The influence of work processors on the juvenile justice system is a crucial factor in criminal management. All the workers frequently communicating with the agency’s clientele are regarded as work processors, for instance, members of the police force (Stojkovic et al., 2014). Such individuals can transition into “street-level bureaucrats” to discuss how the institution’s resources will be implemented (Stojkovic et al., 2014, p. 75). In this work, the key features of the personnel working with the clients in the juvenile and criminal justice system will be described, and four examples of this phenomenon will be presented.
Employment within the work processors’ division envelops several critical factors. Direct involvement with the clients provides these employees with a deeper understanding of various issues that might arise due to the dominant coalition’s policies (Stojkovic et al., 2014). While the administrators of certain agencies might be eager to enforce new rules and requirements for the officers, the latter might recognize the flaws in these suggestions due to being more knowledgeable of the community’s behaviors (Stojkovic et al., 2014). Experience with the clientele’s interests presents the processors with the ability to construct local laws and informal regulations of the inmates’ lives, changing the standards prescribed by the dominant coalition (Stojkovic et al., 2014). Overall, a better understanding of the clients’ everyday needs and activities allows the work process group to negotiate more efficient communication methods.
The work processors’ input is highly valuable for the interaction with the juvenile offenders. In order to provide proper rehabilitation to such inmates, it is essential to employ additional means of treatment, such as social skills training (Stojkovic et al., 2014). While organizations’ elites might have strict rules against communicating with imprisoned adolescents, research shows that a more employee-engaged way of interacting with the clientele can significantly benefit their reformation process (Elwyn et al., 2017). A prominent example is seen in the investigation conducted by Elwyn et al. (2017), where personnel’s participation in the inmates’ everyday lives was highly beneficial for the individual’s success. Altogether, it is essential to consider the advantages of the work processors’ involvement in the process of juvenile rehabilitation.
Correction officers’ engagement in changing the rules enforced by the dominant coalition is critical. Another instance is presented by Branson et al. (2017), who focus their attention on the trauma-informed juvenile justice systems created to provide post-traumatic care for the patients. The authors argue that while there is a consensus on this approach’s advantages, only a small number of literature outlines specific practices that could be engaged (Branson et al., 2017). Most of the works provide descriptions of rules implemented by various work process members, which differ depending on the facility (Branson et al., 2017). A scientific investigation into the juvenile institution employees’ strategies is still required.
A detailed insight into the communication between young adult offenders’ families and rehabilitation personnel can be incredibly lucrative. An excellent example is discussed by Simons et al. (2017), who argue that correction officers should participate in the programs devised for criminal adolescents. According to the research, even if the treatment is centered on family engagement, work processors still provide additional support for the inmates (Simons et al., 2017). Overall, the inclusion of facility employees is imperative for the juvenile prisoners’ successful treatment outcomes.
Utilizing the unique experience of work process personnel is a substantial factor for correctional institutions’ affluence. Baetz et al. (2019) describe a unique approach to work processors’ knowledge of different systems to decrease violence rates among imprisoned youth individuals. The workers included in the programs were capable of performing various interventions, not regarded by the dominant coalition (Baetz et al., 2019). Altogether, the skills and experiences of work processors are essential to consider.
To conclude, the work process groups can provide additional insights into the juvenile justice system’s issues. Direct interaction with the clients allows for a better understanding of rules to be implemented in a particular facility. Even though the organization’s elites might be unaware of the approaches implemented by the patrol officers and correction institutions’ employees, such local processes are exceptionally beneficial for their efficiency.
References
Baetz, C. L., Surko, M., Moaveni, M., McNair, F., Bart, A., Workman, S., Tedeschi, F., Havens, J., Guo, F., Quinlan, C., & Horwitz, S. M. (2019). Impact of a trauma-informed intervention for youth and staff on rates of violence in juvenile detention settings. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Web.
Branson, C. E., Baetz, C. L., Horwitz, S. M., & Hoagwood, K. E. (2017). Trauma-informed juvenile justice systems: A systematic review of definitions and core components. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 9(6), 635–646. Web.
Elwyn, L. J., Esaki, N., & Smith, C. A. (2017). Importance of leadership and employee engagement in trauma-informed organizational change at a girls’ juvenile justice facility. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 41(2), 106–118. Web.
Simons, I., Mulder, E., Breuk, R., Mos, K., Rigter, H., van Domburgh, L., & Vermeiren, R. (2017). A program of family-centered care for adolescents in short-term stay groups of juvenile justice institutions. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 11(61), 1–8. Web.
Stojkovic, S., Kalinich, D., & Klofas, J. (2014). Criminal justice organizations: Administration and management (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.