final 266

docx

School

San Jose State University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

266

Subject

Sociology

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by SuperFangSquirrel43

1. The approach for integrating risk and resilience model in developing social policy for children and families involves being able to define what the problem is then being able to follow the underlining problems (risk) that initiated the problem, and/or why certain groups are not affected by the problem. Definition of a problem is when large groups are simultaneously involved in activities that cause harm or dangers to a population, and/or disruptions in developmental trajectories creating adverse outcomes (Jenson & Fraser, 2016). After identifying a problem research is needed to understand correlations as to why a problem is occurring, what is leading up to a problem, what can help alleviate the problem, and why certain portions that should be affected are not. You can not identify a problem and quickly make a policy to try to fix it without having empirical research to help create fixes, otherwise you are just throwing money at it and hoping something sticks. Through research we can identify the risk that lead up to the problem. When identifying these risk policies can be made to create preventative measures to reduce the chance of the problem happening. Programs can be implemented to help the family, community, and individual. In addition to identifying the risk that can initiate the problem they may also find ways that help create resilience. Often through identification of risk patterns immerge that show certain portions of the population that have these same risks with out the result of the problem due to some support that creates resilience. In both the risk and the resilience, the research needs to look at the individual, the family, community, and any other environmental factors that correlate with the problem. When you have enough data that supports the desired outcomes then policy can be created to address the problem that will have better outcomes than just a quick fix.

An example of a policy that does not align with risk and resilience model is the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. This was a policy put together to combat the rise in drug use in America. The policy seeks to criminalize addicts and punish them, replacing funding for community treatment programs for more law enforcement task force creating the “War on Drugs” (Anti- Drug Abuse Act). The problem with this policy is that it sounded good to the public but lacked empirical research showing that it would be effective. Instead it increased prison populations and made it harder for addicts to get help and change the cycle of drug use. The policy was only addressing the action: using, selling or having drugs which then lead to arrest, jail or prison time and left the addict still an addict. When the individual left jail they still were an addict and now they were an addict with a felony record, which would limit their ability to find work. One of the main reasons this policy did not work is that it failed to address the problem of why addicts and drug dealers were engaged in this activity. Research showed that impoverished neighborhoods were at risk for having a drug crisis due to poverty, gangs, poor school education, and family conflict to name a few of the underlining problem but funds were not being used or funneled to the community to raise them up. The policy does have a small component of drug treatment for drug offenders that have been arrested but the problem with this is that they are already engaged with the use of drugs. It is not a prevention matter but is meant to be a treatment for a problem that already exists. Most of the policy is about funding law enforcement and making tougher laws about drugs. They have no funding to invest in communities to create resiliency or to address the risk that is creating the problem. Instead the problem continued to grow and now our prisons are inodiated with drug convections and the problem continues the cycle.

A policy that does align well with this model is school based health centers as part of the Affordable Care Act. However, school base health centers have been around prior to ACA. The problem that school based health centers were addressing is access to care for underserved communities. These communities were at risk due to being unable to get to doctors due to distance, time, and cost. These communities were at risk for higher for poorer health outcomes. The policy addresses the risk associated with childhood illness such as asthma, vaccinations, dental health, and other various risk if not seen by medical workers (Jensen & Fraser, 2016). The cost associated with not seeing doctors is seen in the emergency departments as well as missing school. Children that are ill are not able to attend school and can cause risk for not finishing their education or lower grades due to treatable illnesses such as asthma. School based health centers creates preventive measures for children, so they can be seen at a place they already attend daily. This allows parents to not miss work and loose income. It also lowers rates of emergency visit due to asthma attacks or other diseases that may otherwise go unattended. In addition, the services provide mental health, dental, and reproductive health care. Families can gain health education services and learn how to provide better food choices to promote better health. All which research has shown increases better outcomes for children and families.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

