Fluent Essays

Once you start searching you are to find a peer-reviewed article on one of the listed topics. You will then prepare a 3-page review of the article. In the review you will discuss the main point of the article, the supporting documentation used to support the main point, two things that you thought were strong points presented by the author with the author and why, then one thing that you felt was weak or needed more support and why. This part is not to be a disagreement with the points in the article but with the work of the author. For example, did the author use credible research? Did the author support the points with unbiased documentation? The point here is to be objective in the review and value of the work. Then you are to offer your thoughts on the main point of the article and your opinion.Activity Instructions1. Review the videos on Tiffin library and the APA video2. Undertake library research to identify a topic that can be critiqued from many angles.3. Identify the main points of the article and review the supporting data.4. Provide a critical review of the work noting strengths and weaknesses.5. Create your paper and submit it in Moodle. Writing Requirements (APA format)3 pages (approx. 300 words per page), not including title page or references page1-inch marginsDouble spaced12-point Times New Roman fontTitle page with topic and name of studentReferences page (minimum of 1 resource) rehabilitation_programs.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, Vol. 45(3/4), 2007. Pp. 29-46. Available online at http://jor.haworthpress.com §2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. doi;10.1300/J076v45n03_02 Public Support for Faith-Based Correctional Programs: Should Sacred Places Serve Civic Purposes? FRANCIS T. CULLEN JENNIFER A. PEALER SHANNON A. SANTANA BONNES. FISHER BRANDON K. APPLEGATE KRISTIE R. BLEVINS ABSTRACT In light of President Bushs enthusiastic support and numerous initiatives, there is a growing call to fund faith-based social service programs, including those focused on juvenile and adult offenders. These programs are controversial because they seek to reconfigure the line separating church and state. Based on a national 2001 survey of 327 respondents, we assessed public support for this policy initiative. The major findings were: (1) the respondents were divided evenly on whether the government should fund faith-based correctional programs; (2) a clear majority opposed having a rehgious content to the programs; (3) most opposed discrimination on religious grounds in the hiring of program staff; (4) a clear majority favored funding all religious groups as opposed to only Christian churches; and (5) the respondents did not view faith-based programs as more, or less, effective than traditional correctional rehabilitation programs. The study also explored the pohcy implications of these findings. doi:10.1300/J076v45h03_02 [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Deiivery Setvice: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: Website: © 2007 by Tiie Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.] KEYWORDS Faith-based programs, religion and crime, rehabihtation, correctional policy, public opinion 30 JOURNAL OF OFFENDER REHABILITATION In the 1990s, faith-based programs emerged as a potential complement to, if not replacement for, state-based social welfare and criminal justice programs (De Vita & Wilson, 2001; Dionne & Chen, 2001a; Farkas, Johnson, Foleno, Duffett, & Foley, 2001; Kaminer, 2002; McGarrell, Brinker, & Etindi, 1999; Wuthnow, 2004). These interventions-which covered areas as diverse as education, child care, housing for the homeless, teenage pregnancy, substance abuse, and inmate reform (Dionne & Chen, 2001a)-sought to allocate government funds to churches and religious organizations to provide human services. The programs were based on the assumption that sacred places could serve civic purposes (Dionne & Chen, 2001a; see also Wuthnow, 2004). More broadly, they sought to weaken, if not to dismantle, the wall between church and state whose foundation had heretofore been in the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The emergence and political popularity of faith-based programs are rooted in the coalescence of several factors. First, the legitimacy of traditional human services approaches to social problems, including crime, diminished with the broad-scale attack on the welfare state (Murray, 1984; Olasky, 1992; see also Garland, 1990). With numerous ostensible examples of failures-including, for instance, criminologists asserting that nothing works in correctional rehabilitation (Cullen, 2002; Cullen & Gendreau, 2000, 2001)-it became increasingly difficult to claim that secular programs had a monopoly on how best to save the disreputable and the disadvantaged. With public solutions under scrutiny if not deep suspicion, calls were made to privatize government services. In this context, policy advocates of religious organizations argued that they should not be unfairly excluded from competition for privatized funds merely because of the faith content of their interventions. These programs, moreover, were held to be part of a broader movement of compassionate conservatism which, of course, was trumpeted by then Governor and later President George W. Bush (see also Olasky, 1992). Second, why should the public believe that religion should be a particularly effective alternative to traditional social welfare programs? Olasky (1992) furnishes a persuasive rationale-one that runs through other commentary. The social welfare approach to social problems is inflicted with two interrelated difficulties: (1) it is based on the assumption that government resources are an entitlement or a right, and thus there is no obligation that, in return for resources, recipients manifest responsible conduct; and (2) it provides no clear guidance for what a responsible life might entail. In contrast, says Olasky, faith-based programs condition services on the promise of change and then use religion to guide that Cuiten et al. 31 change. The added bonus is that faith-based interventions have God on their side, literally; His power is believed to be real and not epiphenomenal. Third, such thinking might fall on deaf ears in other advanced industrial nations where modernization and economic development ostensibly have fostered secularization (Wald, 1992). In the United States, however, rehgious belief has resisted secularization, with the durability of Americas faith being termed remarkable (Gallup, 1996, p. 8). Some commentators suggest that religiosity in the nations populace is wider than it is deep. Even so, evidence of the embrace of religion is ubic|uitous. Thus, all but 4\% of Americans believe in God or a universal spirit-the same percentage as in 1944-and more than 8 in 10 state that Jesus Christ is God or the Son of God; high percentages of the public also believe in Heaven (90\%), Hell (73\%), the Devil (65\%), Miracles (79\%), and Angels (72\%); about 6 in 10 Americans attend church at least monthly, with 4 in 10 going weekly or almost weekly (Gallup, 1996). Further, a high proportion of the public-8 in 10-state that religious beliefs help them to respect and assist other people (Gallup, 1996, p. 7; see also Chavis, 2002). In this context, it is not surprising that many Americans, especially those who believe in a forgiving and loving God, are persuaded of the transformative powers of religion, including the ability of faith to reform offenders (Applegate, CuUen, Fisher, & Vander Ven, 2000; see also Unnever, Cullen, & Applegate, 2005; Unnever, CuUen, & Bartkowski, 2006). For most Americans, observe Farkas et al. (2001, p. 10), a preeminent belief of faith is its capacity to improve individual behavior and personal conduct. Thus, in a 2000 national poll of 1,507 adults, Farkas et al. (2001, p. 12) found that 79\% of the respondents believed that it is hkely that crime would decrease . . . if many more Americans were to become deeply religious. Fourth, there has been a growing criminological literature indicating that religion may insulate against criminal involvement and that faithbased programming can have positive effects in inmate adjustment and offender recidivism (see, for example, Baier & Wright, 2001; Clear & Sumter, 2002; Dilulio, 2001a; Johnson, 2004; Johnson, Jang, Larson, & De Li, 2001; Johnson, Larson, & Pitts, 1997; OConnor & Perreyclear, 2002; Zimmer, 2004-2005). This research also suggests that the effects of religious participation and programming might be especially strong in inner-city neighborhoods where the church stands as an institutional bulwark against criminogenic influences by delivering faith and social services (Jang & Johnson, 2001; Johnson, Larson, De Li, & Jang, 2000; 32 JOURNAL OF OFFENDER REHABILITATION Johnson, Jang, De Li, & Larson, 2000; Kamnick & Moore, 1997). This is important because faith-based programs as a conduit for assisting the truly disadvantaged might be one place where political conservatives and progressives can find common ground (Cnaan, 2000). Still, optimism about the religions interventions is tempered by three considerations. First, although religion is a protective factor against crime, its effects are moderate and tend to be weak when included in models that control for a full range of risk factors for offending (Baier & Wright, 2001; Evans, Cullen, Dunaway, & Burton, 1995). Second, studies showing positive effects for religious-based programs are plagued by selection bias; because religious participation cannot be coerced, those involved in these interventions are invariably volunteers and thus may be more amenable to reform than members of control groups. It remains to be demonstrated that faith-based programs are effective and, in particular, are more effective than alternative intervention strategies (De Vita & Wilson, 2001; see also Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). Third, there are concerns that beyond traditional religions organizations (e.g.. Catholic Charities, Salvation Army), most churches or religious congregations (e.g., synagogues, mosques) are ill-equipped to undertake the delivery of social services to the sizable population in need of intervention (Chavis, 2001; Press, 2001; Soskis, 2001; see also Wuthnow, 2004). As Press (2001, p. 25) cautions, it would be risky to dismantle the existing welfare safety net in the name of God. It is important that faith-based programs received a huge impetus from President Bushs advocacy and his creation of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. This office funds programs and provides