivision finds out if re-entry programs are more effective and if they reduce adverse side effects.
There is little evidence to decide what makes the reintegration program successful in most cases. Therefore, the subdivision should have a tracking tool that increases reporting and improves results for community partners and the subdivision’s Program (Berghuis, 2018). This helps to use an evidence-based evaluation to determine if the subdivision saves the organization’s short-term and long-term expenses. Hence, the software evaluates the general performance of the subdivision and the surrounding community.
Performance Assessment
The organizational assessment strategy above will ensure valid and reliable data concerning the performance of the subdivision because it asses the implementation of critical areas. The system evaluates duration, individuals handled by the subdivision, the framework, and software. Considering these key areas provides the organization with reliable and valid data showing the re-entry subdivision’s performance. Therefore, the organizational assessment is a helpful strategy for the Florida re-entry subdivision.
Evaluation of duration shows the time frame needed for certain activities to help the offender avoid recidivism. In addition, it shows progressive improvement of ex-offenders by revealing the timely effects of the re-entry programs. It will also show the successful re-entry programs’ data and the time is taken to succeed (Berghuis, 2018). Further on, the subdivision’s evaluation of individuals reveals the number of ex-offenders being addressed as regular clients and the success rate of the re-entry programs. This also shows the number of clients that the subdivision has handled, and they have been able to avoid recidivism for at least ten years. In general, duration and individual performance evaluations reveal data on individuals who have been through Florida re-entry subdivisions and have avoided recidivism.
Evaluation using Risk-Needs-Responsivity will show the data on the performance of how the Program is affecting the perspective of probation and post-incarceration. The framework also offers the programs’ performance on efficiency and the side effects (Nayer et al., 2021). The performance data produced by the organization can be used when making decisions concerning their re-entry programs. On the other hand, the software shows the performance of reporting and the stakeholders of the organization’s achievements.
Sources of Data and Information
The sources of data and information will be the federal Bureau of prisons, Florida Department of Corrections, and MDRC. The Federal Bureau protects society from confining offenders in community-based facilities and prisons. To do this, they usually provide inmates with programs and services that help them to turn into law-abiding citizens after serving their convicts. MDRC is an organization that is committed to knowing what is needed to improve the well-being of low-income. The organization researches the effectiveness of social and education policies and programs. It is a crucial source of data and information because it provides more information on the needs-responsivity framework. Florida Department of Corrections will provide information on barriers that ex-convicts encounter when they reenter society. In addition, it will show how some company rules prohibit hiring ex-convicts. It will also provide information on some re-entry programs that become successful for ex-offenders.
References
Berghuis, M. (2018). Re-entry programs for adult male offender recidivism and reintegration: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(14), 4655-4676. Web.
Hummer, D. (2020). The United States Bureau of Prisons’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Victims & Offenders, 15(7-8), 1262-1276. Web.
Nayer, G., Perez-Feliciano, L. & Adams, M. (2021). Got Faith? – An in-depth analysis and review of five faith-based prisoner re-entry programs in Florida. International Journal of Business and Social Science Research, 1-11. Web.
Villanueva, L., & Cuervo, K. (2018). The impact of juvenile educational measures, confinement centers, and probation on adult recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(13), 4108-4123. Web.