2. Juvenile justice has been trying to address what society should do when a child or adolescent commits a crime. The problems when addressing juvenile justice is: are we trying to prevent crime through making it a determent with stricter laws and through punishment or do we want to reform the offender, so they will no longer commit crimes. The problem of defining what is a juvenile and at what age are they responsible for their actions is ongoing. We will see how these definitions are addressed in history thru policy and explain it in more detail using examples of policy. In addition to these main concepts that have been part of the debate for juvenile justice from both society and the government is the problem of what is causing juveniles to break the law. Research has shown that poverty, neighborhoods in gang areas, family adversity, lack of community, distrust of authority, temperament of the individual, lack of school attendance and peer influences all place risk on the juvenile to be involved with criminal justice system (Jensen & Fraser, 2016). The history of juvenile justice begins in 1899 when the first juvenile court was established to act in the best interest for the child and define what is a juvenile. Before the first juvenile court children were treated the same as an adult for committing a crime and would serve sentences with adults, only the very young children (under 7) were found to be innocent and not be prosecuted or punished. When they created the first court a definition of age came into play stating that children under 12 were incapable of committing crimes and that juvenile delinquents were from age 12-17 and went to juvenile courts. In 1909 they began to define what delinquent acts were, and this has changed over time. Being a delinquent at that time consisted of being poor, hanging out with or being seen with a poor person, outside a pool hall, and other descriptions that we would see as ridiculous now. During this era up till the 1960s the juvenile

courts operated as reformers for juveniles. They felt that they were steered wrong and judges would issue dispositions they felt were appropriate, but there was no guidelines or representatives for juveniles in the courts. By the 1960s advocates started saying that the courts were no longer holding the best interest of the juveniles and were in fact causing more harm than good. Youths lacked the rights of due process and were in fact being sentenced to prisonlike facilities (institutions). During this era due process reforms take place. One landmark case during this time was In re Gault which gave juveniles four basic constitutional rights (notice, counsel, questioning witnesses, and protection against self-incrimination) when facing possible commitment to an institution. In the case of Gerry Gault, he was accused of making lewd phone calls to a neighbor. When going to court the neighbor never showed and only the officer was present to state her complaint. The judge sentenced him to six years in an institution, if this had been an adult, they would have only been fined a possible 12 months of jail. The Supreme court found this to be unconstitutional and severe deprivation of liberties with lack of rehabilitation for juveniles. This also transferred juvenile courts into adversarial hearings and ended informal courts. In the 1980s and 1990s new reforms were going to take place that would push for tougher policies on juvenile offenders. This era is very different from the rehabilitative or the due process eras were juveniles were still seen as wayward and their welfare as something to protect. Due to increased violent crimes from juveniles especially homicides, and school shootings the public wanted tougher sentencing. Juveniles could be tried in adult courts for violent crimes and face the same outcomes of adult criminals. Mandatory sentencing and transfer to adult courts for serious offenses such as rape or murder happened in many of the states. The use of the death penalty became possible for offenders 16 or older who committed capital crimes due to Stanford

v. Kentucky. The techniques for rehabilitation also became tougher allowing for bootcamps to try and straighten up the juvenile offenders. One other big school policy appeared that we are still dealing with is the zero-tolerance policy for schools. This policy created unbalanced bias, higher school dismissals, and more contact with police for children. More youths during this time period were sentenced to prisons and getting tough on crime did not work, it was a reaction to fear from society and legislation without research reacted to the situation. Those in research took noticed and the next stage begins. In 1995 researchers and other private foundations started challenging the idea of criminalization of juveniles and the idea that they are the same as adults in the way they think and act. The philosophy of restorative justice begins to appear along with evidence-based treatment programs. In the 2000s a new change would again take place and the science of brain development and age would come back into the picture. Research would argue that an adolescent can not be the same as an adult in thinking and impulse control. New legislation and court rulings would rule that the death penalty can not be used on a person under 18 as well a life sentences for non-homicide offenses. Reports of risk and resilience and developmental science begin to reform thinking and juvenile justice systems. However, we are still dealing with the past tough laws such as zero tolerance a new era of rehabilitation is changing the way we see juveniles and how we are dealing with them. As you can see from the policy history juvenile justice has been a pendulum of being tough to rehabilitation. Much of which has depended on what is happening in society and the way we paint the picture of juveniles as either a menace or threat, or as a correctable behavior that has potential. From reading about our history with the juvenile justice society has much to