guidance on how to secure federal support for religious-based initiatives (Dilulio, 2001b). In fiscal year 2005, it is estimated that the federal government allocated $70 million to justice-related, faith-based programs (Henriques & Lehren, 2006). State governments also have taken steps to support religious organizations, including faith-based prison programs (Associated Press, 2003; Cullen, Sundt, & Wozniak, 2000; Henriques & Lehren, 2006; Zimmer, 2004-2005). Nonetheless, the continued vitality of this movement remains in question as the Bush presidency is winding to a close. More and more attention is given to his administrations domestic and foreign policy failures as opposed to the once-fresh theme of using compassionate conservatism to direct social welfare in the United States. A key consideration is thus the extent to which faith-based programs, especially in the criminal justice arena, have the kind of broad-based popular support to make them a permanent, as opposed to a transitory, feature of the correctional enterprise. Cullen et al. 33 The current project attempts to address this and related issues through a survey aimed at assessing public support for religious-oriented correctional initiatives. The study focuses not only on overall support for faith-based programs but also on key policy considerations, such as the religious content of programs, who should be hired as program staff, what religious faiths should be funded, the perceived effectiveness of such interventions, and whether government funds should be specially targeted to support programs in the inner city. Taken together, the responses to these inquiries help to illuminate the complex ideological context in which faith-based programs will likely operate in the time ahead. This context will shape the extent to which sacred places will be seen as appropriate means to serve traditionally civic purposes. Previous research in this area is sparse. Some insights, however, can be drawn from the one major survey on public support for faith-based initiatives, which was sponsored by The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (2001; see also Wuthnow, 2004). Princeton Research Associates directed the March 2001 national telephone survey of over 1,000 Americans 18 years of age or older. Three main conclusions are relevant. First, a large majority of Americans (about three-fourths) generally favored allowing churches and other houses of worship to apply, along with other organizations, for government funding to provide social services such as job training or drug treatment counseling to people who need them (The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 2001, p. 5 of the Questionnaire). Reasons given for supporting faith-based programs were that it increased service options, providers would be more efficient as well as more caring and compassionate, and the power of religion can change peoples lives (2001, Section I, p. 12). Second, across a range of problem areas (e.g., feeding the homeless, teen pregnancy, literacy), only a minority of the respondents stated that religious organizations would do the best job compared to non-religious organizations and the government. The survey was not designed to focus on crime-related issues, but the problem areas did include prison counseling and addiction. The percentage of those favoring religious organizations as a service provider in these two areas were 40 and 27\%, respectively (2001, p. Section I, p. 5). Third, the sample members manifested concerns about the line between church and state. In particular, they were concerned that faith-based initiatives would force people into religious practices, and they opposed allowing organizations to hire employees on the basis of their religious beliefs (2001, 34 JOURNAL OF OFFENDER REHABILITA TION Section I, pp. 13-14). As we will see, this general pattern of results is found in the current survey. NATIONAL CRIME POLICY SURVEY The data for this project were drawn from the National Crime Policy Survey. This survey, conducted in 2001, included questions on a range of policy issues, including offender rehabilitation and punishment, the goals of adult and juvenile imprisonment, early intervention programs, capital punishment, and faith-based prisons. In 2001, Survey Sampling, Inc. provided a simple random sample of 1,000 households across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Following Dillmans (1978) Total Design Method, the study was designed to include three waves of questionnaires and a follow-up reminder letter to respondents after the first wave of surveys was mailed (see also Dillman, 2000). The sample members also received a pre-contact letter to inform them that the survey would be forthcoming. A token (a pen) was included in the first mailing. Finally, after the second wave, an effort was made to contact all respondents by telephone. Of the initial sample, 123 surveys were returned due to addresses that were no longer valid. In all, 349 surveys were returned, for a response rate of 40\% of eligible sample members. Of these, 329 were usable. The modest response rate raises the issue of the generalizability of the opinions recorded through the questionnaire. The sample appears disproportionately older (mean age 54.7), male (66.4\%), white (83.3\%), and Republican (38.1\% vs. 