Selecting a Company 2 Nakia A Harris Selecting a Company April 15, 2019 HRM 560 Managing Organizational Change The Virginia Department of Corrections has a viable program in which inmates also known as returning citizens, six months prior to release are afforded the opportunity to participate in the Re-entry Initiative. The Re-entry Initiative provides common skills that are applicable to successfully promote public safety. Transitioning back into the community after incarceration can be daunting and present various challenges. While integration is not easy, reducing the efforts of re-offending are highly likely. The Virginia Department of Corrections re-entry programming selects prominent individuals to participate in the program, but the program is limited to conviction and classification. Violent offenders don’t get to participate in re-entry programming. Areas of interest include parenting skills, education and employment, substance abuse, recreation, and anger management. Additionally, while anger management is important four of the major focus areas that most offenders face is fear, anger, abandonment, and neglect. These four areas have presented systemic issues that create a revolving door that lacks the efforts needed in reducing the risk of recidivism. Theses core elements are also untapped and untamed in the lives of returning citizens. Many of the various programs are offered after release. The importance of reentry is to give former inmates support. While there are prominent factors that contribute to the successful ingenuity of re-entry defining the scope of the issues remains that most returning citizens will continuously struggle with societal norms. The struggle remains in efforts to bridge the gap between the returning citizens conceptual reality and perceptional integrity. One major solution that re-entry initiatives should consider is focusing on the root issues of an offender. What is the underline cause and effect factor that plagues ? How can we challenge the offender to make a choice to make a change? If the re-entry dealt with real life problems and concerns to help offenders change, rather than pacifying an issue; re-entry would be the kick off to something phenomenal. Re-entry programming should focus on needs and risk assessments of an offender and line it up with criminogenic factors. Other programs should be orchestrated like guaranteed job placement and stabilized housing. Given the number of offenders in the criminal justice, both men and women in housed in correctional facilities received minimal preparation and an inadequacy of resources. Many programs are not warranted to offenders and government assistance create barriers as to what programs are substantial. With so many socioeconomical factors it’s hard to suggest that re-entry will create an upward continuum. REFERENCES Retrieved from: https://vadoc.virginia.gov Retrieved from: https://www.nij.gov Ru.

1. Selecting a Company 2
Nakia A Harris
Selecting a Company
April 15, 2019
HRM 560 Managing Organizational Change
The Virginia Department of Corrections has a viable program in
which inmates also known as returning citizens, six months
prior to release are afforded the opportunity to participate in the

2. Re-entry Initiative. The Re-entry Initiative provides common
skills that are applicable to successfully promote public safety.
Transitioning back into the community after incarceration can
be daunting and present various challenges. While integration is
not easy, reducing the efforts of re-offending are highly likely.
The Virginia Department of Corrections re-entry programming
selects prominent individuals to participate in the program, but
the program is limited to conviction and classification. Violent
offenders don’t get to participate in re-entry programming.
Areas of interest include parenting skills, education and
employment, substance abuse, recreation, and anger
management.
Additionally, while anger management is important four of the
major focus areas that most offenders face is fear, anger,
abandonment, and neglect. These four areas have presented
systemic issues that create a revolving door that lacks the
efforts needed in reducing the risk of recidivism. Theses core
elements are also untapped and untamed in the lives of
returning citizens. Many of the various programs are offered
after release. The importance of reentry is to give former
inmates support. While there are prominent factors that
contribute to the successful ingenuity of re-entry defining the
scope of the issues remains that most returning citizens will
continuously struggle with societal norms. The struggle
remains in efforts to bridge the gap between the returning
citizens conceptual reality and perceptional integrity.
One major solution that re-entry initiatives should consider is
focusing on the root issues of an offender. What is the underline
cause and effect factor that plagues ? How can we challenge the
offender to make a choice to make a change? If the re-entry
dealt with real life problems and concerns to help offenders
change, rather than pacifying an issue; re-entry would be the
kick off to something phenomenal. Re-entry programming
should focus on needs and risk assessments of an offender and
line it up with criminogenic factors. Other programs should be
orchestrated like guaranteed job placement and stabilized

3. housing. Given the number of offenders in the criminal justice,
both men and women in housed in correctional facilities
received minimal preparation and an inadequacy of resources.
Many programs are not warranted to offenders and government
assistance create barriers as to what programs are substantial.
With so many socioeconomical factors it’s hard to suggest that
re-entry will create an upward continuum.
REFERENCES
Retrieved from: https://vadoc.virginia.gov
Retrieved from: https://www.nij.gov
Running Head: VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
1
VIRGINIA DEPERTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 6
Virginia Department of Corrections
Nakia A Harris
Strayer University
Managing Organizational Change

4. The Virginia Department of correction and its prison entry
organizations are one of the oldest correctional facilitators in
the United States of America. The department has been in
existence since late 1700 when it started its operations in
Jamestown as its headquarters. However, the administrative
town later changed to Richmond as the place had better
facilities to be used. After the US revolutionary war suggestions
were raised so as to enhance better service delivery in the
correction of individuals in the community. For instance,
Thomas Jefferson recommended that the department construct a
penitentiary house for holding better and efficient services
(Clear, 2018). However, this was not received by the authorities
in a good way since they rejected it. For a couple of years, the
state didn’t respond to the suggestion till 1796 when the
Virginia legislature in conjunction with Benjamin Latrobe
approved it.
The construction began in around 1800 whereby it took
approximately three to four years to construct it and to start
functioning fully. Sources argue that the department started
receiving prisoners and other state offenders in 1804. The
organization has since then grown in its operations by providing
corrections to various individuals in the Commonwealth of
Virginia. Through its success, it has received prisoners from
different states such as New Mexico, Colombia, and
Connecticut to offer correctional and rehabilitation to
individuals. However, some complained against the unfair
treatment of offenders and relocated them to their home states
such as those from Connecticut. According to recent reports, the
organization has more than 50 institutions it is working with for
example the Lawrence correctional center. In addition, it has
grown its number of employees from 4100 to recently having
approximately 13000.
The Virginia department of corrections has adopted various HR
policies and procedures that have helped it meet its goals. Some
of the rules it has extracted from the US labor department and