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

do with how it flows back and forth, then the elective officials jump on what the people want especially during an election time. 3. The great debate about our education system starts with what we want for our students. Are we trying to prepare them to be productive members of the workforce, independent thinkers, high academic achievements, develop social and cognitive skills, or good citizens? In addition to what we feel our schools should be doing for our children is the debate about equity and inclusion for all students, access to good education, minority achievement gaps, and who should run the schools (centralized being the state or decentralized being the federal government). We have been able to link education with the ability to move forward and increase better outcomes for marginalized students (Fraser & Jensen, 2016) so I would say one of the main problems in education is the attainment of quality education for all students. Much of these debates are found in the policies we will discuss and how we shape our school systems to match what society and the government are viewing as problems at the time. The history of our education begins with the passing of the Compulsory School Attendance Act of 1852 requiring all children to be enrolled in school. This is the start of understanding the importance of having a population that is educated. In 1946 the National School Lunch Act was established to provide meals for students and combat hunger and inadequate nutrition. Through research they were able to understand that for children to be able to learn they also needed to feed the body (Jensen & Fraser, 2016). At this point the policies were looking at trying to create a more even playing field for children in low income society. They were also looking at how environments affected children in their learning abilities. The next landmark case is Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, this piece of legislation was

addressing the racial inequality of society and the needs of minority children in the pursuit of education as well as their feelings of self-worth. The ruling would start desegregation across America and brought the attention of the nation to inequalities that were happening. Another policy that is still in play today is Head Start Act of 1965. This policy was a first in prevention leading up to starting school. The program was to meet the needs of disadvantage children and their families. The understanding that low income children were starting kindergarten at a disadvantage in school readiness and that by preparing them in a quality preschool for academics, family support and parent education it would give them a better outcome in the future (Jensen & Fraser, 2016). During this period up till the 1970s you see that policy is trying to shape better access to education especially for minority groups and help the disadvantage. The next period during the 1970s to 2000 tried to continue desegregation and create more diversity with bussing programs and creating magnet schools in otherwise non-white neighborhoods to attract White students but a new court case would be introduced to unravel desegregation (Jensen & Fraser, 2016). In 1974 Milken v. Bradley the courts declared that segregation should be a choice of the individual and it basically ended racially balanced schools (Jensen & Fraser, 2016). The achievement gap continued to grow, and critics began to want to move to education and not social change. A report would come out ( Nation at Risk, 1983 ) that would discuss the problem of our education, declining literacy rates, and low achievement scores. The focus would change from trying to target certain groups to wanting a better over all system and that would move it from the federal government back to the school’s control. School management and teacher empowerment to allow teachers more control of their classrooms. School choice was also an option with creation of charter schools, and voucher so parents could move their children to better achieving schools. Discipline was also seen as needed and zero

