Instructions HMS 400 Final Paper Students are required to write a fully develope

Instructions HMS 400 Final Paper
Students are required to write a fully developed research proposal based on a literature review on 5 peer-reviewed articles on a topic approved by the instructor. The topic must be realistically subject to research and based on a human services issue. The articles reviewed must be on human services topics. The student must identify (1) the problem(s) being researched, (2) the purpose of each article, (3) the hypotheses, and (4) the variables being utilized in the articles. The student must then describe the methods used to conduct the research in each article along with the statistical testing used by the researchers. Each article should be critical analyzed for limitations and weaknesses.
The proposal must contain (1) statement of the research problem; (2) type of research to be conducted; (3) sampling techniques to be employed; (4) all relevant independent and dependent variables; (5) operationalization of the variables; (6) hypotheses; (7) literature review (8) administration and data collection; and (9) how data analysis will be conducted based on the variables. The paper must strictly follow the format provided in the assignment, cover all aspects/sections listed, adhere to proper grammar, word usage and sentence structure principles, provide clear and cohesive articulation of the relevant principles and concepts, include critical analysis and objective conclusions, and follow APA style format. The paper must be written in 12-point Times New Roman font, double-spaced with one inch margins, in .doc or .docx format, and submitted via the designated thread in a timely manner.
Literature Review Example:
Juvenile delinquency is a longstanding problem in the United States, as evidenced by a report by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (2014) entitled “Supervision Strategies for Justice-Involved Youth” reiterating that each year hundreds of thousands of youth move in and out of both local and state juvenile justice systems. According to the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (2009), annually, 1.7 million offenders are adjucicated delinquent and another 550,000 of these offenders are placed under direct probation supersivion, while another 350,000 were removed from their homes and placed into detention. Delinquency is operationalized as any act committed by youth that would also be a criminal act if committed by an adult (Mallett et al., 2011). In the event that juveniles are being placed out of the home due to status offenses, the following five behaviors are said to constitute status offenses: (1) running away from home or staying out overnight without parents’ permission; (2) being beyond parents’ or guardians’ control; (3) skipping school (truancy); (4) staying out after curfew; and (5) use of alcohol by a minor (Mallett et al., 2011).
An ongoing problem is the continually high rate of young people being incarcerated rather than rehabilitated while remaining with their family in the community (Novero, Loper, & Warrant, 2011). Studies have shown how and why youth are at risk for delinquency and removal from their home (Eddy, 2003; Murry & Farrington, 2005; Novero, Loper, & Warrant, 2011). Novero, Loper, and Warrant (2011) included a sample of 459 men and women in prison, of which approximately half reported having had a parent in prison or jail. Uggen and McElrath (2014) showed in a Pew Charitable Trusts study that 2.7 million children have a parent behind bars, or said differently; one in every 28 children (3.6 percent) has a parent incarcerated. This number is up from one in 125 just 25 years ago (Uggen & McElrath, 2014). This is worth noting as the odds are increased of children ending up in prison when their parents have been inprisoned (Eddy, 2003). Aaron and Dallaire (2010) revealed that more recent parental incarceration predicted family conflict, family victimization, and parent-reports of children’s delinquency after also controlling for previous parental incarceration. Siegel and Welsh (2011) reported that the nonprofit Children’s Defense Fund identified the problems, policies, and systems which tend to feed the pipeline that takes kids from the cradle and leads them to prison (Siegel & Welsh, 2011). These include, but are not limited to, child abuse and neglect, failing schools, neighborhoods saturated with drugs and violence, increasing racial and economic disparities in child and youth serving systems, and too few positive role models and mentors in the home, community, social and cultural life (Siegel & Welsh, 2011). One of the main reasons behind childhood delinquency is maltreatment in the home (Yampolskaya, Amrstrong, & McNeish, 2011).
Espinosa, Sorensen, & Lopez (2013) pointed out that there is a gender difference in regards to juvenile crime rates, and that the involvement of girls in the juvenile justice system has been steadily increasing. According to Sherman (2013). of particualar important is the matter of gender inequity in our social structure and in the juvenile justice system. The juvenile justice system tends to wait to address girls’ issues until they have dealt with issues facing other populations or until public pressure requires it to be given more attention (Sherman, 2013).
Prior researchers have shown a link between child maltreatment and problem behavior, adult criminality, and delinquency (Uggen & McElrath, 2014). These same authors also noted the need for juvenile justice systems to enhance their awareness of the role of trauma in juvenile delinquency and transform the system to address and support youth who have experienced significant trauma in their childhood. Smith, Ireland, and Thornberry (2005) and Widom (1989) reported a positive association between child maltreatment and adult criminality. McKee (2012), focusing on Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-control theory (1990), found that effective parental monitoring relates directly to self-control in youth, which also related to less delinquency (Yampolskays, Armstrong, & McNeish, 2011).
