Reacting to and managing change within Juvenile justice

Abstract

Purpose – As part of the wave of new public management (NPM), the purpose of this paper is to unveil reactions to, and the management of organizational change within a context seldom examined – juvenile justice. This is achieved via a state-wide study on the introduction of a policy framework in eight centers to manage detainee behavior by ensuring risk-based decision-making among staff. Design/methodology/approach – Secondary research material was analyzed on organizational characteristics, framework-implementation, and the associated outcomes. The material was synthesized to develop descriptions of each center. Findings – Two key findings are apparent. First, there were limited research material to make robust connections between framework-implementation and related outcomes. Second, of the material available, there is clear evidence of center differences. The contexts in which the framework was implemented were varied – this may partly explain the different ways the centers responded to the framework, some of which appear counterintuitive. Research limitations/implications – The findings are limited by the use of secondary research material and the limited availability of comprehensive material. Practical implications – This study suggests that managing change within the public sector requires an acute understanding of organizational context. This encompasses the situation both within and beyond the organization. Originality/value – This study casts doubt on whether NPM, which espouses accountability, holds value for juvenile justice. This is largely because: the introduction of the framework was not complemented by the collection of complete data and information; and that which is available suggests considerable variation among the centers, which may circumvent the ability to establish causal relationships between policy and practice.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 3 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.