tolerance policies in schools allowed for the school to punish students especially minority students. The next big legislation of No Child Left Behind in 2001 was created to help push higher academic achievement and accountability of schools. This changed the control of schools from local empowerment back to the federal government. Schools had to show improvements in academics through vigorous student testing yearly or else face corrective actions (Jensen & Fraser, 2016). Each state had to create an assessment system to measure students progress and create high standards for all their schools. Academics became the theme during this time and social policy was placed in the background. The focus on creating standards for higher academic achievement has taken the fore front of addressing the barriers that may be preventing certain groups from attaining academic achievement. With our education system we seem to swing heavy to one direction or another, instead of picking parts that are working and adding to them.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4. Throughout the semester, as we have discussed each issue, the authors have typically pointed to some promising approaches that are more reflective of an integrated risk and resilience model (e.g. Harlem Children's Zone, School Based Health centers, etc.). Choose one such approach as your "promising policy" to discuss. Your discussion should give (a) an overview of the approach that includes what issue it is designed to solve and why it is recommended as a promising policy, (b) analysis of the potential arguments for and against investing in this approach, and (c) one recommendation for a next step in building support for this approach (for this one you should draw on our discussion early in the semester of how to communicate research effectively for policy). For my promising policy I will be looking at restorative justice programs for schools. We have seen that zero-tolerance policy in schools for breaking the rules have created a system of punishment and increased rates of expulsion for youths especially minority youths. Children that are not in school are at a greater risk to have contact with police and fall further behind in academics resulting in negative outcomes. Management of behavioral problems need to be addressed and the use of suspensions, expulsion, or other punishment does not seem to be reducing behavior issues or problems in school. Restorative justice is an alternative to harsh punishments. It is an approach to repair harm done, correct behavior, and find a way to work together. The program encourages the perpetrator and victim to talk and reflect on what happened, what was the root cause of the transgression, and come to some amends. In this manor it helps to restore relationships instead of continuing negative attitudes towards each other as well as learning mindfulness. It incorporates skills needed in society and helps to learn better ways of dealing with stressful events. Part of the program is “community building circles” this is where groups of students sit in a circle and discuss what is happening in their lives with a facilitator. During this process students can work together to help come up with solutions to daily life problems or things happening outside of school. It allows them to see each other for what is going on inside not just what they see on the outside and helps to build a community. I like looking at it as when a child does not get an answer right, we do not get upset or punish

them we try to find out why it happened and give them tools to learn to answer the problem next time. Those that have been adopting restorative justice in schools have found that it has reduced problem behaviors and the use of suspensions or expulsions in schools. Oakland has been using restorative justice programs in their schools, as well as Los Angeles and San Diego. This is an area with high violence, gangs, drugs, and high rates of suspension and expulsions prior to restorative justice. They employ three case managers that work with in classrooms to lessen conflicts that would otherwise have become referrals to the office and possible suspensions. In addition, they have hired a facilitator to run the restorative justice program on campus. Through their program they use an ecological approach taking in account of outside influences that affect the individual (gangs, family life, poverty etc.) and address them through the “circle” (edsource.org). The results are showing better school community, less behavioral problems, better school climate, less truancy, better teacher relationships, parents feel more welcomed, and students are learning better self-regulation skills. Even with some evidence of positive changes in schools that were having poor outcomes prior to implementing restorative justice programs in their school there is criticism of this program. Some that are wearing of this program claim that it is just a quick fix and will not continue to show promise. Some feel that it is a way for schools to show reductions in suspensions and that students are not being held accountable for their actions. Teachers are now just having to deal with behavioral issues that are affecting the rest of their students, so the district can show less suspensions and not risk being brought to court. That it is causing more chaos in classrooms and less tools to deal with removing a student that is very disruptive. In addition, it is costly, needing to educate teachers and staff in the use of restorative approaches.

Having to hire new staff that are trained in restorative justice, and that it is not something that can be fixed overnight. That if it is not fully supported through funding and given the right frame work of time to implement it is not fair to the teachers. For restorative justice to be created as a policy more research is needed to define how to implement it correctly. The approach needs to be able to take in both the positive and negative aspects of the program, so it can be addressed. It can not just be a quick fix as we have seen with other policies that are trying to appease societies demands. Part of what happens with other policy is that it is the only one that is used, I feel that suspensions still need to be part of the tools a school can use but only after other tools have been used up. So, with research we can define the problems address the developmental aspect of the behavior we are trying to correct and then apply it. Funding needs to be addressed as well as training and continued assessment of the programs, so they do not become stagnate and can evolve.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

final 266

Related Documents