1

2

Social Advocacy Proposal

Erika Tallent

SOCW 6361

Synopsis of the social problem

Men and women who have been released from prisons find it difficult to reintegrate back into their communities because they lack enough preparation, assistance, and resources. A felony conviction on one's criminal record usually hinders employment opportunities, public housing aid, and access to social programs. Re-entry into the workforce is a major problem for persons who have served time in prison. Employers are wary of hiring people with criminal records, so formerly incarcerated persons have difficulty finding and keeping work after they are released (Poledna, 2021). Communities, families, and people are affected by re-incarceration and failed re-entry. The most vulnerable populations to this social problem are ex-offenders and those who have recently been released from prison.

Synopsis of the policy

The chosen policy is PUBLIC LAW 110–199—APRIL 9, 2008. This policy aims to break criminal recidivism to promote public safety. The policy is a state statute, and one of its benefits is that it aids in the rehabilitation of connections between offenders and their families once they have been released. Because it is designed to positively impact the life outcomes of those who return to society after being incarcerated, the policy addresses the aforementioned social problem (Holden, 2018). According to the policy, funding may be allocated to state and locally recognized local governments to support policies and programs intended to reduce recidivism and provide possibilities for those who have been released from juvenile detention centers and prisons.

Reason for selecting the policy

As a policy advocate, I chose P.L. 110-199 as a strategy for promoting social reintegration changes. Samuel Brownback and Robert Portman were the bill's original sponsors, and it was signed into law on APRIL 9, 2008. One of the main reasons for choosing this approach is that changing the bill to enable effective re-entry of ex-convicts into society reduces the likelihood of returning to prison and eliminates the need to rely on relatives for necessities. Furthermore, re-entry into the workforce is a huge problem for people who have served time in prison. Employers are hesitant to hire persons with criminal backgrounds, making it difficult for previously incarcerated people to find and keep jobs once they are released from prison (Liberman, Hussemann & McKeever, 2021). Since many offenders lack formal schooling or job experience, finding profitable employment can be difficult. Aside from that, the fact that this policy addresses a long-standing issue of social reintegration that has plagued society throughout history is another reason to choose this policy.

People who enacted the policy

The bill was initially proposed by Samuel Brownback and Robert Portman and later signed into law on APRIL 9, 2008. The statute reauthorized the establishment of a grant program for the reintegration of adult and juvenile ex-offenders into society. It also calls for improvements in reentry planning and implementation. It directs the Attorney General to develop a Juvenile Offender Reentry Resource Center to collect data and assist grantees in implementing reentry programs.

Ways the policy impacts populations.

One of the major impacts of this policy on populations includes its ability to facilitate increased flexibility during the re-entry of youths and adults who have served their time in prisons. According to recent polls, the P.L. 110-199 policy has reduced recidivism among males in many states three years after its introduction, making it a promising legislation for reducing criminal recidivism. Since its inception, the policy has consistently provided re-entry services such as housing and employment assistance, substance abuse treatment, and victim support, all of which are critical for persons being released from prison (Doherty, 2018). Although the strategy has made significant progress in guaranteeing the smooth reintegration of ex-offenders, it has seen little development in states such as Missouri, Alabama, and Virginia.

After being released from prison, offenders are pushed into a new environment that is very different from their previous one, and many struggle to adapt. Aside from that, ex-offenders who have spent significant time in prison are released into an environment that is radically different from their previous surroundings due to the dynamic and constantly changing environment. When most of them fail to have a support system, they often fall into depression, anxiety, and stress, and some often find themselves engaging in criminal activities. Therefore, from a clinical setting, necessary changes must be made to the policy to reduce the likelihood of ex-prisoners falling into depression or getting re-arrested again.

Plan for social change

To reform this policy and improve the rights of ex-convicts, it is critical to strive toward decreasing discrimination and stigma through normalization. People need to understand that ex-offenders are people like them and that they have reformed and are ready to be integrated back into the community. By lobbying for this policy, the issue of social reintegration will be normalized, and awareness raised through local programs and activities will go a long way toward ensuring that the community aids in the smooth reintegration of ex-offenders. Acquiring assistance from stakeholders while incorporating social media to competitively work towards normalized social reintegration will be critical.

References

Doherty, M. (2018). Public law. Routledge.

Holden, M. V. (2018). The Second Chance: A Movement to Ensure the American Dream. UMKC L. Rev., 87, 61.

Liberman, A., Hussemann, J., & McKeever, B. (2021). Juvenile Second Chance Act Participation in Virginia: Impact on Rearrest, Reconviction, and Reincarceration. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 60(3), 196-214.

Poledna, S. (2021). SOLUTION-FOCUSED APPROACH IN PREPARING INMATES FOR SOCIAL REINTEGRATION. Analele Ştiinţifice ale Universităţii» Alexandru Ioan Cuza «din Iaşi. Sociologie şi Asistenţă Socială, 14(1), 63-70.

Assignment #4: T test for Dependent Samples

Directions: Conduct a T test for Dependent Samples to answer the questions based on the following scenario. (Assume a nondirectional research hypothesis (two tailed test) and a level of significance of .05)

To further examine the school performance scores of the district, the superintendent identified schools within the district that could be matched to schools from surrounding districts using a series of demographic characteristics such as size, socio-economic status, and percent special education students. The data that was collected is presented below.

1. What are the mean school performance scores for the superintendent’s district and matched schools?

2. What are the standard deviations of the school performance scores for the superintendent’s district and matched schools?

3. State an appropriate null hypothesis for this analysis.

4. What is the observed or computed value of t?

5. What is the value of the degrees of freedom that are reported in the output?

6. What is the reported level of significance from the T Test for Dependent Means?

7. Based on the results of the T Test for Dependent Means, what would you conclude about the difference in scores of schools in the superintendent’s district and the matched schools?

8. Present the results as they might appear in an article. This must include a table and narrative statement that reports the results of the T Test for Dependent Means.

Assignment #3: Independent Samples T test

Conduct an Independent Samples T test to answer the questions based on the following scenario. (Assume a nondirectional research hypothesis (two tailed test) and a level of significance of .05)

The superintendent who collected data for Assignments 1 and 2, continued to examine the district’s data. One question that concerned the superintendent’s constituencies was the difference between the school performance scores of the superintendent’s district and a neighboring district that had similar demographic and socio-economic characteristics. The superintendent collected the following information:

School performance scores for superintendent’s district:

124 113 121 96 86 107 125 116 90 91 101 82 82 99 118

87 116 99 102 89 97 124 127 89 132 122 93 113 102 86

98 125 79 123 114 91 131 122 114 120

School performance scores for comparison district:

115 114 130 79 77 74 91 87 103 71 100 110 73 106 108

101 87 88 125 96 103 91 111 112 91 118 100 91 96 97

108 98 92 135

1. What are the mean and standard deviation for the superintendent’s district?

2. What are the mean and standard deviation for the comparison district?

3. State an appropriate null hypothesis for this analysis.

4. What is the observed or computed value of t?

5. What is the value of the degrees of freedom that are reported in the output (equal variances assumed)?

6. What is the reported level of significance?

7. Based on the reported level of significance, would you reject the null hypothesis?

8. Present the results as they might appear in an article. This must include a table and narrative statement that reports and interprets the results of the Independent Samples T test.