Prepare a draft 4-6 page Policy Analysis (Section 5, part B), which must contain: o Policy Evaluation (minimum of 3 subheadings) o Impact on Community & SocietyThe policy analysis is 5-6 pages that serves as your literature review. You may organize this section in a
way that is most meaningful to you, so subject headings may vary somewhat (but you must have subject
headings!). Regardless of how you choose to organize your analysis, this section must include: o Theoretical Framework (Part A) (ALREADY DONE) What criminological theories are useful in analyzing/understanding your policy? You
must identify at least two theories you have learned about in prior courses (e.g., social
control theory, deterrence theory, labeling, General Strain Theory, etc.) and apply them
to your policy. o Policy Evaluation Does your policy work, based on the definition of success you identified above? Why
or why not? What does the empirical research about your policy reveal? Here your
conclusions should be based on empirical evidence – statistics, patterns, trends, data,
etc. o Impact on Community & Society Does your policy have specific impact on particular community groups? Women,
people of color, adolescents, gays and lesbians, immigrants, convicted felons, police
officers, veteran/military personnel, urban residents, etc.? If so, what and why? Who
benefits or suffers most from this policy? I’ve attached what I already have done for reference and to write off of.
theory_section_.pdf
section_3__policy_summary.pdf
headings_policy_analysis_format_quotes.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Christine Wills
Capstone
Theoretical Framework
In order to critically analyze the proposed policy, two criminological theories namely
Social Bond Theory and Strain Theory will be employed to try and justify or debunk the policy.
Hirschi’s (1969) Social Bond Theory holds that what keeps people from being social deviants or
committing crimes is socializing and being able to form meaningful personal relationships. The
theory further indicates that social bonding has four elements namely family attachment, being
committed to institutions such as school and employment and social norms, taking part in
activities and ascribing value to all these things. The absence of these factors is what leads
people to engage in deviant behaviors. Scholars Nijdam, Livingston, Verdun, and Brink (2015)
examined how these concepts of social bonding theory contribute to recovery among mental
health patients. Their findings revealed that patients who showed great signs of recovery
identified these factors as being meaningful and important in their road to recovery. Therefore,
having a policy that advocates for healthcare and treatment for inmates with mental health issues
are essential in ensuring their recovery. However, as this policy seeks to come up with a safe
and sanitary environment that aid in the recovery of inmates, concepts of Hirschi’s Social Bond
Theory should be adopted to enhance the effectiveness of the policy.
The General Strain Theory (Agnew, 1992), asserts that often people experiencing or who
have experienced stressful situations suffer from a lot of distress and in order to cope opt to
commit a crime such as engaging in substance abuse. A major principle of the theory is that
crime can be motivated by emotion, widening the view on the causes of crime. Therefore while
seeking to provide intervention for people with addictive disorders and mental illnesses in
prisons the parties involved must have a comprehension of this concept in order to provide
mental health services that are decent and humane and comprehensively address all the causative
agents. While studying if the General Strain Theory can shed light on the violent behaviors of
mental health patients found that individuals who had parents with a drug abuse problem from a
young age and gone through stressful times were more likely to engage in violence(“Can General
Strain Theory Help Us Understand Violent Behaviors Among People with Mental Illnesses?”
2015). Therefore with this information, these correctional institutions can come up with effective
strategies that can adequately address the challenges being faced and give these parties a chance
to reform. In line with these policies, this theory shows the importance of healthcare and
treatment for inmates with mental health and drug substance use such as therapy which gets to
the root of the problem and addresses it.
Christine Wills
Capstone
Policy Summary
Policy Origins
In the past decade, mental illness in correctional facilities has become an important topic
with difficulties and problems that need to be addressed. In Plata v. Brown, filed in 2001, the
State conceded that deficiencies in prison medical care violated prisoners’ Eighth Amendment
rights and stipulated to a remedial injunction. But when the State had not complied with the
injunction by 2005, the court appointed a Receiver to oversee remedial efforts. Three years later,
the Receiver described continuing deficiencies caused by overcrowding. The judges in both
actions granted the request, and the cases were consolidated before a single three-judge court.
After hearing testimony and making extensive findings of fact, the court ordered California to
reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity within two years (“BROWN v.
PLATA”, 2011). Due to this case, mental health and treatment in correctional facilities have
become an increasingly important issue. As a result, in 2011, the policy of Proposition Statement
56: Mental Health Treatment in Correctional Facilities was created. This policy states when
prisoners in need of mental health treatment must be confined in correctional facilities, they are
entitled to specific rights while incarcerated.
Policy Description
This policy goes over the rights to healthcare and treatment for inmates in correctional
facilities. People with mental health and substance use conditions need a system to protect
themselves and preserve their human rights if and when they are incarcerated. When prisoners in
need of mental health treatment must be confined in correctional facilities, they are entitled to the
following: The right to adequate medical and mental health care, to protection from harm
including staff abuse, and to a facility in which the vulnerable can be protected: a safe, sanitary
and humane environment (“Position Statement 56: Mental Health Treatment in Correctional
Facilities”, 2015). This Policy and those involved work to inform the community about the
number of inmates with mental illnesses and addictive disorders that are incarcerated and the
difficulties involved in providing care to these people and develop and advocate for different
strategies addressing these problems.
Policy Goals
The goals of correctional facility mental health policies are to inform members of law
enforcement and correctional groups, judges and attorneys, mental health professionals and
advocates, prisoners and their families, the community and the media about the excessive
number of persons with mental illnesses and addictive disorders in prisons and jails and the
inherent difficulties involved in providing decent and humane care to such persons in these
settings and should develop and advocate for effective strategies addressing these problems and
use the ability to work with prison reform groups to highlight the treatment and conditions of
persons with mental health conditions in prisons and jails and to ensure that everyone with a
mental health condition receives decent and humane mental health services while incarcerated
(“Position Statement 56: Mental Health Treatment in Correctional Facilities”, 2015). This will
enhance the wellbeing and personal satisfaction of both prisoners with mental disorders and of
the prison population, make correctional facilities into a working environment that advances the
general confidence and psychological well-being of jail staff, decrease the possibility reoffending
and returning to incarceration, help occupy individuals with mental illnesses from jail to
treatment and recovery, and, in time, lessen the expenses of correctional facilities.Those involved
should work with prison reform groups to highlight the treatment and conditions of person with
mental health conditions in prisons and jails and to ensure that everyone with a mental health
condition receives decent and humane mental health services while incarcerated (“Position
Statement 56: Mental Health Treatment in Correctional Facilities”, 2015).
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