5. the constitution among many other sources that include trade
unions. However, there are other practices that I think are not
appropriate in relation to what is supposed to do (Goshin,
2017). To begin with the level of staffing and the number of
employees the department has. In my research through the
various complains raised by some of its employee who argued
that the department has lesser employees than the required ones.
Therefore it is said to be understaffed making its workforce to
do a lot of work than the standard requirements by the law. For
instance, those who work as prison guards are made to be in
charge of many prisoners than the required number
approximately a ratio of 1:15 unlike the recommended one of 1
to 9.
Secondly in relation to human resource practice the department
through its understaffing it gives longer working hours for its
workforce than normal. Some of its staff complained that they
are forced to work for longer hours than the expected time, for
instance, some said that they may work more than 10 hours a
day. I think this is not the ideal work time for individuals in any
organization it should be around 8-9 hours a day (Klev, 2016).
In addition to that, some of its employees complain of poor
management that affects employees. Some employees argued
that the management doesn’t effectively conduct its roles as
required this includes senior officials harassing its staff. It was
realized that some officials unfairly treated its officials which is
not a good practice, for instance, racial criticism and
discrimination. Also, there were complaints of discrimination
because of gender, for instance, most guards who are employed
are the males. Therefore I suggest a change in the listed wrong
HR practices by the Virginia Department of correction and
prison.
First of the reasons for the recommended change is to ensure
equality and fair treatment of its employees. I think it is
common sense to fairly treat individuals regardless of race,
gender, ethnicity and any form of human classification. This is
an unfair human practice that is even against the numerous

6. human rights that exist. Secondly, with the practice of
understaffing, I think most of the overworked staff may not
offer quality services as they are required (Hayes, 2018).
Therefore a change needs to be done since most of these
workers may be exhausted and tired due to the long hours they
work. Lastly the Virginia Department of correctional facilities
should make an alteration in there management because with the
poor management practices it will not hinder it from attaining
its goals. It needs to make changes and apply effective
managers who will help the organization to work in harmony
with its mission and goals. Failure to do so it will lead to poor
performance and wastage of valuable resources such as human
resource and time.
The following are some of the diagnostic tools that can be used
to determine organizational readiness for change. To begin with
interviews as tools to determine organizational readiness for
change, this is one of the common ways to know how ready
employees are for the change. The interviews include one on
one interviews where you will be able to hear the opinions and
suggestions of the current workforce in relation to the changes
to be made. The second tool that can be used to determine
organizational readiness for the drafted change is the
observational tool. With the usage of observation, you will be
able to determine if the organization is ready or not to take the
required changes. This may be seen through the number of
attendants in meetings that train or provide information
regarding the change. For instance, if employees are ready for
the change they will attend in large numbers unlike when they
are not interested. The observation may also include the general
behavior of these employees towards the change.
As stated early interviews are the most appropriate tools to
determine organizational readiness for change since they give
almost immediate feedback on the readiness. During interviews
more especially one on interviews, the interviewer will get the
response at that time that will help to determine the readiness of
staff towards the change. Additionally, observation is

7. appropriate because it is cheap and it doesn’t require any skill
to perform the observation it is only a matter of appropriate
positioning and strategy. In my research towards the Virginia
department of corrections, I will highly use interviews to
determine the organizational readiness for change. In the
research towards the change of working hours of the Virginia
department of corrections, I did one on one interviews with its
staff. I used to take the interviews after working hours and at
times before their working hours.
In relation to the interviews I conducted, I came to realize most
of these employees are ready for the drafted changes as they
reduced the working hours. Approximately 70% were ready and
20% were not ready whereas 10 % were not sure if to agree or
disagree with the change. Those who agreed said that if the
changes were to occur they will be relieved and have time to do
other activities that needed their attention such as family time.
On the other hand, those who disagreed argued that the decrease
in working hours will also decrease their pay hence will be
difficult for them to adapt to the change. Therefore I think the
organization is ready to undertake since at the end of the day
majority wins due to the large numbers of supporters.
In conclusion, the Virginia Department of correction has
undertaken various changes that have enabled it to reach where
it is now. This is contributed by its early leaders and managers
who effectively did their jobs as it is required such as Benjamin
Latrobe and Thomas Jefferson. Also the interrelation it has put
in place with other state departments such as the police, courts,
and correctional institutions among others. The various steps to
change have also been contributed by the organizational
readiness to the changes it has suggested hence the success.
References
Clear, T. R., Reisig, M. D., & Cole, G. F. (2018). American
corrections. Cengage learning.
Goshin, L. S., Arditti, J. A., Dallaire, D. H., Shlafer, R. J., &
Hollihan, A. (2017). An international human rights perspective

8. on maternal criminal justice involvement in the United States.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(1), 53.
Hayes, J. (2018). The theory and practice of change
management. Palgrave.
Jabri, M. (2017). Managing organizational change: Process,
social construction and dialogue. Palgrave.
Klev, R., & Levin, M. (2016). Participative transformation:
Learning and development in practising change. Routledge.
Nordin, N., & Deros, B. M. (2017). Organisational change
framework for lean manufacturing implementation. International
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 6(3), 309-320.