26.9\% Independent and 34.9\% Democrat). Religious belief seemed more evenly distributed, with 25.0\% saying that they were very religious, 13.8\% reporting that they were not religious, and 61.3\% defining themselves as somewhat religious. It is difficult to assess how the samples socio-demographic profile would affect the level of support for faith-based programs. In the Pew Research Center study, support for faith-based programs was higher among African Americans, Christian conservatives, and younger respondents (The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 2001, p. 4; Wuthnow, 2004, p. 295). In any event, it seems unlikely that the views expressed by the sample members are highly slanted or idiosyncratic. First, the results of our survey are in line with those reported in the Pew Research Center study. Second and related, the samples responses to other questions on this survey (e.g., about rehabilitation, capital punishment. Cullen et al. 35 early intervention) are quite consistent with the existing public opinion research. For example, while a majority of the sample supported the death penalty and making courts harsher, the respondents also strongly endorsed rehabilitation programs for offenders and early interventions for at-risk youths (Cullen, Pealer, Fisher, Applegate, & Santana, 2002; Cullen, Vose, Jonson, & Uhnever, 2007; see also Cullen, Fisher, & Applegate, 2000). This ideological complexity-embracing both punitive and progressive views on crime control-is found in virtually every public opinion study that measures both sides of the policy spectrum simultaneously (Cullen, Fisher, & Applegate, 2000; Unnever, Cullen, & Jones, in press). The National Crime Policy Survey contained a series of questions that assessed public views toward various policy issues surrounding faithbased correctional programming. To ensure that the members of the sample would focus their attitudes on faith-based correctional programs (as opposed to programs in general), the survey instrument contained the following directions: Recently, some officials have proposed that the government should give churches and other religious groups money to run programs that would try to reform juvenile delinquents and adult criminals. These are called faith-based programs, because they rely on religion to try to change offenders for the better. Other elected officials have questioned whether churches should be given public funds to run their programs. We want to know your opinion about these faith-based programs. We will not review the specific items because they are listed in Tables 1, 2, and 3. In general, however, the intention was to probe two attitudinal domains. First, we wished to discover the extent to which the public supported the religious content of the faith-based programs. In particular, the items measured whether the respondents privileged religion over more secular or civic considerations. Second, we wished to determine whether the public believed that faith-based programs were effective absolutely and, in particular, relative to more traditional correctional interventions. Taken together, these considerations help to illuminate the extent to which Americans embrace faith-based programs enthusiastically or with reservations. In turn, these results allow us to prognosticate about the likely future of faith-based correctional programming. 36 JOURNAL OF OFFENDER REHABILITA TION D Table 1: Public Support for Faith-Based Correctional Progratns Item ^ 0/^ Choosing Answer Do you think that the government should use public monies (e.g., such as that from taxes) to fund faith-based programs run by churches? A. Yes-the government should fund such programs. B. No-due to the separation of church and state, churches that want to run programs should get their funds frorri private donations, not from the government. 50.8 49.2 2. If churches and religious groups are funded, what kind of program do you think they should be allowed to give? A. They should be allowed to give programs that try to change the offenders through religion, such as through bible classes and going to church. B. While churches should be able to give programs to offenders, they should be non-religious and like any other treatment programbecause churches should not be able to use public money to force anyone to believe a particular religion. 3. In running a faith-based program, who should churches be able to hire as the counselors who deliver the programs to the offenders? A. They should be allowed to hire only people who agree with their religion-otherwise the program would not work. B. Since they are using public money, they should have to hire anyone who is qualified who applies-otherwise they could discriminate against people of other religions. 4. Who should the government fund to run faith-based programs? A. Christian churches only. B. Churches of any faith, including Muslin groups, Jewish groups, Jehovahs Witnesses, Hindu groups (and so on). 5. Since money is limited, which of the following options would you favor? A. The government should mainly fund faith-based programs by churches in the inner city, because that is where the most serious crimes are committed. B. The government should spread the money out equally and fund faith-based programs in as many ... Purchase answer to see full attachment