Past researchers have emphasized the importance of controlling for many variables, such as race, family trauma, and social influences (school, family, and peer influences), but have yet to account for variables such as a parents’ prior placement out of the home as a juvenile and the proper services that need to be in place to prevent placements and recidivism (e.g., Aaron & Dallaire, 2010; Cauffman et al., 2007; Dannerbeck, 2005; Eddy, 2003; Uggen & McElrath, 2014; Yampolskays, Armstrong, & McNeish, 2011). Maltreated children who are placed out of their home for care are at a much greater risk of a negative outcome of the placement due to the added trauma which is linked to the separation from their parents and the move itself (Yampolskaya, Armstrong, & McNeish, 2011). Belknamp and Holsinger (2006) found that there is also a gender difference in regards to juvenile crime rates, but what they are now finding is that the involvement of girls in the juvenile justice system has been increasing. Past findings have been inconsistent regarding the effects of gender on case outcomes in post-adjudication disposition decisions (Belknap & Holsinger 2006). Other researchers have revealed that girls received more severe sanctions than males, especially in response to status offenses (Espinosa, Sorensen, & Lopez, 2013). The social expectations that girls should be obedient, modest, and well-behaved perpetuate the continuation of structural gender bias (Sherman, 2013).
In 2009, according to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2012), an overwhelming 1.5 million youth were processed through the juvenile justice system and nearly 31 million youth were under the jurisdiction of juvenile courts (Geurin, Otes & Royse, 2013). One of the biggest challenges for all parties involved in the juvenile justice system is the need to identify and implement effective sentencing responses that will reduce and/or eliminate recidivism and rehabilitate juvenile offenders, while also addressing the safety and welfare needs of the larger community. Starting around the late 1990s, many states began to adopt a graduated sanctions model in response to the emerging ‘get tough’ policies. Originally intended by the federal government to reinforce juvenile accountability and to ensure fair and equal treatment of all youth in custody, some began to bring their concerns to light regarding the uneven outcomes in the use of graduated sanctioning. Data across multiple jurisdictions suggested that racial and ethnic minority youth were receiving more restrictive than sanctions (Kalmbach & Lyons, 2012). Kalmbach and Lyons (2012) explored the issue in a group of 2,786 racially and ethnically diverse first-time juvenile male offenders (ages 10-17) who were adjudicated in 2002. Utilizing the graduated sanctioning scheme they sought to determine which variable, or group of variables, predicted receiving a more restrictive than expected sanction. Results indicated that race/ethnicity was not a predictor of receiving a more restrictive than expected sanction; however, variables related to offending (offense severity, history of violence), age (older), and parental supervision (inadequate) were significant predictors of such departures. Several limitations were noted by the researchers to this study that must influence interpretation and directions for future research. The main purpose of this investigation was to formulate rather than test predictive models; the exploratory nature of this study should guide interpretation of the results (Kalmbach & Lyons, 2012). Geurin, Otis, and Royce (2013) evaluated the effectiveness of a partnership between public defender attorneys and the Alternative Sentencing Social Work Field Education Program. The researchers’ goal was to increase alternative sentences that match the rehabilitative needs of juveniles in court. Sentencing outcomes of youth receiving the social work program were compared to youth receiving conventional public defender representation. “A hierarchical binary logistical regression analyses was conducted to test the following research hypothesis: Hypothesis: Juvenile offenders with similar cases who receive legal representation with input from the Alternative Sentencing Social Work Field Education Program will have greater odds of receiving alternative sentencing decisions than those in the comparison group, controlling for charge severity and prior juvenile record” (Geurin, Otis & Royse, 2013, pg. 272). A logistical regression analysis found that juveniles represented by attorneys with social workers were nearly three times more likely to receive alternative sentences than those without social workers when controlling for prior record and charge severity (Geurin, Otis & Royse, 2013).
As restorative justice became a more popular option than incarceration, twenty states adopted balanced and restorative language in defining the duties of their juvenile courts (Mongold & Edwards, 2014). The theory of reintegrative shaming must be examined when focusing on restorative justice. The theory is often seen as combining elements of differential association, social bonds, and labeling theories. Reintegration uses stigma with family and community, as well as guilt. The goal is a clearer understanding of reintegrative shaming and its positive effects, which will be able to combat the distrust of this form of justice that faces resistance in communities with a strong desire for punitive punishment. Braithwaite (1989) distinguished between two types of shaming, stigmatization, and reintegrative. Stigmatization occurs when the community attempts to socially isolate the offender with punishments such as incarceration. As noted by Braithwaite (1989: 67) “when individuals are shamed so remorselessly and unforgivingly that they become outcasts…it becomes more rewarding to associate with others who are perceived in some limited or total way as also at odds with mainstream standards” (Mongold & Edwards, 2014, pg. 207). A restorative justice approach will continue to face resistance in communities with a strong desire for punitive punishment. A better understanding of reintegrative shaming that details its positive aspects may be a way to combat the distrust of this form of justice and allow for continued growth (Mongold & Edwards, 2014).
Children of incarcerated parents are exposed to factors that place them at risk for delinquency. One study by Aaron and Dallaire (2010) examined an archival dataset, in which children aged 10–14 years and their parents/guardians reported children’s risk experiences (e.g., exposure to poverty, parental substance use), family processes (e.g., level of family victimization, family conflict), and children’s delinquent behaviors at two time points. Parents also reported their recent and past incarceration history. Hierarchical linear regression analyses showed that a history of parental incarceration predicted family victimization, delinquent behaviors of children’s older siblings, and delinquent behaviors of the child participants, over and above children’s demographic characteristics and other risk experiences. More recent parental incarceration predicted family conflict, family victimization, and parent-reports of children’s delinquency after also controlling for previous parental incarceration.
Results from the study indicated that programs aimed either at reducing children’s or families’ maladjustment in families of incarcerated parents should be ongoing. These programs should be aimed towards families with an arrested or criminally-involved parent, either current or in the past. It was shown that the effects of having an incarcerated parent do not diminish when they are released. The study also showed the effects of parental incarceration continues after the parent returns, and that children’s adjustment and family processes are influenced by the parent’s incarceration beyond the effects of other risk factors, such as parental unemployment or drug use. However, family victimization and sibling delinquency influence children’s adjustment beyond the effects of parental incarceration, suggesting that aspects of family life contribute more to children’s maladjustment than the single factor of having a history of parental incarceration (Aaron & Dallaire, 2010). To further support Aaron & Dallaire’s research, Hannon and DeFina (2012) began their research based on prior research on the collateral consequences of the wars on crime and drugs. They also hypothesized that high levels of adult incarceration are associated with high levels of juvenile delinquency. The hypothesis was tested using panel data for North Carolina counties covering the years 1995 to 2009. Counties were a desirable unit of analysis given that the objective was to capture the broader community effects while at the same time minimizing the ecological fallacy problem inherent in any non-individual data. The study suggested that adult imprisonment rates are only linked to juvenile delinquency in the context of what has been called “mass imprisonment” or “hyper-incarceration” (Hannon & DeFina, 2012, pg. 475). Researchers focused on previous studies which were based on the three major mechanisms through which concentrated imprisonment is thought to potentially impact juvenile delinquency: “(1) family disruption and negative impacts on child development, (2) community social disorganization and declines in informal social control, and (3) the replacement of older offenders with juveniles in illicit markets” (Hannon & DeFina, pg. 476).
The research provided support for the hypotheses that mass incarceration disrupts families, communities, and illegitimate markets leading to negative outcomes, such as higher juvenile arrest rates. It is noted in the study that future research should consider utilizing NIBRS (National Incident-based Reporting System) data on the perceived age of offenders to create alternative measures of juvenile crime that are separate from arrest statistics.
Ng, Sarri, and Stroffregen (2013) analyzed the “intergenerational transmission of incarceration in a sample of youth from a Michigan study of youth sentenced to juvenile facilities and adult prisons” (pg. 437). They used the social exclusion framework from Murray (2007) to examine the correlates of parental incarceration for youth who themselves are incarcerated. In 2009, more than 1.7 million children had an incarcerated parent, which was an 80% increase from 1991 (Eddy & Poehlmann, 2010; Glaze & Maruschak, 2009). In addition, it is estimated that 10 million children in the United States have had an incarcerated parent or sibling. Data used in this study was retrieved from interviews conducted with a sample of 48 youth leaving juvenile facilities and 50 youth leaving adult prisons. They were identified as individuals who were expected to be released from their facilities within 6 months. Cluster analysis identified 10 factors that showed significant differences among low, medium, and high rates of parental incarceration. These factors were associated with negative life events, parental substance abuse, experience with public assistance and/or foster care, neighborhood quality and instability, stigma, and negative youth outcome (Ng, Sarri, & Stroffregen, 2013).
Peguiero (2013) suggested that there are parallels between assimilation and increased adolescent violence, this is referred to as the ‘‘immigrant paradox’’ in the United States. However, Peguiero points out that few studies have explored how theories, such as routine activity and lifestyle, could explain the relationship between assimilation and increased violence. This study explored the adolescent associations between routines, lifestyles, and adolescent school-based victimization vary across immigration generations. Peguiero (2013) used data from the Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002, which is a nationally representative sample of tenth graders, and focused on a subsample consisting of 9,870 first, second, and third plus generation public school students in 580 public schools for analysis of routine activity, lifestyle, and school-based victimization across immigration generations. Students were asked whether they had been exposed to various forms of victimization at school during the 2001–2002 school year. Several demographic factors were controlled for in the analyses. Sex distinguished between males and females, race and ethnicity was measured as four dichotomous variables distinguishing among Black/African American, Latino American, and Asian American, with White American as the reference category. Findings from his research showed the important nuances related to immigration in the conceptual links between routine activity, lifestyle, and adolescent victimization. Engagement in school based sports was a potential risk factor for first and second generation adolescents but is found to be a potential insulating factor against violent victimization for third-plus generation adolescents. Noted limitations of the study are as follows. First, routine activity and lifestyle research suggests that race, ethnicity, and gender are significant factors in school-based adolescent victimization (Henson et al. 2010; Popp and Peguero 2011; Wilcox et al. 2009). Race, ethnicity, and gender also matter in the immigration and school victimization relationship (Peguero 2009a; Koo et al. 2012).